filename
stringlengths 3
8
| text
stringlengths 5
18.6M
| lang
stringclasses 16
values |
|---|---|---|
3231-pdf | systems as part of the Information Management Assessment programme run across government. The outcomes of this review are contained in the IMA Report now published on the NIO website. I welcome the Report and its Recommendations and am pleased to see the positive conclusions it draws on information management in the Department. The review identified several areas of good practice already in place within the NIO. It also, through the IMA
Action Plan, has identified ways the NIO can continue to improve its information management and address challenges created by technological change. The Northern Ireland Office recognises the importance of meeting its responsibilities to effectively manage, protect and exploit its information. As well as ensuring compliance with statutory obligations, good information management assists organisations to function effectively and ensure that the record of the future is preserved. The NIO has begun implementing the Recommendations contained in the Action Plan and looks forward to continually improving its information management practices. As part of this the NIO is happy to continue its support of the IMA programme.
| en |
3587-pdf |
## Session: Use The Tools
Apx Session Length: 50 Mins
Topic/Aims:
To get students to consider the importance of research and how they can use the tools available to let them to do this effectively.
Learning Outcomes:
To be able to explain the importance of research in job hunting or looking at different educational providers
To identify ways of researching further
In class activity:
Group work, discussion and brainstorm
Powerpoint presentation
Resources:
'Use the Tools' Powerpoint presentation A3 Paper, Whiteboard, Pens
## Use The Tools - Introduction
This session aims to get students to look at ways in which to research and prepare for job or college applications. The session looks at some traditional tools that people had when it comes to preparation, and then some of the great tools the internet puts at our disposal. The last part of the session looks at how you can use the internet to research companies and prepare for interview. The internet is a fabulous resource when it comes to job hunting and can help us to raise our game when it comes to making applications. This session will help you to make the most of that opportunity.
| Time: | Differentiation: | Resources: |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|----------------|
| Student | | |
| Activity: | | |
| Checking learning | | |
| against objectives: | | |
| | | |
| 5 mins | Icebreaker: | |
| Working in | | |
| pairs | | |
| | | |
| Ensure students | | |
| are paired | | |
| In pairs, get students to think of a situation where they wanted | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| appropriately | |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|
| to make a good impression but it all went wrong. If they can't | |
| think of one, get them to make a scenario up. | |
| | Paper Pens |
| Whiteboard | |
| 10 mins | |
| Get students then to brainstorm in twos as many different | |
| tools as they can think of that will help them to get a job or | |
| college place. | |
| Class discussion about the tools identified, make note of these | |
| Working in | |
| pairs | |
| followed by | |
| class | |
| discussion | |
| To be able to | |
| explain the | |
| importance of | |
| research in job | |
| hunting | |
| | |
| | |
| 5 mins | Research is key: |
| Paper Pens | |
| Class | |
| discussion | |
| To consider how | |
| important research | |
| is to the application | |
| process | |
| As a class brainstorm the things you might needs to know | |
| about an employer or college before you go for an interview | |
| and where you might find the information. Students need to | |
| copy this down so that they can use the list as a prompt for | |
| later | |
| Ensure all | |
| students can see | |
| 20 mins | |
| Teacher presents this Power Point to the class followed by | |
| discussion about how many the class had identified and talk | |
| through all the tools and the importance of using each. | |
| Power Point | |
| Presentation | |
| 'Use the Tools' | |
| Presentation | |
| followed by | |
| class | |
| discussion | |
| Consider in particular any they missed | |
| To be able to | |
| explain the | |
| importance of | |
| research in job | |
| hunting | |
| | A3 Paper |
| Pens | |
| 15 mins | |
| Each group takes one of the tools and on A3 paper makes a | |
| note of the possible PROs and CONs of using that particular | |
| tool. I.e. Facebook | |
| To identify the pros | |
| and cons of tools | |
| identified | |
| Feed this back to the group as a whole | |
| Group | |
| Activity | |
| followed by | |
| class | |
| discussion | |
##
Summary Sum up main learning points and ask the students in their own
Internet access
Extension task
To put into practice what has been said
time to do a little internet research on a college or employer that they are interested in to see how easy it is and how
readily the information is available.
##
Evaluation: Did the students achieve all the objectives? What went well? What did not work?
##
| en |
1859-pdf |
## Validation (Imcv) Component Statement Of Applicability Validated Component Summary
Name:
Ionics Isapi Rewrite Filter (IIRF)
Version:
Version v1.2.15
Validation Completed:
29th March 2009
Validation
Facility:
Enex Testlab
## Information Management Component Validation
The National Archives is a government department and an executive agency under the Secretary of State for Justice, which has statutory and policy responsibility for Knowledge and Information Management (IM) for public sector information. It therefore sets standards and supports innovation on information management across the UK, in order to ensure the survival of records in whichever form they are created, be it paper or digital, and provides practical frameworks of best practice for use of public sector information. In recognition that almost all the information created in government is now electronic, but that there is a risk that information risks becoming inaccessible as technologies and organisations change, the National Archives has been leading work on digital preservation as acknowledged in the Transformational Government Implementation Plan. The National Archives has therefore generated a technical framework for Information Persistence for government departments and the public sector, to ensure the long term survivability of records from any systems, and guard against compromises of Integrity and Availability. As part of this framework, a formalised system of validation of technical components has been established, to provide Stakeholders with confidence that such technologies have been independently reviewed for fitness for purpose.
## Component Overview
IIRF (Ionics Isapi Rewrite Filter) is a free software tool available from Codeplex
(http://www.codeplex.com/IIRF). The tool has been sourced by the Stationery Office (TSO)
in order to provide software that can help government departments manage URL persistence. IIRF is installed on Microsoft web server platforms to add URL rewriting and redirection functionality to IIS, which does not provide this functionality natively.
## Component Statement Of Applicability Validation Deployment Scenario
The component is expected to be deployed on Microsoft web servers across central government departments. This may include servers owned and managed directly by the departments, servers managed by IT suppliers, or servers set up under arrangements such as co-location and virtual hosting.
There are expected to be one or more competent individuals in each implementing department (or their suppliers) assigned to manage the implementation of the product, and the initial and ongoing configuration of the implementation rules. Those personnel are not careless, willfully negligent, nor hostile. The environment is expected to include a set of Pragmatic, Appropriate and Cost Effective (PACE) controls, in terms of a balanced set of Personnel, Physical, Procedural and Technical (P3T) measures, to mitigate the Risks arising from the various Vectors (e.g.
unauthorised access, physical damage, information release and malicious software) from various types of Adversity (e.g. directed Threats, such as Attacks, and collateral Hazards, such as extreme climatological events).
## Validation Environment
The Component has been tested Windows Server 2003 (including R2) with IIS6 and Windows Vista SP1 with IIS7.
## Component Statement Of Applicability Controls Provided
The component provides support for the technical controls listed below, provided the deployment is commensurate with the assumptions, and that the overall organisational policies are supportive. Use of the product alone should not be taken to infer in any way compliance with the listed standard.
| Control Title | Control Details |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
| Standards | |
| Cross | |
| Reference | |
| ISO/IEC 27001 | |
| A7.1.1 | |
| Inventory of Assets | All assets shall be clearly identified and an |
| inventory of all important assets drawn up and | |
| maintained. | |
| ISO/IEC 27001 | |
| A.10.5.1 | |
| Information back-up Back-up copies of information and software shall | |
| be taken and tested regularly in accordance with | |
| the agreed backup policy. | |
| ISO/IEC 27001 | |
| A.10.8 | |
| Information | |
| Exchange | |
| System shall only release information (eye | |
| readable or non eye readable) to authorised | |
| person(s) | |
| ISO/IEC 27001 | |
| A.15.1.3 | |
| Protection of | |
| organizational | |
| records | |
| Important records shall be protected from loss, | |
| destruction and falsification, in accordance with | |
| statutory, regulatory, contractual, and business | |
| requirements. | |
| | |
## Validated Claims
The following specific functionality has been successfully tested in the environment and usage scenario as described above:
| Ref | Claims Statements |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| IIRF01 | The component uses an ini file in which URL rewriting and redirection rules can |
| be programmed by users. | |
| IIRF 02 | The component can be programmed to rewrite or redirect one or more individual |
| URLs, and/or all URLs matching one or more specified patterns, using the | |
| PCRE syntax. Different rewrite/redirection behaviours can be specified for each | |
| URL or group of URLs affected. Redirection rules can both include and exclude | |
| URLs from rewriting or redirection. | |
| IIRF 03 | Redirection configuration INI files cannot be modified or adversely affected |
| through use of malicious URL injection methods. | |
| IIRF 04 | When using "RedirectRule" OR "RewriteRule" entries to specify URL patterns |
| for redirection, the component functions with URL and query string lengths | |
| within the limits supported by the server software. | |
| IIRF 05 | On multi-site IIS installations, the component can be installed either for all sites |
## Validation (Imcv) Component Statement Of Applicability
collectively, or for one or more sites individually.
IIRF 06
The redirection component makes no modification to the content of the page,
only to the URL
IIRF 07
Rewrite activity can be logged to files on a directory specified by the user if
desired. This does not affect the main IIS logging.
IIRF 08
The component has support for Unicode, URL characters, and UK and foreign
language content in use on central government websites, based on redirection
rules written in the English language.
IIRF 09
Installation of product introduces no known malicious software into the system
IIRF 10
The component makes no alteration to the original case of the URL unless
specifically programmed to do so in the ini file.
IIRF 11
The tool communicates directly only with the web server(s) on which it is
installed and attempts no direct communication with external systems.
## Publicly Known Vulnerabilities
No publicly listed vulnerabilities from either the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures
(CVE) database or the (US) National Vulnerability Database (NVD) were found to apply to this component at the time of testing.
## Operational And Risk Management Considerations
Although the component will run on various other Windows and IIS platforms, the Claims validated here relate only to the versions specified. In deploying and operating the Component, it is assumed that Information Assurance (IA) risk assessment to either system and/or the data it is envisaged to handle attracts no higher baseline requirement than that derived from the UK National Annual Threat Assessment (ATA) and the UK National Strategic Risk Assessment (NSRA) / National Risk Planning Assumptions (NRPA). It is furthermore assumed that the risk management measures already put in place for corporate infrastructure(s) on which the Component is deployed have mitigated any increased differential risk factors to a level commensurate with the application of baseline measures.
## Information Management Component Validation (Imcv) Component Statement Of Applicability
## Component Statement Of Applicability
The Component described in this document has been independently assessed by
the listed Validation Facility, which is a Test Laboratory approved by the UK
Accreditation Scheme (UKAS) under ISO/IEC 17025:2005 "General requirements for
the competence of testing and calibration laboratories".
This Claims made for the Component, and the Testing, have been subjected to
scrutiny by a Technical Authority within the National Archives, in their capacity as
the government department having statutory and policy responsibility for
Knowledge and Information Management (IM) of public sector information.
It has been concluded that, when installed, configured and operated correctly, as
described in associated documentation and herein, this Component is suitable for
performing the Claimed functionality in support of public sector IM activities,
subject to the operational and risk management considerations noted herein.
The information has been provided in good faith, and is based on the component
version and usage scenario(s) as detailed in this document. This information is not
therefore designed for any particular implementation, and we therefore cannot
guarantee accuracy or relevance for any specific purpose. The Validation Testing
is not a guarantee of freedom from security vulnerabilities. There remains a
probability that exploitable security vulnerabilities may exist in any Product or IA
Service, or the IS environment supporting such a Product or Service.
We do not accept responsibility for any information omitted, or errors in this
information. We do not have any responsibility for the accuracy, availability,
completeness or usefulness of any of the information provided.
No other terms, conditions, representations or warranties will apply.
References we make to any specific product, process or service by trade name,
trademark manufacturer, or otherwise, or linking to other websites or material are
not endorsements or recommendations.
The views and opinions of the National Archives shall not be used for advertising or
product endorsement purposes. This information is for official purposes, and the
contents may not be used for commercial purposes.
## Approved By
Ian Bryant
IMCV Technical Authority
27th April 2009
| en |
4516-pdf |
## Year To 5 April 2002
Notes: 1
For guidance on earnings, National Insurance and completing columns 1a to 1i , see **Employer's Help Cards**.
For guidance on Statutory Sick Pay figures, see booklet **CA30** ; and for **Statutory Maternity Pay** figures, see booklet CA29.
For guidance on Student Loan Deductions, see Card 22 of Employer's Help Cards.
If you need further assistance, please contact the Employer's Helpline on **0845 7 143 143**.
2
In the NI Tables, a letter is shown at the top of each section, for example **A, B, C, D or E.** Copy the **Table Letter** you use
to the Table Letter box in the **'End of Year Summary'** overleaf. If the employee's circumstances change part way through
a year, the Table Letter may change as well. Record all Table Letters used and enter separate totals for each one.
## National Insurance Contributions Note: Lel = Lower Earnings Limit, Uel = Upper Earnings Limit Paye Income Tax And Tax Credits
Earnings details
Contribution details
Rebate details
(for contracted-out employee only)
Student Loan Deductions
For Employer's use
Earnings at the LEL (where earnings are equal to or exceed the LEL)
Earnings above the LEL, up to and including the Earnings Threshold
Earnings above the Earnings Threshold, up to and including the UEL
Total of employee's and employer's contributions payable
Statutory Sick Pay
paid to employee in the week or month included in column 2
Statutory Maternity Pay
paid to employee in the week or month included in column 2
Employer's NIC rebate due on earnings in 1b
and any balance of
employee's NIC rebate
due but not shown
in 1f
Employee's NIC rebate due on earnings in 1b (to be deducted from contributions in 1e)
Employee's contributions payable on earnings in 1c (*before* deducting employee's NIC rebate in 1f)
Week no
Month no
1g £ p
1f £ p
1a **** £
1b **** £
1c **** £
1d **** £ p
1e **** £ p
1h £ p
1i £ p
1j **** £ p
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
7
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l
## Turn Over Page For Weeks 31–52 (Months 8–12) And End Of Year Summary Boxes
Please keep this form for at least 3 years after the end of the year to which it relates, or longer if you are asked to do so.
Note 3:
For guidance on PAYE Income Tax, Tax Credits and completing columns 2 to 9, see Employer's Help Cards
- **Card 8** is for general completion - **Card 9** has an example of a suffix tax code in use
- **Card 10** is specifically for K codes, and includes an example
- **Card 23** is for Tax Credits.
l l l l l l l l l l l l l
| K codes only | K codes only |
|------------------|-------------------|
| Tax Credits | |
| Tax due | |
| at end of | |
| current period | |
| Mark refunds 'R' | |
| Tax deducted | |
| or refunded | |
| in the week | |
| or month | |
| Mark refunds 'R' | |
| Pay in the | |
| week or month | |
| including | |
| Statutory Sick | |
| Pay/ Statutory | |
| Maternity Pay | Total pay to date |
| Total | |
| 'additional pay' | |
| to date | |
| (Table A) | |
| Total tax due | |
| to date | |
| as shown by | |
| Taxable Pay | |
| Tables | |
| Regulatory | |
| limit | |
| i.e. 50% of | |
| column 2 | |
| entry | |
| Tax not | |
| deducted | |
| owing to the | |
| Regulatory | |
| limit | |
| Total free pay | |
| to date | |
| * | |
| Total taxable | |
| pay to date i.e. | |
| column 3 | minus |
| column 4a | |
| or | |
| column 3 | plus |
| column 4b | |
| * | |
2 **** £ p
3 **** £ p
4a **** £ p
4b **** £ p
5 **** £ p
6 **** £ p
6a £ p
6b £ p
7 £ p
8 £ p
9 £ p
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
7
* If in any week/month the amount in column 4a is more than the amount in column 3, leave column 5 blank.
l l l
l l l
## Year To 5 April 2002
Please keep this form for at least 3 years after the end of the year to which it relates, or longer if you are asked to do so.
## Paye Income Tax And Tax Credits Note: Lel = Lower Earnings Limit, Uel = Upper Earnings Limit National Insurance Contributions
1g £ p
1f £ p
1a **** £
1b **** £
1c **** £
1d **** £ p
1e **** £ p
1h £ p
1i £ p
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
9
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
§
§ Complete this line if pay day falls on 5 April.
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
1f total
1g total
1b **** £
1c **** £
1a **** £
1d **** £ p
1e **** £ p
l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l
2 **** £ p
3 **** £ p
4a **** £ p
4b **** £ p
5 **** £ p
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
*
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
If in any week/month the amount in column 4a is more than the amount in column 3, leave column 5 blank.
9 £ p
£ p
l l l l l l l l l l l
| en |
0187-pdf |
## Statistical Release 2010 Uk Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Final Figures Decc Today Publishes Final 2010 Estimates Of Uk Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Headline Results
In 2010, UK emissions of the basket of six greenhouse gases covered by
the Kyoto Protocol were estimated to be 590.4 million tonnes carbon
dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e). This was 3.1 per cent higher than the 2009
figure of 572.5 million tonnes. Between 2009 and 2010 the largest increases were experienced in the residential sector, up 15.1 per cent
(11.8 MtCO2e), and the energy supply sector, up by 2.8 per cent (5.6 MtCO2e). Emissions from all other sectors were relatively stable,
compared to 2009 levels.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main greenhouse gas, accounting for about
84 per cent of total UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. In 2010, UK net emissions of carbon dioxide were estimated to be 495.8 million tonnes (Mt). This was around 3.8 per cent higher than the 2009 figure of 477.8 Mt. There were notable increases in emissions from the residential sector, up by 15.8 per cent (11.8 Mt), and from the energy supply sector, up 3.1 per cent (5.8 Mt). Again, emissions from all other sectors were
relatively unchanged from 2009.
The overall increase in emissions has primarily resulted from a rise in
residential gas use, combined with fuel switching away from nuclear power to coal and gas for electricity generation. In 2010, these factors mainly affected emissions of carbon dioxide, rather than other gases,
and since CO2 makes the largest contribution to the UK total, any change in CO2 emissions is likely to drive a similar change in total emissions.
All the sectoral breakdowns included in this statistical release are based
on the source of the emissions, as opposed to where the end-user activity occurred. Emissions related to electricity generation are therefore attributed to power stations, the source of these emissions, rather than homes and businesses where electricity is used.
The headline results are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1 below. Note that the 2009 figures have been revised since the previous publication in February 2011; further details of this revision can be found later in this statistical release. The time series for selected years since 1990 is shown in Table 10 towards the end of this statistical release.
| | 2009 | 2010 | Change |
|--------------------------------|---------|---------|-----------|
| Total greenhouse gas emissions | 572.5 | 590.4 | +3.1% |
| Net carbon dioxide emissions | 477.8 | 495.8 | +3.8% |
CO2 emissions figures are for the UK and Crown Dependencies; Total greenhouse gas emissions
figures also include some Overseas Territories.
Carbon dioxide emissions are reported as net emissions, to include removals from the atmosphere by carbon sinks. This also affects some of the other greenhouse gases, but to a lesser extent.
Coverage of emissions reporting The basket of greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol consists of six gases:
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride. These last three gases are collectively referred to as fluorinated compounds. In accordance with international reporting and carbon trading protocols, each of these gases is weighted by its *global warming potential* (GWP), so that total greenhouse gas emissions can be reported on a consistent basis. The GWP for each gas is
defined as its warming influence relative to that of carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gas emissions are then presented in *carbon dioxide equivalent* units. Carbon dioxide is reported in terms of net emissions, which means total emissions minus total removals of CO2 from the atmosphere by *carbon sinks*.
Carbon sinks are incorporated within the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry
(LULUCF)
sector, which covers afforestation, reforestation,
deforestation and forest management. They are defined by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as "any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere". Unless otherwise stated, any figures included in this release represent emissions within the UK and its Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey, and
the Isle of Man). Reporting of greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol is based on emissions in the UK, its Crown Dependencies, and those Overseas Territories (Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and Montserrat) that are party to the UK ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. This now includes emissions from direct flights between the UK and these Territories. The Kyoto Protocol also uses a narrower definition of carbon sinks than that applied for domestic
UK CO2 reporting, which therefore results in a slightly different total. These
adjustments mean that the greenhouse gas basket reported for Kyoto differs slightly from the sum of the individual gases as shown. Reporting of greenhouse gas emissions for the UK's Carbon Budgets only includes emissions within the UK, and excludes both Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories. A more detailed summary of the coverage and breakdown can be found in the data tables which accompany this release, which can be accessed via the Climate Change Statistics pages of the DECC website.
Emissions by gas and source sector
Total greenhouse gases In 2010, 35 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions were from the energy supply sector, 21 per cent from transport, 15 per cent from both the residential and business sectors and 9 per cent from agriculture. Since 1990, emissions from the energy supply sector and from business have reduced by 25 per cent and 21 per cent respectively. However, residential emissions have increased by around 11 per cent over the period. Emissions from transport were around the same level in 2010 as they were in 1990. Details of changes over time in the main greenhouse gases are set out in the following sections of this statistical release. Details of emissions of fluorinated
compounds, together with the full breakdown by gas, can be found in Table 10 towards the end of this release. Table 2 and Figure 2 below show the breakdown of greenhouse gas emissions into the main source sectors.
Table 2: Sources of greenhouse gas emissions, 1990-2010 (MtCO2e)
1990
1995
2000
2005
2008
2009
2010
Energy Supply
273.4
235.8
220.1
228.7
221.9
198.7
204.3
Transport
121.5
122.0
126.7
130.4
127.7
122.2
121.9
Residential
80.8
82.3
90.1
87.8
83.4
78.1
89.9
Business
113.2
108.2
111.3
105.3
100.3
89.0
89.0
Agriculture
63.1
61.8
58.0
55.1
50.9
50.2
50.7
Waste Management
45.9
40.0
29.3
19.0
17.6
17.1
16.5
Industrial Process
54.4
44.9
24.6
18.2
16.3
10.2
10.9
Public
13.1
12.8
11.6
11.1
9.4
8.3
8.5
LULUCF
3.9
2.5
0.4
-2.9
-3.9
-4.2
-3.8
Total
769.4
710.4
672.0
652.5
623.6
569.6
587.8
## All Figures Are For The Uk And Crown Dependencies Only, And Exclude Overseas Territories. Figure 2: Greenhouse Gas Emissions By Source, 1990-2010 Carbon Dioxide Carbon Dioxide Accounted For About 84 Per Cent Of The Uk'S Man-Made Greenhouse Gas Emissions In 2010.
In 2010, 39 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions were from the energy supply sector, 22 per cent from road transport, 17 per cent from the residential sector and 15 per cent from business. Since 2009, there has been an increase in emissions in some of the main sectors. Emissions from the residential sector have increased by 16 per cent, while emissions from the energy supply sector have increased by 3 per cent. Emissions from industrial processes are also up slightly, by 5 per cent, although this sector is relatively small in absolute terms. Emissions from the business sector and road transport are relatively unchanged since 2009. There are a number of reasons for the increase in emissions between 2009 and 2010. The large increase in the residential sector resulted almost entirely from an increase in the use of natural gas. Residential emissions are heavily influenced by external temperatures, and 2010 was, on average, the coldest year since 1987. In particular, temperatures in both the first and last quarter of the year were very low; the first quarter was the coldest since 1987, and the last quarter was the coldest since at least 1970. This caused an increase in demand for space heating in 2010, which resulted in a significant increase in emissions from domestic gas use. The increase in emissions from power stations was mainly because of technical problems at some nuclear power stations. In 2010, due to maintenance outages, there was less nuclear power available for electricity generation, and more coal and gas were used instead. In particular, Sizewell B, the largest nuclear power station, was offline for six months. This contributed to an increase of around 4 per cent in emissions from electricity generation between 2009 and 2010. Since 1990, emissions from the energy supply sector have reduced by 19 per cent and business emissions have reduced by 32 per cent. However, emissions from the residential sector have increased by 10 per cent, while emissions from road transport have increased by 2 per cent over this period. Table 3 and Figure 3 below show the breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions into the main source sectors.
| 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 |
|----------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| | | | | | | | |
| Energy Supply | 242 | 211 | 203 | 218 | 219 | 213 | 190 |
| Road Transport | 108 | 110 | 115 | 119 | 120 | 116 | 111 |
| Residential | 79 | 81 | 87 | 84 | 78 | 80 | 75 |
| Business | 111 | 104 | 104 | 94 | 89 | 87 | 76 |
| Other | 50 | 45 | 41 | 37 | 35 | 33 | 26 |
| Total | 590 | 552 | 550 | 551 | 542 | 529 | 478 |
All figures are for the UK and Crown Dependencies only, and exclude Overseas Territories.
## Figure 3: Carbon Dioxide Emissions By Source, 1990-2010
Methane
Weighted by global warming potential, methane accounted for about 7 per cent of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. In 2010, the main sources of methane were agriculture (44 per cent of the total) and landfill sites (36 per cent). Between 2009 and 2010 there was a small decrease (of 2 per cent) in total emissions of methane, primarily from the landfill waste sector. Methane emissions in 2010, excluding those from natural sources, were 58 per cent below 1990 levels. Emissions from landfill have reduced by 66 per cent and emissions from agriculture by 20 per cent since 1990. Emissions from coal mines have also reduced significantly over the period, by 90 per cent. Table 4 and Figure 4 below show the breakdown of methane emissions into the main source sectors.
| 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 |
|-------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| | | | | | | | |
| Agriculture | 22.4 | 21.6 | 19.9 | 19.3 | 18.6 | 18.2 | 17.9 |
| Landfill | 43.1 | 37.5 | 27.2 | 17 | 16.3 | 15.8 | 15.3 |
| Gas leakage | 8.5 | 8.1 | 6.7 | 4.9 | 4.7 | 4.4 | 4.3 |
| Coal mines | 18.3 | 12.6 | 6.8 | 3.3 | 1.9 | 2 | 2 |
| Other | 5.2 | 4.2 | 3.3 | 2.5 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 2.5 |
| Total | 97.4 | 84 | 64 | 47.1 | 44.2 | 43 | 42 |
All figures are for the UK and Crown Dependencies only, and exclude Overseas Territories. Gas leakage also includes other emissions from the exploration, production and transportation of gas.
Nitrous oxide
Weighted by global warming potential, nitrous oxide emissions accounted for about 6 per cent of the UK's man-made greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. Agriculture is the main source of these emissions, accounting for 80 per cent of the total, mainly from agricultural soils. Between 2009 and 2010, emissions from nitrous oxide remained relatively stable. There was a slight increase in industrial process emissions (of 11 per cent, but small in absolute terms), primarily due to increases in nitric acid production. Nitrous oxide emissions fell by 48 per cent between 1990 and 2010. The largest reductions were in emissions from adipic acid production between 1998 and
1999 (down 95 per cent, 11 MtCO2e), which is reflected in the reduction in emissions from industrial processes between these years. Table 5 and Figure 5 below show the breakdown of nitrous oxide emissions into the main source sectors.
| 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 |
|--------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| | | | | | | | |
| Agriculture | 35.5 | 34.9 | 33.3 | 31.2 | 28.8 | 28.6 | 28.2 |
| Industrial process | 24.7 | 14.9 | 5.6 | 3 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 1.2 |
| Road transport | 1.2 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| Other | 6.4 | 5.9 | 5.6 | 5.5 | 5.4 | 5.2 | 4.8 |
| Total | 67.8 | 57.4 | 46 | 40.9 | 38.1 | 37.1 | 35.1 |
All figures are for the UK and Crown Dependencies only, and exclude Overseas Territories.
Emissions from UK-based international aviation and shipping bunkers Emissions from international aviation and shipping can be estimated from refuelling from bunkers at UK airports and ports, whether by UK or non-UK operators. Under the reporting guidelines agreed by the UNFCCC, these emissions are not included in the UK's emissions total, but are reported as memo items in national greenhouse gas inventories. Parties to the UNFCCC are required to act to limit or reduce emissions from international services working through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and International Maritime Organisation (IMO).
In 2010, emissions from international aviation fuel use were estimated to be 31.8 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent. This was 4.4 per cent lower than the 2009 figure of 33.3 million tonnes. Between 1990 and 2006, these emissions increased by around 130 per cent, although since 2006 they have been steadily falling. Nevertheless, in 2010 these emissions are still more than double the 1990 level. High altitude aviation also has a greenhouse effect over and above that of carbon dioxide alone, but this is not reflected in these estimates. In 2010, emissions from UK international shipping bunkers were estimated to be 8.8 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent. This was 13.3 per cent lower than the 2009 figure of 10.1 million tonnes. Since 1990, emissions from UK shipping bunkers have been highly variable. There was an increase of around 18 per cent between 1990 and 1998, followed by a fall of 48 per cent between 1998 and 2002. Emissions then more than doubled between 2002 and 2008, but
have since fallen by 20 per cent, and they are now at the same level as in 1990. It should be noted that UK operators purchase most of their fuel outside the UK. Table 6 and Figure 6 below show the international aviation and shipping emissions series from 1990 to 2010.
1990
1995
2000
2005
2007
2008
2009
2010
International aviation
15.8
20.3
30.5
35.5
35.7
34.8
33.3
31.8
International shipping
8.8
8.2
6.8
7.8
9.7
11.0
10.1
8.8
Total
24.6
28.6
37.3
43.3
45.5
45.8
43.4
40.6
Revisions to the Inventory The UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory is reviewed every year, and the whole historical data series is revised to incorporate methodological improvements and new data. This takes into account revisions to the datasets which have been used in its compilation, most notably the UK energy statistics published in the Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES). It is therefore not appropriate to compare the Inventory from one year with that from another. However, the latest Inventory represents a single consistent data series going back to 1990, and this therefore allows year-on-year comparisons to be made.
In preparing the 2010 Inventory, the most notable changes to the historical series since the 2009 Inventory was published are linked to new research which has become available in relation to a number of specific sectors, as follows. Estimates of methane emissions from landfill waste, which were revised in the 2009 inventory to reflect new research available at the time, have now been further revised following additional investigation relating to this research. Inconsistencies were identified between the research results and how they had been fed through into the emissions estimates, and these have now been corrected. These emissions are now lower than previously estimated for all years from 1990 to 2003 and relatively unchanged for all years from 2004 onwards. Estimated emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) from refrigeration and air conditioning have been revised to reflect new research. As a consequence, we have moved from a modelling approach based on total refrigerant sales data to develop estimates based on factors such as numbers of equipment and refrigerants used. Other improvements include the addition of small emission sources such as heat pumps and marine transport refrigeration, and including estimates from non-greenhouse gas refrigerants such as ammonia and hydrocarbons. These emissions are now higher than previously estimated from 1998 onwards. Finally, there were revisions to the estimates of emissions from refineries and other energy industries, relating to the use of data from the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and the UK Petroleum Industry Association (UKPIA) in place of data from the Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES) for some specific fuels. In both cases, estimated emissions have been revised upwards across almost the entire time series. All the revisions to the Inventory have resulted in revisions to the figures, for all years up to and including 2009. The total of all UK greenhouse gas emissions reported for the Kyoto Protocol in 2009 has been revised upwards from 566.3 to
572.5 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent. The figure for UK CO2
emissions in 2009 has also been revised upwards, from 473.7 to 477.8 million tonnes. Comparing the 2010 figures with the 2009 figures published a year ago will therefore give a different year-on-year percentage change, but one which is incorrect and should not be used.
Revisions from provisional estimates Provisional estimates of 2010 UK greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide emissions were published in March 2011, based on early estimates of energy consumption for the year. At that time, it was provisionally estimated that total UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 would be 582.4 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent, which represented an increase of 3 per cent from the 2009 figure. Although the final 2010 figure of 590.4 million tonnes is around 1½ per cent higher than the provisional estimate, this still represents an increase from 2009 to 2010 of
around 3 per cent. This difference is due to changes in the historical data series. Importantly, the trend anticipated by the provisional estimates has now been seen in the final figures. It was also provisionally estimated that net UK carbon dioxide emissions would be 491.7 million tonnes, representing an increase of 4 per cent from the 2009
figure. The final 2010 figure of 495.8 million tonnes is around 1 per cent higher than the provisional estimate, but again, this does indeed represent an increase from 2009 to 2010 of around 4 per cent. Differences between the provisional and final estimates arise from a combination of the range of uncertainty inherent in the provisional estimates (of the order of +/-1½ per cent), and revisions to other statistics on which these estimates were based. UK emissions reduction targets The UK has a number of targets, both international and domestic, for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These can be summarised as follows: Kyoto Protocol target The Kyoto Protocol uses a base year which is comprised of 1990 for carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, and 1995 for fluorinated compounds. To meet its commitment under the Protocol, the UK has agreed a legally binding target to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 12.5 per cent below the base year level over the period 2008-2012.
In July 2007, on completion of the review of the UK Inventory, the UK's Kyoto base year figure was set
at 779.9 million tonnes CO2 equivalent, based on the
2006 UK Inventory submission. This means that to
meet the UK's Kyoto commitment, greenhouse gas
emissions must be below 682.4 million tonnes CO2
equivalent on average per year over the first five year commitment period of the Protocol (2008-2012).
In accordance with this average yearly target, the Kyoto Protocol target for the UK was then set at 3,412 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent over the full five year period - this is now the UK's Assigned Amount.
For more details of the UK's Kyoto commitment, see
the UK Initial Report under the Kyoto Protocol. UK Climate Change Act
This Act includes a legally binding target for the UK to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least
80 per cent below base year levels by 2050. It also establishes a system of binding five-year carbon budgets to set the trajectory towards these targets.
Like the Kyoto Protocol, the Act uses a base year which is comprised of 1990 for carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, and 1995 for fluorinated compounds. However, this base year figure differs from that used for reporting against the Kyoto Protocol in that the baseline is revised each year to incorporate revisions made subsequent to the UK's Kyoto Protocol assigned amount having been fixed.
The Government set the first three carbon budgets in May 2009, covering the periods 2008-12, 2013-17 and 2018-2022. The fourth carbon budget, covering the period 2023-27, was set in June 2011. The first of these budgets requires that total UK greenhouse gas emissions do not exceed 3,018 million tonnes CO2 equivalent over the five-year period 2008-12, which is about 22 per cent below the base year level on average over the period. The fourth carbon budget was set so as to require a reduction in emissions of 50 per cent below base year levels over the period 2023-2027, although this figure is now slightly below 50 per cent due to revisions to the base year figure.
Table 7 below shows details of the first four carbon budgets.
## Table 7: Summary Of Uk Carbon Budgets, 2008-2027
Base year
Budget 1
Budget 2
Budget 3
(actual
2008-12
2013-17
2018-22
emissions)
Budget 4
2023-27
Budget level (MtCO2e)
3018
2782
2544
1950
770.8
603.6
556.4
508.8
390.0
Equivalent average annual emissions
(MtCO2e)
Percentage reduction below base year levels
22%
28%
34%
49%
The levels of all four carbon budgets expressed as a percentage reduction have changed from the values which have been referred to previously. This is because the base year figure is not fixed, but is revised each year to incorporate revisions to the inventory. Further details of how the Kyoto Protocol and Carbon Budget baseline emissions figures have been derived, can be found on the DECC website in the Record of UK base year emissions table.
Emissions Trading
Emissions trading results, including those from the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), are not published as National Statistics, and any results which incorporate emissions trading figures should therefore not be treated as National Statistics. Under the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, three *flexible mechanisms* were established to provide for trading of national allowances and project-based credits by Governments and emitters. These are International Emissions Trading, the *Clean Development Mechanism* (CDM) and *Joint Implementation* (JI). International Emissions Trading allows Government-to-Government trading of Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) between developed (*Annex I*) countries. The CDM allows Annex I countries with a target under the Kyoto Protocol to fund carbon reduction projects in developing (*non-Annex I*) countries and earn carbon credits for the avoided emissions. JI allows Annex I countries to implement emissions reduction projects in other Annex I countries, generating carbon credits which can be used for compliance with targets by the investor country. In reporting emissions reductions against all of its targets, the UK needs to take account of emissions trading through these flexible mechanisms. At the present time, the scope of the UK's emissions trading does not extend beyond the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), although it should be noted that EU ETS participants may also use credits generated under CDM and JI projects, subject to certain limits, in order to comply with their obligations. However, the Government will be able to include any units or credits generated through any of the Kyoto Protocol's flexible mechanisms in its future assessment of the UK's progress towards its emissions reduction targets. The EU ETS operates as a *cap and trade* system, which means that, currently, any installation within the System in the EU is given an allocation of emissions allowances each year. If the installation's actual emissions are above this initial allocation for the year in question, then the installation must either purchase allowances through the System, or bring forward some allowances from the following year's allocation, so as to cover the deficit. Conversely, installations with a surplus of emissions compared with their cap are allowed to either sell allowances or carry them over into the following year's allocation, thus providing a financial incentive to reduce emissions. As there is a finite limit of allowances in the System (i.e. the cap), any allowances purchased should come from installations which have reduced emissions. The System is now in the last year of Phase II, covering the five year period 2008-2012. Final results are currently available for each year of Phase I, which covered the three year period 2005-2007, and also for the first three years (2008-2010) of Phase II. Phase III, which begins in 2013, will change some of the parameters of the system, but will not change the ultimate cap and trade basis of the EU ETS.
In 2010, for the second consecutive year, the UK has been a net seller of allowances. This effectively means that installations between them either sold or carried over more emissions allowances than they purchased or brought forward. Taking emissions trading into account within the context of the UK's reported emissions, this will affect the results by increasing the level of emissions by the amount of EU ETS allowances sold in the year. It should be noted that at the end of Phase I, the UK Government sold a small number of unallocated allowances from the new entrant reserve on the open market. Since it would not have been appropriate to incorporate these sales in the 2007 results alone, they were spread equally over each of the three years in Phase I. In November 2011, the Environment Agency published a report summarising the 2010 EU ETS results. Further details of the System can also be found at the EU ETS section of the DECC website. Table 8 below shows the UK's net trading position in each year since the System commenced in 2005. For example, in 2010 the UK sold allowances totalling 7.7 MtCO2e, which should be taken into account when reporting emissions against the Kyoto Protocol target.
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Net purchases/(sales) by UK installations
27.1
33.2
27.5
19.9
(13.7)
(7.7)
Net purchases/(sales) by UK Government
(1.9)
(1.9)
(1.9)
-
-
Net UK purchases/(sales)
25.2
31.3
25.6
19.9
(13.7)
(7.7)
It should be noted that, for the purposes of reporting for UK Carbon Budgets under the Climate Change Act, the figure for net UK purchases/(sales) in 2010
will be slightly lower, at 7.6 MtCO2e. This is due to differences in both the
coverage of the Act and the way in which the annual cap in 2010 has been calculated. Further details of progress towards the UK carbon budgets will be included in the annual statement of emissions, required under section 16 of the Climate Change Act. In respect of 2010, this must be laid before Parliament no later
than 31st March 2012. The statement will provide a clear and thorough explanation of how the "net UK carbon account" - which is what we use to determine compliance with the carbon budgets - was calculated, and what it amounts to. It will contain details of UK emissions and removals on a carbon budgets (i.e. UK only) basis, and the details of where carbon units have been used, in accordance with the methodologies contained in the Carbon Accounting Regulations 2009 and Carbon Accounting (Amendment) Regulations 2009.
UK performance against emissions reduction targets Performance measured against targets, incorporating the net EU ETS trading position, can be summarised as follows:
UK emissions of the basket of six greenhouse gases covered by the
Kyoto Protocol were 23.3 per cent lower in 2010 than in the base year, down from 779.9 to 598.1 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent.
For the purposes of carbon budgets reporting, UK greenhouse gas
emissions were 23.0 per cent lower in 2010 than in the base year, down from 770.8 to 593.9 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent.
These results are shown in the context of the headline results in Table 9 and Figure 7 below. A more detailed summary of the results can also be found in Table 11 at the end of this release.
Table 9: Performance against emissions reduction targets
2010
Change
Base year
emissions
Emissions
from base
year
779.9
590.4
-24.3%
Actual emissions (no allowance for trading)
All greenhouse gases - Kyoto Protocol coverage (UK, Crown Dependencies & Overseas Territories)
779. 9
598.1
-23.3%
Emissions with allowance for trading
770.8
586.3
-23.9%
Actual emissions (no allowance for trading)
All greenhouse gases - UK Carbon Budgets coverage (UK only)
770.8
593.9
-23.0%
Emissions with allowance for
trading
Emissions are in million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent.
## Figure 7: Uk'S Progress Towards Meeting Each Of Its Targets
Future updates to emissions estimates
On Thursday 29th March 2012 we will be publishing a breakdown of 2010 UK
emissions by end-user sector and fuel type, to supplement the source sector breakdown published today. On the same date we will also be publishing provisional estimates of UK greenhouse gas emissions for 2011 as National Statistics. This will coincide with the publication of *Energy Trends*, which will include the first estimates of 2011 UK energy consumption.
Further information and feedback
Any enquiries or comments in relation to this statistical release should be sent to DECC's UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Statistics and Inventory Team at the following address: ClimateChange.Statistics@decc.gsi.gov.uk Contact telephone: 0300 068 5583 The lead statistician for this publication is John Mackintosh.
Further information on climate change statistics, including Excel downloads of all the data used to compile this statistical release, can be found on the DECC website at: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/climate_change/climate_chang e.aspx
Notes for Editors 1. A full set of data tables can be accessed via the Climate Change Statistics pages of
the DECC website. 2. This Statistical Release and the related data tables are the first release of data from
the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) for 1970-2010, produced for DECC and the Devolved Administrations by AEA. Additional results will be released as they become available, including a full report to be published later in the year. For further information on the UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, see the NAEI web site. 3. Further information about the Kyoto Protocol can be found on the UNFCCC's
website. 4. Results from the EU ETS are not currently published as National Statistics. They
have therefore not been incorporated in the headline results. Further details of the European Union Emissions Trading System can be found at the EU ETS section of the DECC website. 5. There are uncertainties associated with all estimates of greenhouse gas emissions.
Although for any given year considerable uncertainties may surround the emissions estimates for a pollutant, it is important to note that trends over time are likely to be much more reliable. For more information on these uncertainties see the page on How UK emissions of greenhouse gases are measured on the DECC website. 6. Under the Climate Change Act, the annual statement of emissions for 2010 must
be laid before Parliament and published no later than 31st March 2012. This will
give details of the net UK carbon account for 2010, which is used to determine compliance with the targets and budgets under the Act.
7. The two headline measures included in this statistical release, "UK greenhouse gas
emissions" and "Emissions from UK-based international aviation and shipping bunkers" have previously been reported as two of the indicators supporting the UK Government's
Sustainable
Development
Strategy.
The
full
Sustainable
Development indicator set was last updated in 2010, and a new set of indicators
are currently under development to support the Government's approach to
mainstreaming Sustainable Development, with reporting requirements to be confirmed in due course.
8. Revisions were made to previously published figures in the 2009 greenhouse gas
inventory for a number of reasons, including the following:
Details of the research which has led to revisions of our estimates for methane from landfill waste can be found on the Publications sections of the DECC website.
Details of the study which has led to revisions of our estimates of emissions of HFCs from refrigeration and air conditioning can be found on the Publications sections of the DECC website.
The latest UK energy statistics, including revisions to earlier years' data, can be found in the 2011 Digest of UK Energy Statistics.
9. Detailed UK temperature data can be found on both the Met Office website and the
Energy Statistics section of the DECC website. 10. When emissions are measured on this basis, UK emissions account for around 2
per cent of the global total, based on a range of estimates produced by the UN, the IEA, the World Resources Institute and the EIA, amongst others. 11. Similar results for non-greenhouse gas atmospheric pollutants, covering the period
1970-2010, were published by Defra in December 2011.
ISSUED BY:
Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW1A 2AW
TELEPHONE:
General/Press Enquiries: 0300 060 4000
Out of Hours: 020 7215 3505 A National Statistics publication National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the National Statistics Code of Practice. They undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure they meet customer needs.
## Table 10: Uk Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1990-2010, Headline Results Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Actual Emissions In Tonnes
Units (tonnes)
1990
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Net CO2 emissions
(emissions minus removals)
Million
590.3
552.0
550.5
562.1
544.9
554.6
555.0
551.2
549.4
541.8
529.0
477.8
495.8
Methane (CH4)
Million
4.6
4.0
3.0
2.8
2.7
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
Million
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC)
Thousand
0.98
2.22
4.70
5.34
5.82
6.54
6.83
7.36
7.76
7.96
8.33
8.48
8.60
Perfluorocarbons (PFC)
Thousand
0.20
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
Thousand
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
## Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Weighted By Global Warming Potential (Million Tonnes Carbon Dioxide Equivalent)
1990
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Net CO2 emissions (emissions minus removals)
590.3
552.0
550.5
562.1
544.9
554.6
555.0
551.2
549.4
541.8
529.0
477.8
495.8
Methane (CH4)
97.4
84.0
64.0
58.7
55.8
50.0
48.5
47.1
45.8
44.2
43.0
42.0
41.3
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
67.8
57.4
46.0
43.4
41.6
41.1
41.8
40.9
38.8
38.1
37.1
35.1
35.6
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC)
11.4
15.3
9.3
10.2
10.7
11.9
11.1
12.0
12.7
13.0
13.6
13.9
14.3
Perfluorocarbons (PFC)
1.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
1.0
1.2
1.8
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
Kyoto greenhouse gas basket
766.4
708.4
671.5
676.4
655.7
660.1
659.9
654.7
650.3
640.9
626.7
572.5
590.4
Notes
1. Figures for each individual gas include the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry sector (LULUCF), but exclude emissions from UK Overseas Territories.
2. Kyoto basket total differs slightly from sum of individual pollutants above as the basket uses a narrower definition for LULUCF, and includes emissions from UK Overseas Territories, as well as emissions from direct flights between the UK and these Territories.
3. The entire time series is revised each year to take account of methodological improvements in the UK emissions inventory.
4. Emissions are presented as carbon dioxide equivalent in line with international reporting and carbon trading. To convert carbon dioxide into carbon equivalents, divide figures by 44/12.
5. Figures shown do not include any adjustment for the effect of the EU Emissions Trading System (EUETS), which was introduced in 2005. 6. Carbon dioxide emissions are reported as net emissions, to include removals from the atmosphere by carbon sinks. This also affects some of the other greenhouse gases, but to a lesser extent.
Baseline
1990
1995
2000
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas target
All greenhouse gases (*including* net
emissions/removals from LULUCF)
779.9
766.4
708.4
671.5
654.7
650.3
640.9
626.7
572.5
590.4
No allowance for emission trading
Percentage change from baseline
-9.2%
-13.9%
-16.1%
-16.6%
-17.8%
-19.6%
-26.6%
-24.3%
Net purchases/(sales) by UK installations
27.1
33.2
27.5
19.9
-13.7
-7.7
EU ETS
Net purchases/(sales) by UK Government
-1.9
-1.9
-1.9
-
-
-
Net UK purchases/(sales)
25.2
31.3
25.6
19.9
-13.7
-7.7
All greenhouse gases (including net emissions/removals from LULUCF)
779.9
766.4
708.4
671.5
629.5
619.0
615.3
606.8
586.2
598.1
With allowance for emissions trading
Percentage change from baseline
-9.2%
-13.9%
-19.3%
-20.6%
-21.1%
-22.2%
-24.8%
-23.3%
United Kingdom Carbon Budgets
All greenhouse gases (*including* net emissions/removals from LULUCF)
770.8
622.0
568.0
586.3
No allowance for emissions trading
Percentage change from baseline
-19.3%
-26.3%
-23.9%
Net purchases/(sales) by UK installations
19.3
-13.5
-7.6
EU ETS
Net purchases/(sales) by UK Government
-
-
-
Net UK purchases/(sales)
19.3
-13.5
-7.6
All greenhouse gases (including net emissions/removals from LULUCF)
770.8
602.7
581.5
593.9
With allowance for emissions trading
Percentage change from baseline
-21.8%
-24.6%
-23.0%
Notes
1. Kyoto base year consists of emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O in 1990, and of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 in 1995. Includes an allowance for net emissions from LULUCF in 1990.
2. Emissions are presented as carbon dioxide equivalent in line with international reporting and carbon trading. To convert carbon dioxide into carbon equivalent, divide figures by 44/12. 3. UK Carbon Budgets were introduced in 2008. Figures include emissions solely from the UK and exclude emissions from Crown Dependencies and UK Overseas Territories. Figures include the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry sector (LULUCF). 4. The Kyoto Protocol target includes emissions from the UK, Crown Dependencies and UK Overseas Territories. The target uses a narrower definition for the LULUCF sector. 5. The entire time series is revised each year to take account of methodological improvements in the UK emissions Inventory. However, the baseline used for the Kyoto Protocol is fixed and therefore does not change when methodological changes are made to the Inventory. | en |
3659-pdf |
## Lin Homer - Meetings With External Organisations 1St July 2013 - 30Th September 2013
Purpose of Meeting
Permanent Secretary Month of Meeting
Name of External Organisation
01/07/2013
IMF
Visit on Tax Gap
Visit to Offices
31/07/2013
Association of Accounting
Technicians
02/08/2013
FDA
Discussion on HMRC and
Civil Service
09/08/2013
KPMG
Share experiences between
public and private sector
Debrief on Visit
19/08/2013
Association of Accounting
Technicians
Introductory Meeting
25/08/2013
Chartered Accountants
Ireland
Does not normally include meetings with Government bodies such as other Government Departments and Agencies, non-departmental public
## Edward Troup - Meetings With External Organisations
Purpose of Meeting
1st July 2013 - 30th September 2013 Permanent Secretary Month of Meeting
Name of External Organisation
September
PwC
To discuss Compliance Skills
development programme
Does not normally include meetings with Government bodies such as other Government Departments and Agencies, non-departmental public
| en |
0216-pdf |
| | Organisation Name | Purchase_Order_Number Order_Date Total_Value | Supplier_Name | Account_Name | Service |
|--------------------------|---------------------|------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053230 | 01/10/2015 | £6,000.00 LINK4LIFE (CHARITY) | TRAINING | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053238 | 01/10/2015 | £5,425.00 ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE | FIXTURES & FITTINGS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053240 | 01/10/2015 | £6,000.00 LINK4LIFE (CHARITY) | ACTIVITIES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053253 | 01/10/2015 | £21,000.00 PETRUS | CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053261 | 01/10/2015 | £295,780.00 DENNIS EAGLE LTD | PURCHASE OF VEHICLES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018343 | 01/10/2015 | £8,823.20 SPORT WORKS | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018347 | 01/10/2015 | £119,472.58 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018350 | 01/10/2015 | £14,774.80 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018351 | 01/10/2015 | £7,330.97 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018352 | 01/10/2015 | £23,339.57 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018353 | 01/10/2015 | £43,493.54 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018354 | 01/10/2015 | £137,000.90 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018359 | 01/10/2015 | £12,659.00 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018360 | 01/10/2015 | £11,483.33 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018361 | 01/10/2015 | £11,044.67 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018362 | 01/10/2015 | £12,253.00 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018363 | 01/10/2015 | £12,210.00 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | ph100989 | 01/10/2015 | £138,408.00 BIG LIFE CENTRES | PH BIG LIFE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | ph100990 | 01/10/2015 | £215,796.00 PENNINE CARE NHS | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005433 | 01/10/2015 | £24,643.00 LGBT FOUNDATION | GRANTS TO THE NON VOLUNTARY SECTOR | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053285 | 02/10/2015 | £8,881.10 ROCHDALE BOROUGHWIDE HOUSING | FEES / COMMISSION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053292 | 02/10/2015 | £7,500.00 A E YATES LTD | ROADWORKS | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019443 | 02/10/2015 | £7,070.00 ADAPT BUILDING SERVICES LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053302 | 05/10/2015 | £7,700.00 ROCHDALE BOROUGH SHOPMOBILITY | GRANTS TO THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053311 | 05/10/2015 | £27,000.00 EMO OIL LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053328 | 05/10/2015 | £105,937.27 CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053329 | 05/10/2015 | £99,028.23 CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053330 | 05/10/2015 | £6,322.40 OFFICE DEPOT UK LIMITED | PROJECTS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053331 | 05/10/2015 | £49,461.80 CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053338 | 05/10/2015 | £20,000.00 A E YATES LTD | DRAINAGE AND SEWERS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053340 | 05/10/2015 | £8,394.40 OFFICE DEPOT UK LIMITED | PROJECTS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053344 | 05/10/2015 | £15,000.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053345 | 05/10/2015 | £12,500.00 STREAMLINE TAXIS | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018374 | 05/10/2015 | £9,143.00 BEVAN BRITTAN LLP | CONSULTANTS FEES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019452 | 05/10/2015 | £5,175.00 SUPRA UK LIMITED | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | w1001101 | 05/10/2015 | £15,000.00 ROCHDALE & DISTRICT MIND | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053352 | 06/10/2015 | £9,500.00 LITTLEBOROUGH PRIVATE HIRE | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053353 | 06/10/2015 | £5,600.00 LITTLEBOROUGH PRIVATE HIRE | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053367 | 06/10/2015 | £29,750.00 ROCHDALE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY | GRANTS TO OTHER BODIES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053368 | 06/10/2015 | £18,750.00 ROCHDALE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY | FEES -CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION RENOVATION | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053381 | 06/10/2015 | £5,625.00 MILNROW CARS | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018387 | 06/10/2015 | £6,710.00 UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM | TRAINING-QUALIFICATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | ph100994 | 06/10/2015 | £369,777.00 PENNINE CARE NHS | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005466 | 06/10/2015 | £44,810.73 XEROX UK LTD | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005469 | 06/10/2015 | £13,783.00 BINDMONT PRINT SERVICES LTD | PRINTING & STATIONERY | FINANCE SERVICES |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005472 | 06/10/2015 | £8,128.37 CIVICA UK LIMITED | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005473 | 06/10/2015 | £10,708.66 GAMMA BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS | TELEPHONE EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019467 | 06/10/2015 | £5,117.00 STANNAH LIFT SERVICES LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019468 | 06/10/2015 | £6,000.00 T CUBED LTD | TRAINING | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | x1011655 | 06/10/2015 | £18,000.00 ADOPTION MATTERS NORTHWEST | ADOPTION PAYMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053408 | 07/10/2015 | £8,500.00 GLOBECAR LTD | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053423 | 07/10/2015 | £5,750.00 STREAMLINE TAXIS | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053424 | 07/10/2015 | £15,000.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018437 | 07/10/2015 | £11,559.64 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018438 | 07/10/2015 | £7,077.11 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018439 | 07/10/2015 | £8,377.92 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018440 | 07/10/2015 | £10,360.81 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | | Organisation Name | Purchase_Order_Number Order_Date Total_Value | Supplier_Name | Account_Name | Service |
|--------------------------|---------------------|------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018444 | 07/10/2015 | £372,738.64 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018445 | 07/10/2015 | £311,534.41 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053435 | 08/10/2015 | £5,000.00 CAR 2000 HEYWOOD LLP | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053446 | 08/10/2015 | £10,995.00 RAISE THE YOUTH FOUNDATION CIC | ACTIVITIES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053447 | 08/10/2015 | £14,985.00 RAISE THE YOUTH FOUNDATION CIC | ACTIVITIES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053464 | 08/10/2015 | £7,852.38 NORTHGATE VEHICLE HIRE LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053465 | 08/10/2015 | £8,189.96 NORTHGATE VEHICLE HIRE LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018451 | 08/10/2015 | £5,200.00 MEG BOUSTEAD LTD | CONSULTANT FEES | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018453 | 08/10/2015 | £7,000.00 OFFICE DEPOT UK LIMITED | PRINTING | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018456 | 08/10/2015 | £6,000.00 THE CHILDRENS SOCIETY SERVICES LTD | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018464 | 08/10/2015 | £14,432.33 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | ph100998 | 08/10/2015 | £5,961.00 VIRGIN CARE BLACKPOOL LLP | PH OTHER CONTRACTS | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005484 | 08/10/2015 | £126,600.00 RISUAL LTD | CONSULTANTS FEES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053468 | 09/10/2015 | £22,691.73 BRAHM FUNDCO 2 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPI | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053480 | 09/10/2015 | £19,832.00 AUDITEL SYSTEMS | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019474 | 09/10/2015 | £5,985.00 HOIST AND SHOWER CHAIR CO LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019483 | 09/10/2015 | £14,702.00 K P DODD CONSTRUCTION LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053506 | 12/10/2015 | £5,000.00 UNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD | CONSULTANT FEES | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053507 | 12/10/2015 | £7,500.00 A E YATES LTD | ROADWORKS | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053515 | 12/10/2015 | £14,276.00 CLEAR CHANNEL UK LTD | PROJECTS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053517 | 12/10/2015 | £10,500.00 NEW IMAGE PUBLIC RELATIONS LIMITED | CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053524 | 12/10/2015 | £5,455.00 J A CRYER EXCAVATION & GROUNDWORK CONTRACTORS LTD | DRAINAGE AND SEWERS | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018498 | 12/10/2015 | £20,001.05 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | IT SUPPORT | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018501 | 12/10/2015 | £10,000.00 MOTT MACDONALD LIMITED | CONSULTANTS FEES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018503 | 12/10/2015 | £44,100.00 POSITIVE STEPS | EXTERNALLY MANAGED FUNDS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005492 | 12/10/2015 | £6,000.00 SENITOR RECRUITMENT | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | x1011681 | 12/10/2015 | £9,000.00 CALDERDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL | ADOPTION PAYMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053533 | 13/10/2015 | £6,372.00 TRAKM8 LIMITED | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053548 | 13/10/2015 | £9,375.00 STRAND PRIVATE HIRE | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018519 | 13/10/2015 | £8,823.20 SPORT WORKS | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018526 | 13/10/2015 | £7,127.00 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | f1004343 | 13/10/2015 | £21,840.00 MERITEC LIMITED | AGENCY STAFF | FINANCE SERVICES |
| Rochdale Borough Council | f1004344 | 13/10/2015 | £18,518.50 MERITEC LIMITED | AGENCY STAFF | FINANCE SERVICES |
| Rochdale Borough Council | f1004346 | 13/10/2015 | £65,656.50 MERITEC LIMITED | AGENCY STAFF | FINANCE SERVICES |
| Rochdale Borough Council | f1004347 | 13/10/2015 | £65,656.50 MERITEC LIMITED | AGENCY STAFF | FINANCE SERVICES |
| Rochdale Borough Council | ph100999 | 13/10/2015 | £14,969.00 THE PENNINE ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | PH OTHER CONTRACTS | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005510 | 13/10/2015 | £7,597.15 ALIGNED ASSETS LIMITED | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | x1011685 | 13/10/2015 | £9,000.00 CARITAS CARE LTD | ADOPTION PAYMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053574 | 14/10/2015 | £231,582.66 VBA JOINT VENTURE LTD | NEW CONSTRUCTION | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053588 | 14/10/2015 | £6,000.00 REDACTED PERSONAL DATA | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053589 | 14/10/2015 | £8,750.00 CASTLEROYLE PRIVATE HIRE | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053590 | 14/10/2015 | £17,700.00 UNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018529 | 14/10/2015 | £7,159.91 BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018542 | 14/10/2015 | £670,950.98 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018543 | 14/10/2015 | £9,800.00 CHRISTINE FOSTER LIMITED | AGENCY STAFF | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005524 | 14/10/2015 | £6,018.75 JGM AGENCY | PUBLICITY | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053613 | 15/10/2015 | £17,655.00 UNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD | AGENCY STAFF | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053614 | 15/10/2015 | £17,655.00 UNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD | AGENCY STAFF | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053628 | 15/10/2015 | £10,253.18 J A CRYER EXCAVATION & GROUNDWORK CONTRACTORS LTD | ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS LANDSCAPE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053630 | 15/10/2015 | £46,888.47 WEST WAY ROCHDALE | PURCHASE OF VEHICLES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053641 | 15/10/2015 | £16,715.70 CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | BOILER REPLACEMENTS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018548 | 15/10/2015 | £17,230.65 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | WATER CHARGES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018552 | 15/10/2015 | £30,979.86 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | MEALS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018555 | 15/10/2015 | £46,606.18 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018556 | 15/10/2015 | £95,491.00 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019496 | 15/10/2015 | £9,907.20 GATENBY SANDERSON | AGENCY STAFF | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053661 | 16/10/2015 REDACTED COMMERCIAL CONFIDENTIALITY | CHRISTMAS PLUS LTD | CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | | Organisation Name | Purchase_Order_Number Order_Date Total_Value | Supplier_Name | Account_Name | Service |
|--------------------------|---------------------|------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053666 | 16/10/2015 | £8,100.00 EMO OIL LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018569 | 16/10/2015 | £13,247.34 INCREDIBLE YEARS | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005536 | 16/10/2015 | £12,000.00 THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER | GRANTS TO THE NON VOLUNTARY SECTOR | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005538 | 16/10/2015 | £6,670.00 TURNING POINT SERVICES LIMITED | CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005546 | 16/10/2015 | £14,909.29 AGILISYS LIMITED | AGILISYS CONTRACT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019513 | 16/10/2015 | £7,316.40 NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE CCG | AGENCY STAFF | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019514 | 16/10/2015 | £5,478.00 NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE CCG | AGENCY STAFF | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053687 | 19/10/2015 | £24,480.00 S T HEDGES QUINN LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018586 | 19/10/2015 | £5,530.00 PSHE ASSOCIATION | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | x1011748 | 19/10/2015 | £14,333.00 CARITAS CARE LTD | ADOPTION PAYMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053704 | 20/10/2015 | £9,334.34 BURNT TREE GROUP | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053706 | 20/10/2015 | £7,500.00 ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE | MATERIAL - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053716 | 20/10/2015 | £12,969.56 F W SHERRATT LTD | ROADWORKS | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053720 | 20/10/2015 | £373,000.00 COMMUNITY LIGHTING PARTNERSHIP ROCHDALE LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | w1001136 | 20/10/2015 | £18,000.00 COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE ROCHDALE | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018624 | 22/10/2015 | £10,000.00 ROCHDALE CONNECTION TRUST | TRAINING | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005611 | 22/10/2015 | £6,000.00 SENITOR RECRUITMENT | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053798 | 23/10/2015 | £10,940.00 WSP LTD UK | PROFESSIONAL FEES | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005616 | 23/10/2015 | £35,000.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005623 | 23/10/2015 | £6,500.00 MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL | MAINTENANCE | FINANCE SERVICES |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019529 | 23/10/2015 | £23,250.00 PETRUS | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019540 | 23/10/2015 | £7,338.00 TERRY GROUP LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019542 | 23/10/2015 | £5,675.00 K P DODD CONSTRUCTION LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019543 | 23/10/2015 | £19,930.00 FLETCHER BUILDING SERVICES LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019544 | 23/10/2015 | £10,059.00 TERRY GROUP LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | x1011773 | 23/10/2015 | £7,134.00 BOLTON MBC | ADVERTISING | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | ph101006 | 26/10/2015 | £36,437.50 BIG LIFE CENTRES | ACTIVITIES | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005632 | 26/10/2015 | £10,029.39 POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER FOR GTR MANCHESTER | CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005633 | 26/10/2015 | £9,148.86 POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER FOR GTR MANCHESTER | CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019545 | 26/10/2015 | £17,000.00 COMMUNITY TRANSPORT NORTHWEST LTD | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053865 | 27/10/2015 | £5,000.00 TRINITY MIRROR PUBLISHING LTD | ADVERTISING | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018679 | 27/10/2015 | £7,771.76 BRIDGE 4 LEARNING | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053922 | 28/10/2015 | £5,967.00 FRS ROOFING SERVICES LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053924 | 28/10/2015 | £9,388.34 BURNT TREE GROUP LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018695 | 28/10/2015 | £10,512.03 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | DEV CAP - NEW CONSTRUCTION,CONVERSION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053940 | 29/10/2015 | £14,619.00 JMHA | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005653 | 29/10/2015 | £10,136.00 NORTHENDEN DIAMOND TRAVEL | PUBLIC TRANSPORT | FINANCE SERVICES |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053955 | 30/10/2015 | £17,953.25 KABERRY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019562 | 30/10/2015 | £6,604.80 GATENBY SANDERSON | AGENCY STAFF | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1053993 | 02/11/2015 | £8,085.00 JOHN ABBOTT LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054006 | 02/11/2015 | £24,620.81 CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018706 | 02/11/2015 | £9,103.12 DIOCESE OF SALFORD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018711 | 02/11/2015 | £5,662.80 CONTACT GROUP | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018713 | 02/11/2015 | £6,839.73 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018714 | 02/11/2015 | £32,280.50 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | f1004369 | 02/11/2015 | £5,494.50 ARENA | ACTIVITIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005676 | 02/11/2015 | £9,575.00 THINKING PLACE LIMITED | MARKETING EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054019 | 03/11/2015 | £27,000.00 EMO OIL LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054029 | 03/11/2015 | £9,556.61 BRAHM FUNDCO 2 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPI | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018734 | 03/11/2015 | £51,104.23 DIOCESE OF SALFORD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005683 | 03/11/2015 | £8,637.98 BINDMONT PRINT SERVICES LTD | PRINTING & STATIONERY | FINANCE SERVICES |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054052 | 04/11/2015 | £16,500.00 BLUE ORCHID MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD | GRANTS TO THE NON VOLUNTARY SECTOR | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054053 | 04/11/2015 | £16,500.00 BLUE ORCHID MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD | GRANTS TO THE NON VOLUNTARY SECTOR | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054060 | 04/11/2015 | £14,708.75 ROCHDALE TOWN CENTRE MANAGEMENT CO | GRANTS TO THE NON VOLUNTARY SECTOR | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054067 | 04/11/2015 | £5,363.20 STARFISH COMMUNITIES LTD | FEES -CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION RENOVATION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | f1004373 | 04/11/2015 | £6,973.70 CAPITA BUSINESS SERVICES LIMITED | SOFTWARE | FINANCE SERVICES |
| Rochdale Borough Council | x1011818 | 04/11/2015 | £18,000.00 KENT COUNTY COUNCIL | ACTIVITIES | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | | Organisation Name | Purchase_Order_Number Order_Date Total_Value | Supplier_Name | Account_Name | Service |
|--------------------------|---------------------|------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Rochdale Borough Council | x1011819 | 04/11/2015 | £5,487.00 YOUTH JUSTICE BOARD | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | x1011820 | 04/11/2015 | £5,310.00 YOUTH JUSTICE BOARD | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054121 | 05/11/2015 | £40,914.78 CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054122 | 05/11/2015 | £120,987.20 CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054123 | 05/11/2015 | £110,968.40 CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054124 | 05/11/2015 | £32,317.15 CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054125 | 05/11/2015 | £37,300.00 F AND G COMMERCIALS MANCHESTER LTD | PURCHASE OF VEHICLES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054126 | 05/11/2015 | £38,105.00 F AND G COMMERCIALS MANCHESTER LTD | PURCHASE OF VEHICLES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018760 | 05/11/2015 | £8,714.10 ROSS CARE | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018761 | 05/11/2015 | £11,927.14 ROSS CARE | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018765 | 05/11/2015 | £5,422.00 THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER | BASIC SALARIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018772 | 05/11/2015 | £7,879.98 BOOKTRUST | REFERENCE BOOKS/NEWSPAPERS/PERIODICALS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | x1011839 | 05/11/2015 | £6,375.00 GW4 LTD | COURIER SERVICE | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | f1004376 | 06/11/2015 | £5,439.30 BREEZE LIMITED | PRINTING & STATIONERY | FINANCE SERVICES |
| Rochdale Borough Council | ph101019 | 06/11/2015 | £215,796.00 PENNINE CARE NHS | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | ph101020 | 06/11/2015 | £369,777.00 PENNINE CARE NHS | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005713 | 06/11/2015 | £27,899.07 SPECIALIST COMPUTER CENTRES PLC | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005714 | 06/11/2015 | £104,070.00 SENITOR RECRUITMENT | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019590 | 06/11/2015 | £6,635.00 NEWLINE ADAPTATIONS LTD | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019592 | 06/11/2015 | £10,385.00 HIGH BARN CONSTRUCTION LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | x1011843 | 06/11/2015 | £9,000.00 CARITAS CARE LTD | ADOPTION PAYMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | x1011847 | 06/11/2015 | £19,800.00 INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION CENTRE | ADOPTION PAYMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054169 | 09/11/2015 | £22,691.72 BRAHM FUNDCO 2 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPI | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054182 | 09/11/2015 | £15,000.00 PROFILE SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED | SECURITY | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018777 | 09/11/2015 | £410,395.50 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018778 | 09/11/2015 | £313,620.43 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018791 | 09/11/2015 | £13,505.52 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | DEV CAP - NEW CONSTRUCTION,CONVERSION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018792 | 09/11/2015 | £8,207.13 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | DEV CAP - NEW CONSTRUCTION,CONVERSION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018793 | 09/11/2015 | £65,492.90 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | w1001167 | 09/11/2015 | £58,918.00 MAKING SPACE | VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054199 | 10/11/2015 | £9,388.34 BURNT TREE GROUP | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054216 | 10/11/2015 | £138,262.20 RIVERSIDE TRUCK RENTAL | LONG TERM CONTRACTED EXTERNAL HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054227 | 11/11/2015 | £27,000.00 EMO OIL LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054229 | 11/11/2015 | £17,011.21 AECOM INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT UK LTD | OTHER SURVEYS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054236 | 11/11/2015 | £28,476.00 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054237 | 11/11/2015 | £28,476.00 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054238 | 11/11/2015 | £28,476.00 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054258 | 11/11/2015 | £27,000.00 EMO OIL LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018810 | 11/11/2015 | £23,628.74 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | MEALS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018813 | 11/11/2015 | £47,714.26 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | ARCHITECTS FEES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018821 | 11/11/2015 | £47,817.90 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018822 | 11/11/2015 | £5,455.23 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018823 | 11/11/2015 | £664,112.01 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005732 | 11/11/2015 | £36,000.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005734 | 11/11/2015 | £28,600.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005735 | 11/11/2015 | £38,500.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005736 | 11/11/2015 | £21,600.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005737 | 11/11/2015 | £29,400.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005738 | 11/11/2015 | £24,750.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018833 | 12/11/2015 | £6,999.93 ROC NORTHWEST LTD | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019626 | 12/11/2015 | £8,774.30 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD | FEES / COMMISSION | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054287 | 13/11/2015 | £5,987.61 ROCHDALE TRAINING ASSOCIATION LIMITED | BASIC SALARIES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018840 | 13/11/2015 | £44,100.00 POSITIVE STEPS | EXTERNALLY MANAGED FUNDS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005772 | 13/11/2015 | £5,317.50 ROCHDALE TOWN CENTRE MANAGEMENT CO | EVENTS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005773 | 13/11/2015 | £15,000.00 ROCHDALE COUNCIL OF MOSQUES | ACTIVITIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019628 | 13/11/2015 | £16,667.00 NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE CCG | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019629 | 13/11/2015 | £16,406.67 NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE CCG | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | | Organisation Name | Purchase_Order_Number Order_Date Total_Value | Supplier_Name | Account_Name | Service |
|--------------------------|---------------------|------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054318 | 16/11/2015 | £370,097.30 VBA JOINT VENTURE LTD | NEW CONSTRUCTION | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054334 | 16/11/2015 | £21,871.48 AECOM INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT UK LTD | DEMOLITION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018860 | 16/11/2015 | £8,823.20 SPORT WORKS | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005779 | 16/11/2015 | £39,065.00 MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL | AGMA | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005780 | 16/11/2015 | £5,310.00 JGM AGENCY | PUBLICITY | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054350 | 17/11/2015 | £13,975.00 JMHA | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018866 | 17/11/2015 | £9,717.32 NEW BRIDGE SCHOOL | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | ph101024 | 17/11/2015 | £14,969.00 THE PENNINE ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | PH OTHER CONTRACTS | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005784 | 17/11/2015 | £14,000.00 SENITOR RECRUITMENT | AGENCY STAFF | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005787 | 17/11/2015 | £30,000.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054380 | 18/11/2015 | £7,646.62 ROCHDALE TRAINING ASSOCIATION LIMITED | BASIC SALARIES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005816 | 19/11/2015 | £31,500.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019651 | 19/11/2015 | £5,250.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD | FEES / COMMISSION | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054415 | 20/11/2015 | £24,620.81 CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | SURVEYORS FEES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054422 | 20/11/2015 | £27,000.00 EMO OIL LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054426 | 20/11/2015 | £26,179.20 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054427 | 20/11/2015 | £26,179.20 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054430 | 20/11/2015 | £6,260.00 ROCHDALE MEMORIAL SERVICE | FIXTURES & FITTINGS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018895 | 20/11/2015 | £7,500.00 CHILD ACCIDENT PREVENTION TRUST | FEES / COMMISSION | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018909 | 20/11/2015 | £17,412.00 ROSSENDALE SCHOOL PRIORY | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | ph101028 | 23/11/2015 | £5,233.00 VIRGIN CARE BLACKPOOL LLP | PH OTHER CONTRACTS | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | x1011912 | 23/11/2015 | £20,303.00 DIAGRAMA FOUNDATION | ADOPTION PAYMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | x1011915 | 23/11/2015 | £9,000.00 NUGENT CARE | ADOPTION PAYMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | x1011916 | 23/11/2015 | £7,815.80 FAMILY SUPPORT PRACTISE LIMITED | MEDICAL FEES | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054483 | 24/11/2015 | £19,500.00 OLDHAM & ROCHDALE GROUNDWORK TRUST LTD | FEES -CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION RENOVATION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018922 | 24/11/2015 | £15,000.00 ROCHDALE PIONEERS TRUST | COSTS MET BY SCHOOL | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054497 | 25/11/2015 | £12,150.00 F R SHARROCK LIMITED | PURCHASE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054500 | 25/11/2015 | £340,356.56 COMMUNITY LIGHTING PARTNERSHIP ROCHDALE LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018937 | 25/11/2015 | £31,848.00 WINGS SCHOOL EDUCATION LTD | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018939 | 25/11/2015 | £15,969.00 CUMBERLAND SCHOOL | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018940 | 25/11/2015 | £16,720.00 ARC SCHOOL | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005848 | 25/11/2015 | £8,500.00 OPTEVIA LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019667 | 25/11/2015 | £7,750.00 COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE ROCHDALE | VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019668 | 25/11/2015 | £27,000.00 COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE ROCHDALE | VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018946 | 26/11/2015 | £20,200.00 STONE COMPUTERS LIMITED | IT EQUIPMENT | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018947 | 26/11/2015 | £36,000.00 ROCHDALE PIONEERS TRUST | PROJECTS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018960 | 26/11/2015 | £6,977.53 BRIDGE 4 LEARNING | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018961 | 26/11/2015 | £26,393.00 CEDAR HOUSE SCHOOL & LOWGATE HOUSE LTD | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018962 | 26/11/2015 | £31,848.00 WINGS SCHOOL EDUCATION LTD | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054551 | 27/11/2015 | £50,000.00 A E YATES LTD | ROADWORKS | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005872 | 27/11/2015 | £23,820.00 KORUS RECRUITMENT GROUP LTD | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054576 | 30/11/2015 | £8,200.00 JMHA | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054591 | 30/11/2015 | £8,358.00 BALMERS GM LTD | PURCHASE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054593 | 30/11/2015 | £12,710.00 F R SHARROCK LIMITED | PURCHASE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005874 | 30/11/2015 | £9,800.00 MS JANE COLLIER | PROFESSIONAL FEES | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019726 | 30/11/2015 | £6,565.88 MICK TAYLOR LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054618 | 01/12/2015 | £10,951.00 ROCHDALE HOUSING INITIATIVE | FEES -CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION RENOVATION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054621 | 01/12/2015 | £5,428.80 KEY TO THE DOOR | ACTIVITIES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | ph101039 | 01/12/2015 | £369,777.00 PENNINE CARE NHS | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | ph101040 | 01/12/2015 | £119,537.00 PENNINE CARE NHS | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005886 | 01/12/2015 | £13,000.00 STEPPING STONE PROJECT ROCHDALE LTD | CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054654 | 02/12/2015 | £9,186.50 OLDHAM & ROCHDALE GROUNDWORK TRUST LTD | FEES -CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION RENOVATION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1018991 | 02/12/2015 | £19,623.57 DIOCESE OF SALFORD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054691 | 03/12/2015 | £24,300.00 EMO OIL LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019014 | 03/12/2015 | £416,199.45 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019744 | 03/12/2015 | £6,300.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD | FEES / COMMISSION | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019748 | 03/12/2015 | £7,860.00 TERRY GROUP LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | | Organisation Name | Purchase_Order_Number Order_Date Total_Value | Supplier_Name | Account_Name | Service |
|--------------------------|---------------------|------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019033 | 04/12/2015 | £9,800.00 CHRISTINE FOSTER LIMITED | AGENCY STAFF | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | f1004416 | 04/12/2015 | £50,000.00 OFFICE DEPOT UK LIMITED | PRINTING & STATIONERY | FINANCE SERVICES |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054738 | 07/12/2015 | £22,691.72 BRAHM FUNDCO 2 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPI | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054740 | 07/12/2015 | £5,485.88 EMPLOYMENT LAW ADVISORY SERVICES | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054744 | 07/12/2015 | £10,000.00 TRINITY MIRROR PUBLISHING LTD | ADVERTISING | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019040 | 07/12/2015 | £44,100.00 POSITIVE STEPS | EXTERNALLY MANAGED FUNDS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019043 | 07/12/2015 | £431,534.32 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019045 | 07/12/2015 | £12,139.34 ROYAL SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF DERBY | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054794 | 08/12/2015 | £5,495.00 CALIBRATION ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054795 | 08/12/2015 | £5,605.50 PLAYBROKERS LTD | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019072 | 08/12/2015 | £52,331.56 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019074 | 08/12/2015 | £26,000.00 G W THEATRE COMPANY LIMITED | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019076 | 08/12/2015 | £8,000.00 SCHOOL HEALTH EDUCATION UNIT LIMITED | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | f1004423 | 08/12/2015 | £422,000.00 TRAFFORD MBC | OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITIES | FINANCE SERVICES |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005933 | 08/12/2015 | £9,995.00 BLOXX LIMITED | IT MAINTENANCE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005936 | 08/12/2015 | £106,314.00 AGILISYS LIMITED | AGILISYS CONTRACT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005937 | 08/12/2015 | £106,314.00 AGILISYS LIMITED | AGILISYS CONTRACT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005940 | 08/12/2015 | £11,500.00 TRIMBLE INTERNATIONAL UK | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054831 | 09/12/2015 | £365,326.00 VBA JOINT VENTURE LTD | NEW CONSTRUCTION | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054835 | 09/12/2015 | £5,110.00 STRAND PRIVATE HIRE | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019092 | 09/12/2015 | £8,304.00 DIOCESE OF SALFORD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019093 | 09/12/2015 | £9,768.99 BRIGHT FUTURES SCHOOL LTD | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019095 | 09/12/2015 | £8,310.37 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019096 | 09/12/2015 | £8,310.37 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019097 | 09/12/2015 | £8,745.88 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019098 | 09/12/2015 | £16,038.83 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019099 | 09/12/2015 | £13,495.14 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019100 | 09/12/2015 | £8,828.33 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019101 | 09/12/2015 | £14,432.33 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019102 | 09/12/2015 | £14,432.33 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019103 | 09/12/2015 | £14,827.66 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005943 | 09/12/2015 | £17,233.83 IDOX SOFTWARE LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005951 | 09/12/2015 | £16,540.00 TRIMBLE INTERNATIONAL UK | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054855 | 10/12/2015 | £5,396.71 MANTRA LEARNING LTD | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054869 | 10/12/2015 | £8,100.00 EMO OIL LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019110 | 10/12/2015 | £30,732.28 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | MEALS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019111 | 10/12/2015 | £664,990.45 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019124 | 10/12/2015 | £8,971.64 NEW BRIDGE SCHOOL | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | f1004426 | 10/12/2015 | £6,239.91 CO-OP PAYPOINT | BANK CHARGES | FINANCE SERVICES |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005958 | 10/12/2015 | £12,420.00 TURNING POINT SERVICES LIMITED | CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005968 | 10/12/2015 | £11,900.00 EDENHOUSE SOLUTIONS LTD | AGENCY STAFF | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054889 | 11/12/2015 | £19,155.00 PENNINE PUMP & TANK CO | TREES, SHRUBS, PLANTS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019137 | 11/12/2015 | £10,104.33 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019138 | 11/12/2015 | £10,658.00 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019139 | 11/12/2015 | £10,871.16 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019140 | 11/12/2015 | £10,977.67 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019141 | 11/12/2015 | £10,977.67 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019142 | 11/12/2015 | £10,977.67 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019143 | 11/12/2015 | £10,977.67 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | f1004432 | 11/12/2015 | £21,330.00 MERITEC LIMITED | AGENCY STAFF | FINANCE SERVICES |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005969 | 11/12/2015 | £19,478.00 VICTIM SUPPORT & WITNESS SERVICE | GRANTS TO THE NON VOLUNTARY SECTOR | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005973 | 11/12/2015 | £8,500.00 SPRING TECHNOLOGY STAFFING SERVICES LIMITED | MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005977 | 11/12/2015 | £9,000.00 CIVICA UK LIMITED | PROFESSIONAL FEES | FINANCE SERVICES |
| Rochdale Borough Council | x1011981 | 11/12/2015 | £14,333.00 CARITAS CARE LTD | ADOPTION PAYMENTS | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019151 | 14/12/2015 | £11,197.29 WATERLOO LODGE SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005983 | 14/12/2015 | £6,400.00 PAM ASSESSMENTS LIMITED | TRAINING | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005983 | 14/12/2015 | £6,400.00 PAM ASSESSMENTS LIMITED | TRAINING | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE |
| | Organisation Name | Purchase_Order_Number Order_Date Total_Value | Supplier_Name | Account_Name | Service |
|--------------------------|---------------------|------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054935 | 15/12/2015 | £16,455.68 JMHA | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054936 | 15/12/2015 | £79,723.00 ROCHDALE BOROUGHWIDE HOUSING | GRANTS TO OTHER BODIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054937 | 15/12/2015 | £7,960.00 F S MOULT & SON | DEMOLITION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054939 | 15/12/2015 | £90,277.00 ROCHDALE BOROUGHWIDE HOUSING | GRANTS TO OTHER BODIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054940 | 15/12/2015 | £100,000.00 ROCHDALE BOROUGHWIDE HOUSING | GRANTS TO OTHER BODIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019161 | 15/12/2015 | £5,737.66 ROSS CARE | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019176 | 15/12/2015 | £17,196.66 NUGENT CARE | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019177 | 15/12/2015 | £12,253.00 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019178 | 15/12/2015 | £12,210.00 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019179 | 15/12/2015 | £12,659.00 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019180 | 15/12/2015 | £11,044.67 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019181 | 15/12/2015 | £11,483.33 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | f1004437 | 15/12/2015 | £12,250.00 CIVICA UK LIMITED | AGENCY STAFF | FINANCE SERVICES |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1005989 | 15/12/2015 | £5,895.00 JGM AGENCY | PUBLICITY | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019792 | 15/12/2015 | £7,316.40 NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE CCG | SOCIAL SERVICES OTHER | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054962 | 16/12/2015 | £6,458.13 NORTHGATE VEHICLE HIRE LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054982 | 16/12/2015 | £11,489.00 EARLEY ORNAMENTALS LTD | TREES, SHRUBS, PLANTS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1054983 | 16/12/2015 | £7,671.40 NORTHGATE VEHICLE HIRE LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019182 | 16/12/2015 | £6,900.00 CENTRAL MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019188 | 16/12/2015 | £25,034.08 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019189 | 16/12/2015 | £8,312.50 PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | BASIC SALARIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | ph101059 | 16/12/2015 | £415,224.00 BIG LIFE CENTRES | PH BIG LIFE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1055019 | 17/12/2015 | £28,392.00 TABARD INTERNATIONAL LTD | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | ph101063 | 17/12/2015 | £5,280.00 VIRGIN CARE BLACKPOOL LLP | PH OTHER CONTRACTS | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | ph101064 | 17/12/2015 | £14,969.00 THE PENNINE ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | PH PENNINE ACUTE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1006008 | 17/12/2015 | £45,452.09 NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE CCG | CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1006009 | 17/12/2015 | £6,440.00 TURNING POINT SERVICES LIMITED | CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1006010 | 17/12/2015 | £20,000.00 PHS RECORDSMANAGEMENT | DATA COLLECTION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1006024 | 17/12/2015 | £5,000.00 EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | w1001198 | 17/12/2015 | £60,000.00 CAREWATCH CARE SERVICES LTD | HOME CARE - ADULT SERVICES | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | ph101066 | 18/12/2015 | £119,537.00 PENNINE CARE NHS | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | ph101068 | 18/12/2015 | £369,777.00 PENNINE CARE NHS | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1006029 | 18/12/2015 | £16,250.00 MAON | ACTIVITIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1006030 | 18/12/2015 | £8,500.00 THOMSON REUTERS | REFERENCE BOOKS/NEWSPAPERS/PERIODICALS | FINANCE SERVICES |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019801 | 18/12/2015 | £24,871.73 HIGH BARN CONSTRUCTION LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019804 | 18/12/2015 | £5,139.00 STANNAH LIFT SERVICES LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019807 | 18/12/2015 | £5,520.00 NEWLINE ADAPTATIONS LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1055050 | 21/12/2015 | £336,000.00 COMMUNITY LIGHTING PARTNERSHIP ROCHDALE LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019215 | 21/12/2015 | £12,294.62 HORIZON CARE AND EDUCATION | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019217 | 21/12/2015 | £11,557.51 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019223 | 21/12/2015 | £14,921.00 BEVAN BRITTAN LLP | CONSULTANTS FEES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1055079 | 22/12/2015 | £8,154.14 NATIONAL GRID GAS PLC | ROADWORKS | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1055097 | 22/12/2015 | £104,514.63 CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1055098 | 22/12/2015 | £51,542.26 CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1055103 | 22/12/2015 | £69,007.02 CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1055104 | 22/12/2015 | £57,613.62 CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | d1055134 | 23/12/2015 | £14,604.00 QUARTERBRIDGE PROJECT MANAGEMENT LTD | OTHER SURVEYS | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE |
| Rochdale Borough Council | q1006048 | 23/12/2015 | £24,800.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT |
| Rochdale Borough Council | ph101079 | 24/12/2015 | £188,582.00 VIRGIN CARE SERVICES LIMITED | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH |
| Rochdale Borough Council | e1019242 | 29/12/2015 | £8,823.20 SPORT WORKS | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS |
| Rochdale Borough Council | s1019835 | 29/12/2015 | £7,350.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD | FEES / COMMISSION | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE |
| en |
0099-pdf |
## Planning Decision Notice
Tel: 01629 816200 Fax: 01629 816310 E-mail: customer.service@peakdistrict.gov.uk Web: www.peakdistrict.org Minicom: 01629 816319
Aldern House . Baslow Road . Bakewell . Derbyshire . DE45 1AE
To:
Mr and Mrs G Walton P.4384
| c/o |
|-------------|
| Buxton Road |
| BAKEWELL |
| Derbyshire |
| DE45 1BZ |
THIS NOTICE RELATES TO PLANNING CONTROL ONLY, ANY OTHER STATUTORY CONSENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
## Town & Country Planning Acts & General Development Order
In pursuance of the powers vested in the Peak District National Park Authority under the above Acts and Order, and with reference to your application for Full Planning Permission, details of which are as follows:
| Office Code No. | NP/HPK/0212/0126 |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date received: | 10 April 2012 |
| Proposal: | Two-storey extension to the west elevation providing a third bedroom and a living |
| room, and the removal of the existing porches | |
| Location: | Top Croft |
| Aston Lane | |
| Hope | |
Parish:
Aston
## The Decision
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT PERMISSION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT in the manner described on the application and shown on the accompanying plans and drawings is REFUSED for the following reasons:
1.
The existing cottage has previously been extended with a significant two-storey side extension. The previous extension together with the proposed extension would effectively double the size of the original cottage and in doing so the cottage would become grossly over-extended to the point at which its identity, character and appearance would be totally lost by reason of the scale and positions of the extensions. There would consequently be significant harm to the site and its surroundings. The proposed development is accordingly contrary to the provisions of Policies 1, 2 and 8 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, Policies GSP1, GSP2 and GSP3 of the Peak District National Park Local Development Framework Core Strategy, Policies LC4 and LH4 of the Peak District National Park Local Plan and the clear advice contained in the 1987 and 2007 Peak District National Park Design Guides
Signed
Date 16 April 2012
Attention is called to the notes at the end of this Decision Notice
2.
The proposed works include for the provision of a roof covering comprising artificial concrete slates. Although these have been used on the roof of the 1980s rear extension their use would be inappropriate for this extension to the original cottage, which is clad with natural gritstone slates. There would consequently be harm to the character and appearance of the building, the street scene in general and the setting of the Aston Conservation Area, the boundary of which abuts the outer walls of Top Croft on its west and south sides. The proposed development is accordingly contrary to the provisions of Policies 1, 2, 8 and 31 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, Policies GSP1, GSP2 and GSP3 of the Peak District National Park Local Development Framework Core Strategy, and Policies LC4, LC5 and LH4 of the Peak District National Park Local Plan and the clear advice contained in the 1987 and 2007 Peak District National Park Design Guides.
## Statement Of Applicant'S Rights Arising From The Refusal Of Planning Permission Or From The Grant Of Permission Subject To Conditions Please Note, Only The Applicant Possesses The Right Of Appeal. You Must Use A Planning Appeal Form/Householder Appeal Form
-
If you are aggrieved by the decision of your local planning authority to refuse permission for the
proposed development or to grant it subject to conditions, then you can appeal to the Secretary of State under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
-
If you want to appeal against your local planning authority's decision then you must do so within 6 months of the date of this notice.
-
Appeals must be made using a form which you can get from the Secretary of State at Temple Quay
House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN or online at www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs.
-
The Secretary of State can allow a longer period for giving notice of an appeal, but will not normally be prepared to use this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in giving notice of appeal.
-
The Secretary of State need not consider an appeal if it seems to the Secretary of State that the local planning authority could not have granted planning permission for the proposed development or could not have granted it without the conditions they imposed, having regard to the statutory requirements, to the provisions of any development order and to any directions given under a development order
-
In practice, the Secretary of State does not refuse to consider appeals solely because the local planning authority based its decision on a direction given by him.
## Purchase Notices
-
If either the local planning authority or the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government refuses permission to develop land or grants it subject to conditions, the owner may claim that he can neither put the land to a reasonably beneficial use in its existing state nor render the land capable of a reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted.
-
In these circumstances, the owner may serve a purchase notice on the Council (District Council, London Borough Council or Common Council of the City of London) or, where the land is situated in a National Park, the National Park Authority for that Park in whose area the land is situated. This notice will require the Council or Authority to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. | en |
2678-pdf |
## Terms And Conditions For Filming At The National Archives Important Information Please Read Thoroughly Before You Contact Us To Arrange Filming
The National Archives welcomes the opportunity to display records on film and television, however we reserve the right to refuse permission to film without stating a reason.
As a working archive our priority must be our service in delivering documents to the public and responsibility to the care and conservation of our unique and irreplaceable documents. This means we are not always able to facilitate all of the requests we receive for filming. We strongly advise you secure permission before confirming talent, travel or accommodation arrangements.
The film company/producer must agree to:
-
Credit The National Archives as the source of the records on screen and in the script (not just in the closing credits) during the film/programme itself
-
Respect and adhere to The National Archives' conservation and care requirements for document handling
## Who Can Film
Only commissioned programmes/films can film at The National Archives unless otherwise arranged with us. For security reasons you must let us know in advance the names of the crew who will visit; including any presenters, interviewees and researchers.
## How You Can Film
Original documents cannot be removed from The National Archives for filming.
All filming on the premises is supervised by staff from the Media Team. The National Archives reserves the right to terminate filming at any time if the officer in charge is concerned that the terms and conditions are not being met or that the filming is deviating from the agreed schedule or context.
The crew should stay with a staff member and wear their visitor passes at all times.
Smoking is not permitted anywhere inside The National Archives' buildings.
No drinks or food of any kind, including chewing gum or sweets, are allowed near the documents. When filming a shot, in which someone appears to be studying a document, the rules of the Reading Room (use of supports, pencils only etc) must be observed.
##
A member of the Media Team will be on hand throughout filming. Their priority is to ensure the documents are handled correctly and archival best practice is followed in the repositories. They cannot serve as a presenter in the programme or be interviewed about the documents. We encourage crews to bring their own presenters or researchers. If you wish to interview someone about the files, a Record Specialist from The National Archives can be booked in advance (see Guide to filming fees).
## Filming And The Care Of Documents
Documents are easily damaged and so they must be handled as little as possible.
We will supply book-rests, backboards and other materials necessary for the display of documents. Our documents are valuable and irreplaceable so we impose restrictions on how they are handled.
Excessive exposure to light is also detrimental, and the lighting levels and periods of exposure are kept to a minimum. Whilst filming every effort must be made to ensure that documents are not exposed to strong lighting for extended periods of time. The National Archives light fittings must not be altered but additional lighting can be used provided it is switched off between takes.
Documents must not be marked in any way and the use of adhesives, such as Postit notes is prohibited. Pages must not be removed from documents.
The National Archives Collection Care department can be on hand to arrange documents onto handling/library aids and give guidance on how to handle the documents for an additional charge (see Guide to filming fees). We can also send you information leaflets and arrange training on document handling in advance of your visit if you would prefer.
In some instances, when filming original documents containing susceptible material types, the use of protective gloves (which we supply) may be required.
## Equipment Used By Film Crews In The National Archives
The National Archives reserves the right to determine the suitability of all equipment used in filming, including its electrical safety. No equipment without a current valid safety certificate, or which does not conform to the Safety Regulations of the Electrical Institute of Great Britain and suitable British Standards, may be used on the premises. No lights or equipment may be clamped to any fixed furnishings.
The capacity of the electrical circuits, which concerns film crews, is that of any one
13 amp safety socket i.e. just over 2 kilowatts. In terms of arc or spotlighting this would be up to 1 x 2000 watt lamp or 2 x 1000 watt lamps (on a linked plug) on one 13 amp outlet. Multi outlet adaptors are forbidden even where the total wattage rating is within the 2 kilowatt guideline. Not more than 2 x 2000 kilowatt pieces of equipment should be put onto one ring-main as the overall fusing will be insufficient.
## Making A Request To Film We Require At Least 10 Working Days' Notice.
To request permission to film, please complete the online application form available from our website (www.nationalarchives.gov.uk) and submit it to press@nationalarchives.gov.uk as far in advance as possible.
We cannot hold dates unless a completed application form has been received however we are happy to discuss availability and potential timings. Please call the Press Office team on 0208 392 5277.
When an online application form has been received we will send you an email acknowledgement; this does not constitute a definite agreement to film.
Once we have given you permission to film, you will received a confirmation email detailing the date and time agreed along with the cost of the filming. Should you wish to cancel your booking at this stage please do so as soon as possible.
## Following Us Granting Permission For You To Film, You Will Receive A Confirmation Notice. Should You Wish To Cancel Your Booking At This Stage, Please Do So As Soon As Possible. Identifying The Records You Wish To Film
You are responsible for identifying document(s) you wish to film. The National Archives cannot undertake research on your behalf.
All documents have a file reference and these must be submitted to the Press Office preferably with your application or at least five working days in advance of filming. We will order documents on your behalf to ensure they are ready for your arrival - no additional documents can be ordered on the day of filming.
A maximum of 15 documents can be ordered per shoot, however it is only feasible to handle up to 5 documents within one hours' filming. Documents ordered should be used for their content and not used only as a background prop setting.
## How To Research Records
You can search our online Catalogue at nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue or for general advice on finding documents in the Catalogue telephone the Contact Centre on 020 8392 5200. Advice and detailed finding aids are available online and in our reading rooms. On site reader advisers can advise you about the different types of records and the sources relevant to particular subjects.
To view original documents at The National Archives you will need a valid Reader's Ticket.
For visiting and last document ordering times go to nationalarchives.gov.uk/visit/times.htm
## Independent Research:
Should you need support with your research we recommend the use of independent researchers vetted by The National Archives who are listed at nationalarchives.gov.uk/irlist/. You will need to negotiate a fee for this.
Filming information
## 1. Making A Preliminary Visit
We strongly advise that you make a preliminary visit to look at the filming location, to ascertain timing, lighting etc. There is no charge for this.
## 2. Locations
Tuesday to Saturday filming in public areas is restricted and will only be permitted under exceptional circumstances. We provide access to a repository (document storage area) however if filming occurs on a Monday we may also provide limited access to the reading rooms while we are closed to the public.
Filming outside in the grounds of The National Archives is allowed. Permission should be sought at least 24 hours in advance. As this is an area used by members of the public, please ensure that your equipment does not create a hazard and that people are not inconvenienced in any way. There is no charge for this unless one of our records specialists is involved.
While we will make every effort to accommodate your filming needs, please be aware that these are working areas, and in some instances filming/recording may be interrupted intermittently.
For radio recordings, we have a small studio equipped with ISDN line (0208 392
5339)
## 3. Parking
There is public parking available however, this can get busy at peak times and we are not able to reserve spaces for film crews. From 3 April 2018, car parking charges will be implemented. Further information about car parking charges can be found here: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/visit-us/how-to-find-us/
## 4. Timings
Filming should take place in The National Archives premises between 9:30 - 12:30
and 1.30 - 4.30, Monday to Friday. **The crew must be off site by 17:00.** Outofhours filming can be arranged but would have to be negotiated well in advance and may incur additional costs for security.
## 5. Cancellation Fees
Cancellations or changes to a booking with less than 48 hours notice will be liable for a cancellation fee representing 20% of the total fee, plus VAT.
## 6. Handling Documents
The National Archives Collection Care department can be on hand to arrange documents onto handling/library aids and give guidance on how to handle the documents for an additional charge (see Guide to filming fees). We can also send you information leaflets and arrange training on document handling in advance of your visit if you would prefer.
## 7. Insurance
All film crews must provide evidence that they are adequately insured in advance of filming. We accept most general public liability company insurance. Any damage arising out of filming of The National Archives material either of persons or objects will be the responsibility of the client.
## 8. Invoicing
Once the filming has taken place you will be sent an invoice by The National Archives for fees incurred and you will be given 30 days in which to pay. Please do not attempt to transfer money to The National Archives unless you have received a written invoice instructing you to do so.
## 9. Copyright
Access for filming of public records is given with the authority of the Keeper of Public Records, under s.49 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. In many cases the material copied is still subject to copyright.
Access is given on the understanding that it is the responsibility of those making the film, or photographic copies, to ensure that subsequent use of the copies does not infringe copyright. For further guidance on copyright please contact our Copyright Officer on copyright@nationalarchives.gov.uk
Copyright of non-public records held in The National Archives is subject to greater restrictions. We may have to refuse access for filming or photography of such material unless permission has been obtained from the holder of the copyright.
## 10. Use Of Material
Crown copyright material among the public records may be broadcast freely although an acknowledgement of the source of the material must be made.
The National Archives cannot give permission for the use of material that is not Crown copyright, or advice on the current ownership of any copyright which may still subsist in it.
No copyright application is required for general views of records in which detail of the contents does not appear on the screen.
## 11. Image Library Transmission Fees
To use images from the records, including photographs, you must seek permission from The National Archives Image Library, which will charge a transmission fee. Transmission fees are charged on all legible shots of documents held by The National Archives which are used in the broadcast version of your film.
Charges are dependent on the number of images and transmissions and the breadth of the rights required for example:
Two UK transmissions of one image = £113 plus VAT (£75 first flash and £38 repeat)
Worldwide buyout of one image (all TV, media and in perpetuity) = £350 plus VAT It is your responsibility to contact The National Archives Image Library to determine charges and arrange payment. Email image-library@nationalarchives.gov.uk, call 020 3908 9131.
## 12. Crediting Source Material
The National Archives must be credited on screen, and in the script, during the broadcast programme as the source of the records.
Please inform The National Archives of the date and time of the proposed broadcast and forward to us an electronic version or DVD of the programme for our reference.
## 13. Social Media
The National Archives reserves the right to mention the filming session, including the subject matter and document reference using social media including, but not exclusively Twitter, Facebook or in a Blog to be uploaded the day before, during, or after the programme is aired. The film company/producer agrees to accept that a photograph can to be taken at the time of filming to be used exclusively for the aforementioned functions.
For further information please contact us on+ 44 (020) 8392 5277 or email us at press@nationalarchives.gov.uk | en |
2137-pdf |
## Hmrc Declaration Of Confidentiality
THIS IS MADE UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE COMMISSIONERS FOR REVENUE AND CUSTOMS ACT 2005 I, ......................................................., am an Officer of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. I solemnly declare that I understand and acknowledge my obligations of confidentiality imposed by section 18 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act. Declared before……………………… Signed…………………………………. Date……………………………………..
## Commissioners For Revenue And Customs Act 2005 Section 18 - Confidentiality
(1) Revenue and Customs officials may not disclose information which is held by the Revenue and Customs in connection with a function of the Revenue and Customs.
(2) But subsection (1) does not apply to a disclosure-
(a) which-
(i) is made for the purposes of a function of the Revenue and Customs, and (ii) does not contravene any restriction imposed by the Commissioners,
(b) which is made in accordance with section 20 or 21, (c) which is made for the purposes of civil proceedings (whether or not within the United Kingdom) relating to a matter in respect of which the Revenue and Customs have functions,
(d) which is made for the purposes of a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings (whether or not within the United Kingdom) relating to a matter in respect of which the Revenue and Customs have functions, (e) which is made in pursuance of an order of a court, (f) which is made to Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, the Scottish inspectors or the Northern Ireland inspectors for the purpose of an inspection by virtue of section 27, (g) which is made to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, or a person acting on its behalf, for the purpose of the exercise of a function by virtue of section 28, or (h) which is made with the consent of each person to whom the information relates.
(3) Subsection (1) is subject to any other enactment permitting disclosure. (4) In this section-
(a) a reference to Revenue and Customs officials is a reference to any person who is or was-
(i) a Commissioner, (ii) an officer of Revenue and Customs, (iii) a person acting on behalf of the Commissioners or an officer of Revenue and Customs, or (iv) a member of a committee established by the Commissioners,
(b) a reference to the Revenue and Customs has the same meaning as in section 17,
(c) a reference to a function of the Revenue and Customs is a reference to a function of-
(i) the Commissioners, or (ii) an officer of Revenue and Customs,
(d) a reference to the Scottish inspectors or the Northern Ireland inspectors has the same meaning as in section 27, and (e) a reference to an enactment does not include-
(i) an Act of the Scottish Parliament or an instrument made under such an Act, or (ii) an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly or an instrument made under such an Act. | en |
1964-pdf | 11 March 2019
Pedro Abrantes
Head of Analysis and Rail Economics
ORR
Jlh Floor
Piccadilly Gate
Manchester
M1 2WD
Dear Pedro,
## Mpa, Orr Discussion On Railfreight Charges
The Mineral Products Association (MPA) is the trade association for the Aggregates, Asphalt, Cement, Concrete, Dimension Stone, Lime, Mortar, and Silica Sand industries. We are the sectoral voice for mineral products and quarrying. All of the aggregates operators engaged in the rail freight of aggregates and other mineral products are members of the MPA. You will be aware that these materials represent the largest flow of rail freight materials measured by tonnes lifted and rail freight use has increased significantly in recent years.
The MPA and our members are keen to make full use of rail freight and to this end MPA has been active in trying to identify obstacles to sustaining and increasing rail freight volumes. This includes engagement with policy makers and planning authorities to ensure the safeguarding of rail depots and infrastructure. This is a continuing challenge although we are making some progress.
However in addition to operating and potential operating constraints related to site safeguarding and infrastructure, there is growing concern amongst MPA
members with rail freight interests that rising regulatory and operating costs may impact adversely on the commerciality of industry rail freight, including track access charges.
The pre-announcement engagement with the ORR had focused on the impact on the railfreight sector as a whole. While it is good that the overall impact of charges are reasonable, the significant impact on the Construction industry in terms of cost increases was not discussed or consulted over until the final announcement. We would welcome the opportunity for a more detailed explanation on the decision and the decision-making process, how it was taken and the science behind it, including associated Network Rail
The MiMral Products Asscclatlor, Is the trade
amxlatior, for the aggregates, a,pl\31Ê cemenË
concrete, dlmemlon stone, lime. mortar and
silica sand lndust!le,
Rcgistere<i In Engl
anÌ a, Mineral P,oduct,
Íssodation Limited No, 1(,34996
Rcg:ste
red at the above address
calculations, as it has significantly increased the costs on the Bulk sector.
The total bill for Freight Operators is unclear as a result of a change of mechanism and we would welcome a better understanding of the consequences of this change. Many customers have "pass through"
arrangements which may now be difficult to quantify. Previously Freight Operators paid a per train fee (type of wagon multiplied by a factor of weight x distance) plus other charges such as the Variable Usage charge to establish their overall bill. However some of the charges have been scrapped and others changed so understanding the overall impact on costs for freight operators running Construction services is a difficult calculation.
Despite encouragement from all parties to invest in new track friendly wagons
(particularly in light of track access charges apparently related to damage caused to the track by bulk services) the differential between track friendly and other wagons appears to have reduced, reducing the future incentive to invest in track friendly wagons. It would be helpful to understand the basis for this reduced differential.
In the ORR data the damage and costs to be recovered by the Bulk sector included an estimate that around 10-15% of track damage is made by Network Rail with their own trains. However these services do not pay track access. It is unclear how these costs are then recovered in the model? It appears that the cost is then spread among the rest of the Bulk sector. Could you confirm this ft if this is correct, given NR maintain the railway for the whole industry
(passenger and all types of freight) we would question why bulk freight appear to be bearing these costs?
The total cost for many of us of using railfreight in our supply chains includes paying for the network and also other ancillary costs such as the rental costs on our railheads, many of which are owned by Network Rail. Given the acknowledged societal benefits of railfreight, has any analysis been done on the significant cost increases of both track access and rent at the same time? While rents are not a regulated charge they are generally determined by a single landlord and are increasing significantly. The compound and cumulative costs arising from these charges are substantial and should be recognised by our regulator.
We are working hard to maximise the use of railfreight in our businesses but the upward direction of costs referred to in the previous paragraph makes it more difficult to sustain corporate commitments to railfreight given the substantial long terms costs associated with the business. It appears that we are being penalised for success and it would be unfortunate if this success in increasing railfreight volumes creates a perception, or a reality, that we are regarded as a cash cow by our regulator and landlord.
We look forward to discussing these issues at our meeting on 18 March. I have signed the letter on behalf of my industry colleagues listed below.
Jerry McLaughlin Executive Di rector Phil Aust Group Head of Development Day Group Jason Black Director Mendip Rail Simon Blake General Manager Midland Rail Aggregate Industries Oliver Brown Development Director Brett Group Mark Grimshaw-Smith Head of Rail and Sea Cemex Chris Swan Head of Rail Tarmac | en |
4739-pdf |
## Licensing Sub-Committee Thursday, 31 October 2013
COUNCILLORS:
Councillors Hill, Duncan and Hibbert
OFFICERS:
Phillip Bayliss (Senior Licensing Officer) Mehboob Kassam (NBC Solicitor)
Nathan Birch (Democratic Services Officer)
THE APPLICANT:
Paul Maylunn, trading Standards
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES:
Sgt Mark Worthington, Northamptonshire Police
## 1. Premises License Review - Euro Express, 114-116, Abington Street, Northampton Nn1 2Bp
The Chair noted that the licence holder, nor any representative of them, was present. The Licensing Officer confirmed that the Notice of Review had been applied on September 13th 2013 and four letters confirming the details of the hearing had been issued by 1st class post.
No response to any of this correspondence had been received from the licence holder. In light of all statutory notices and correspondence being served in time the Committee agreed to proceed with the hearing.
## 2. Introduction By The Licensing Officer
Mr Bayliss, the Licensing Officer, introduced the reports and outlined that this was a Review of the Premises Licence for Euro Express, 111-116 Abington Street, Northampton. The Review had been called for by Trading Standards.
## 3. Presentation By The Applicant -Trading Standards
Mr Maylunn explained that he wished to outline the case and reasons for the Review in open session, but in light of any potential prosecutions he requested that as per the Licensing Act 2003, Section 14(2), the public be excluded for the remainder of the evidence. Trading Standards had called for a Review of the Premises Licence as they did not believe the Licensing Objective regarding the Prevention of Crime and Disorder was being upheld. Trading Standards officers had visited the premises between January and July 2013 and found the premises on each occasion to be selling cigarettes that they believed to be counterfeit and/or smuggled. The cigarettes in question were being sold at £4.50 per packet, when the same original and duty paid cigarettes should retail at between £7.50 - 8.00 per packet. They believed this was clearly an illegal operation with significant effects on local business, including the loss of parallel sales, a loss of revenue to Customs and Excise and an increase in public health issues from the sale of cheaper tobacco.
## 3A Presentation By The Applicant -Trading Standards (Part Ii)
RESOLVED: To exclude the public under Licensing Act 2003, Section 14(2) for the remainder of Mr Maylunn's evidence.
## 4. Representation By A Responsible Authority - Northamptonshire Police
Sgt Worthington presented the representation of Northamptonshire Police as set out in the papers. The Police had reports of two separate incidents of sales to drunk individuals. The first had occurred in June 2013 when two drunken individuals were seen to be served from the premises by PCSO Earl. Sgt Worthington explained that the PCSO had challenged the staff in the store and they had agreed the customers were drunk, but under law the PCSO did not have the power to issue a Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND) regarding the offence.
The second incident was on 16th September 2013 when PC Clabby had witnessed another sale to a drunk individual and had issued a PND and caution to the seller. PC Clabby had also ascertained from a member of staff at the premises that Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) Mr Durmaz was no longer part of the business. PC Bryan had spoken with the owner regarding the DPS and applying for a Premises Licence Variation, but nothing had been forthcoming. PC Bryan had noted various breaches of the Licensing Conditions for the premises including lack of staff training; lack of training records; CCTV only available for 24 hours after recording; no staff, including the owner, trained to use the CCTV system; blocked escape routes; lack of notices regarding noise when leaving; Challenge 25 not being operated; lack of refusals register. PC Bryan had issued a Closure Notice on 20th September 2013, but the owner had not responded to this.
Sgt Worthington submitted that they there had been drunk sales, conditions on the licence were being ignored and the Police did not see any other conditions that could be applied. Together with the Trading Standards evidence this suggested to him that revocation of the Premises Licence was the only option.
## 5. Presentation By A Responsible Authority - Northamptonshire Fire And Rescue
Northamptonshire Fire Rescue were unable to attend the hearing due to operational requirements, but had asked via the Licensing Officer that the Committee particularly consider the final paragraph of the written submission. Namely that there was "minimal fire safety management" and that the owner was "unaware of their obligations to look after staff and customers in respect of fire."
## 6. Summaries
The applicant was invited to present their summary by the Chair. Mr Maylunn explained that the premises had been open for 2 years and the issues outlined today had been clearly identified to the owner by the authorities concerned. There continued to be concerns around a situation that did not seem likely to change and that the Licensing Objective of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder was not being upheld. There seemed to Trading Standards no option other than to revoke the Premises Licence.
## 7. Decision
RESOLVED - The Committee has considered the evidence submitted by Trading Standards, the Police and the Fire & Rescue Service and notes that the owner and license holder of the premises has made no representations to the contrary. The Committee, being satisfied that notice of the hearing had been served within the statutory guidelines and that it was not in the public interest to adjourn the hearing, had decided to proceed. The Committee felt unanimously, in view of the serious and repeated breaches of the Licensing Act 2003, that on the balance of probability the current operation of the premises is not promoting the Licensing Objective of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder. Therefore, the Committee has decided that the premises licence be revoked, the revocation being deemed to be both appropriate and proportionate. The Committee has also decided to that the named Designated Premises Supervisor be removed. The solicitor was called to give legal advice on the Licensing Act 2003, the legal test to be applied and the options available before the Committee. The licence holder has the right of appeal against the decision, the appeal to be lodged within 21 days of notification of the decision.
RESOLVED: To maintain Part II of the Trading Standards evidence as exempt from publication, by virtue of Schedule 12(7) of the Local Government Act 1972.
## The Meeting Closed At 12:07
| en |
4529-pdf | # Planning And Financing Sustainable Education Systems In Sub-Saharan Africa - Education Research Paper No. 07, 1993, 32 P.
Table of Contents Perran Penrose This is a 1998 reprint of a paper originally issued in 1993
Serial No. 7
ISBN: 0 90250 067 8
## Department For International Development Department For International Development - Education Papers
This is one of a series of Education Papers issued from time to time by the Education Division of the Department For International Development. Each paper represents a study or piece of commissioned research on some aspect of education and training in developing countries. Most of the studies were undertaken in order to provide informed judgements from which policy decisions could be drawn, but in each case it has become apparent that the material produced would be of interest to a wider audience, particularly but not exclusively to those whose work focuses on developing countries.
Each paper is numbered serially, and further copies can be obtained through the DFID's Education Division, 94 Victoria Street, London SW1E 5JL, subject to availability. A
full list appears overleaf. Although these papers are issued by the DFID, the views expressed in them are entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the DFID's own policies or views.
Any discussion of their content should therefore be addressed to the authors and not to the DFID.
## Table Of Contents
Affording the unaffordable: Planning and financing sustainable education systems in Sub-Saharan Africa
## Part I: Issues
A. Introduction and background B. Resources, costs and data C. Alternative sources of education finance
## Part Ii: Approaches To Reform
A. Issues in planning and budget reform B. Implementing improved systems C. Conclusions: Affordability and sustainability
[Table of Contents] [Next Page]
## Affording The Unaffordable: Planning And Financing Sustainable Education Systems In Sub-Saharan Africa Summary
The first part of this paper sets out briefly some of the basic issues facing education policy makers in Africa, including the introduction of school fees and the private provision of schools. I argue that there has been insufficient attention paid to how policy advice is implemented, and that one of the weakest - if not the weakest - link in the chain of policy implementation is the relation between planning and budgeting, including how budgets are made. There has been a tendency to put broad educational policy objectives on the one hand and the economic planning and management of resources on the other into two separate compartments, so that while there is no shortage of analysis of what needs to be done, the means of achieving given objectives are often unspecified. This has led to unfortunate and self-defeating tensions between those who propose policies in international financing agencies and in governments, and those who must manage the implementation of these policies. As a result, most countries will experience considerable difficulty in implementing simultaneously the triple initiatives of expenditure reallocation, improved budget management and system expansion.
Most African public sector budgeting procedures and formats have not changed significantly since colonial times, and they cannot cope with translating short and medium term adjustment policies into practice. The second part of the paper is concerned with approaches to strengthening and/or reforming the planning and budgeting for education in African countries. These involve the full or partial replacement of annual incremental planning and budgeting systems with approaches which may be more appropriate to current problems. I suggest that many attempts to undertake necessary reforms have not succeeded because they have been limited to interventions in the education sector ministries without reference to government budgeting and administration systems as a whole. Reforms should also take full account of the need to strengthen a potentially beneficial relationship between the state and the private sector.
With these improvements better use can be made of external assistance which has, I argue, not always served those countries which benefit from it as well as it might have. The objective of the changes suggested in this paper is to enable countries to Use their limited resources better and avoid stop-go educational development policies in order to achieve the capability of providing an education service which is both sustainable and affordable. In this respect governments have a crucial role to play in the process of change, even if in some aspects the 'market' will succeed where government planning has failed.
[Top of Page] [Next Page]
[Previous Page] [Table of Contents] [Next Page]
## Part I: Issues
A. Introduction and background B. Resources, costs and data C. Alternative sources of education finance
## Affording The Unaffordable: Planning And Financing Sustainable Education Systems In Sub-Saharan Africa A. Introduction And Background
In many African countries, in spite of public expenditure restraint under various programmes of macroeconomic adjustment, there has been a steady increase in government expenditure on education. Although public expenditures on education expressed as shares of GDP have remained more or less constant, they have declined after debt costs are taken into account.1 At the same time average public expenditures per student are declining in real terms or are stagnant at low absolute levels because of population growth and increased participation. This 'educational stagflation'2 has long been recognised, as has the necessity of finding ways of using existing resources more efficiently and of augmenting total resources allocated to education derived both from tax revenues and 'private' contributions.3 There is a considerable body of literature which sets out the appropriate policy targets,4 but severe problems remain.
However, there has been insufficient attention paid to how policy advice is implemented, and one of the weakest - if not the weakest - link in the chain of implementation is the relation between planning and budgeting, including how budgets are made. Most African public sector budgeting procedures and formats have not changed significantly since colonial times, and they cannot cope with translating short and medium term adjustment policies into practice. Although the individual citizen's 'right' to education is now universally accepted, and although governments are obliged to respond to the 'social demand' of their populations for education, it cannot be denied that the provision of education services absorbs real resources which are limited at any given time and which can only achieve in most African countries a modest growth over time. There has been a tendency to put broad educational policy objectives on the one hand and the economic planning and management of resources on the other into two separate compartments, so that while there is no shortage of analysis of what needs to be done, the means of achieving given objectives are often unspecified. This has led to unfortunate and self-defeating tensions between those who propose policies in international financing agencies and in governments, and those who must manage the implementation of these policies.
This paper explores this problem and some of the solutions proposed to overcome it, with particular reference to Sub-Saharan Africa, although many of the observations and approaches are equally applicable to South Asian, Caribbean, and Latin American countries, as well as some of the former Soviet republics. It is essential that there be greater awareness of budgetary, fiscal and macroeconomic issues in the discussions of the critical shortage of finance in most African education systems. In this respect governments have a crucial role to play in the process of change even if in some aspects the 'market' will succeed where government planning has failed.5
The first part of this paper sets out briefly the basic issues, and discusses some current policy recommendations, including the introduction of school fees and the private provision of schools. The second part is concerned with approaches to strengthening and/or reforming planning and budgeting for education in African countries in order to provide a better base for the implementation of policies. These include the replacement of annual incremental planning and budgeting systems with approaches which may be more appropriate to current problems. I suggest that many attempts to undertake necessary reforms have not succeeded because they have been limited to interventions in the education sector ministries without reference to government budgeting and administration systems as a whole. Reforms should also take full account of the need to strengthen a potentially beneficial relationship between the state and the private sector. With these improvements better use can be made of external assistance which has, I
argue, not always served those countries which benefit as well as it might have. The objective of the suggested changes is to enable countries to use their limited resources better and avoid stop-go educational development policies in order to achieve the capability of providing education which is both sustainable and affordable. There are a number of factors which influence the planning and financing of sustainable education systems, and they include-,
(a) demographic factors (b) national economic performance, including the structure of the economy, degree of industrialisation and rural/urban economic activity, unemployment, the distribution of income, etc
(c) external assistance and levels of external debt (d) patterns of previous provision and 'social demand'
(e) external advisers and external 'models'
## (A) Demographic Factors
The growth of population in most African countries has resulted in an accelerating demand for basic education, and, as a natural consequence, for higher levels of education. In general this growing demand has exceeded the rate of growth of resources available to satisfy it. Although the ratio of the 0-14 age groups to the 15-64 age groups in low income countries is predicted to fall (from an average of about 40-50 per cent in
1989 to 30 to 40 per cent by 2025), implying an increase in the size of the population of working age, the ratio of taxpayers to non-taxpayers is likely to remain much lower than that found in developed countries for some time to come, while the structures of the growing education services in less developed countries which are mainly financed out of tax revenues are arguably comparable to those of the more developed countries. At the same time the rate of urbanisation will effect the delivery of education because of the different characteristics of urban schools.
## (B) National Economies
The level of industrialisation in different countries is an important aspect of the nature of the relationship between education and training systems and the employment markets. In this sense 'levels' of industrialisation refer to a continuum with preindustrial countries (Africa, South Asia) at one end, moving through light and heavy industry to high technology industry at the other end. For example, countries such as Korea with high and growing quality control in industry require a very different approach and education content from countries with negligible industry and little drive for quality control. Countries dominated by low skilled rural employment differ from those with high skilled urban employment. Countries where school and university leavers are likely to be employed within a reasonable time after graduation have very different relations between education systems and labour markets from those with high rates of unemployment. At all levels of development trainability is a prized factor among employers, but in more industrialised countries basic school education and trainability are extremely important: without these attributes new entrants to the labour force can quickly become marginalised.6 In pre-industrial countries marginalisation may take place irrespective of education and training simply because of insufficient employment opportunities in relation to the number of qualified applicants. The issue of job creation is crucial. Increased public investment in the expansion of education systems may mean less resources devoted to job creation: the Pacific rim countries have demonstrated the strong potential role of governments in this area.7
Expansion of education in economies with restricted employment opportunities may not always be the most appropriate use of government resources.8 Industrial growth in Africa will be limited, and while formal education will play a direct part in this growth, it will be also significant in terms of indirect influences such as on the redistribution of income,9 and as a base for specialised training. Although some10 insist that the state should not play a direct part in providing finance for training, experience from Asian countries suggests that there is a case for the state doing so.11
## (C) External Assistance And Public Debt
Countries in Africa, South Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America which have recently experienced a decline in their economies suffer from falling or stagnant tax revenues, and therefore from a decreasing ability to provide additional public domestic finance for growing public services.12 In order to support the increased claims on public spending, in some countries foreign aid has assumed such significant proportions that education systems are largely supported by it.13 The data conceal the volumes of external aid supporting education systems, which may be proportionally larger than in other sectors, and also conceal the varying applications of aid within different parts of education systems. Donors have put considerable pressure on African countries to accept financial and technical assistance to develop their education systems.14 Yet the relation between external funding and domestic capacity to pick up the resultant capital repayment and interest costs as well as the associated recurrent and capital replacement costs has consistently been ignored, or if not ignored, it has been assumed that economic growth will take care of the problem. There have been many attempts to quantify the finance gaps, from the millions of dollars needed in the 1960s to reach 'takeoff' to the UNICEF
attempt to show how much is needed to provide basic education for all.15
In principle, the argument runs, the combination of the extension of education provision and other externally financed investments will accelerate growth and development and also fulfill basic requirements and entitlements, justified on moral grounds. However, whatever the longer term effects, the expansion of education systems has demanded a rapidly growing share of fiscal resources while tax revenues cannot keep pace with the increased demands. The resultant decline in the quality of public provision has meant that it is no longer possible to take indices such as examination results and enrolment rates as indicators of returns to this public investment. For example, a common structure of an education system is a primary-secondary-tertiary cycle which may cover 15 years altogether. If a six year primary education cycle is characterised by illiterate school leavers it must be concluded that there is something inappropriate about such a system. If schools lack books, equipment and decent buildings and furniture, the reasons for their very existence is in question.
Encouraged by the Jomtien conference, most of the current literature which considers education finance appears to start from the premise that schooling for all (SPA) by the year 2000 is an axiomatic objective.16 There are parallels with the commitment to Universal Primary Education (UPE), which was promoted often with little real regard for resource requirements. The global objectives are endorsed by governments, which are encouraged to aim for them and are promised external finance to support their aims. Governments themselves seem to have had little real confidence that they could make sufficient resources available. There should by now be sufficient experience to realise that these targets are not attainable, and, more importantly, that trying to attain them through heavy doses of foreign aid leaves major problems of sustainability.
The amount of public finance available for spending on education has been severely affected by the volume of the interest costs of government debt which have first claim on fiscal revenues. However, over the period of adjustment in many countries the volume of government expenditure has risen slowly in real terms. Social sector spending has also risen,17 but because of the requirement on governments to service debts the rate of increase of public expenditure is limited. The significance of the combined influences on education of the growth and distribution of population, recession, and rising interest payments, has not only reduced the extent to which tax derived public expenditures can support the growing demand for services: they have also affected the availability of private finance, that is, the total resources available. On the government side, the debt burden combined with population growth has rendered many governments' attempts to cope with the social sectors a Sisyphean task. One of the difficulties which face policy makers and sectoral aid donors in Africa in the near term is how to judge the debt problem: much foreign aid would be unnecessary were debt to be cancelled because it would allow more domestic finance to be reallocated for education.18 On the private side, as public sector provision, which is a function of economic capacity, declines, households are forced to contribute more of their own resources through fees and other types of tax, though in many cases there may be very little surplus in the household budgets.
## (D) Advisers And External 'Models'
Educators from developed countries have generally not accepted that education systems may develop through 'stages', and that these 'stages' reflect the capacity of a country to provide a reasonable quality of education to its citizens within its resource constraints.19 A aucial factor in many countries has been the role of foreign advisers whose advice has been supported by large sums of foreign aid.20 Their influence has been compounded by the demonstration effects of the education systems of developed countries: these systems evolved over many years largely on the basis of their close relationship to employment markets. Countries which are 'late developers' have imported wholesale foreign techniques and institutions, including examination systems which have become the main linkage between schooling and restricted employment markets, dominating both.21 Although there were many who were well aware of the growing tendency of foreign aid to promote the 'western' norms of the quantitative evaluation and assessment of extrinsic educational characteristics,22 there has over the years been a tendency to promote the expansion of education systems by making them more complex and 'modern' without concomitant attention to assessment reform. This is analogous to the heavy promotion of better seed varieties and husbandry practices for peasant farmers while ignoring the issues of crop pricing and marketing.
## (E) Patterns Of Previous Provision
One of the main constraints on reform policy is the expectations and aspirations generated by the provision of education and training in the recent past. The determinants of this provision are complex and include cultural and social, as well as political and economic, factors. This paper does not explore this aspect in detail, partly because of its complexity, and partly because there are significant variations between countries. A principal manifestation of popular aspirations to education is in the sensitivity of political authorities to current 'social demand' and the resulting reluctance of governments to take difficult decisions on the basis of the long view rather than of short-term concerns. There are wide differences in patterns of previous provision between countries. Some have had large university sectors (at least in terms of their budget shares), while others chose not to develop post-primary education. Attitudes to girls' education vary between countries, as do local communities' attitudes to participation in schools. The status of teachers also varies. Some countries have over the years developed strong elements of private provision. In response to 'social demand', existing government budgeting and planning further consolidate short term incremental planning, reflecting a seemingly inexorable and immutable progress on the basis of past trends and views. The changes that need to be made are in many cases so large that it can be difficult to see where to start and how they can be implemented. Major differences between countries in this respect dilute the value of 'global' prescriptions. I have, in this introduction, sought to suggest that there is little reason to assume optimistically that the approaches of the last two decades will be appropriate for the next decade, a position which is directly contrasted to that of the Jomtien conference and the view that resources will be made available through the combination of efficiency measures and foreign aid in a period of growth in the nineties. The 1990s are now a third completed, and there is little evidence that the necessary steps are being taken quickly enough, if at all. The cumulative effect of the factors summarised in this section is to force the conclusion that the environment for education development in many countries is hostile to progress, and likely to remain so.
The main differences between education policies which were most widely advocated in the 1970s and the first half of the 80s, and those now widely proposed by international agencies and others, arguably relate to the role of the 'market'. Much of the literature on reform is based on assumptions about 'the market', and on how reducing the role of government can create competition and therefore efficiency. Cost recovery and privatisation are often regarded not only as means of augmenting resources, but also as sufficient conditions for greater efficiency. There is at the same time a general acceptance of the desirability of Schooling for All (SFA), just as there was of Universal Primary Education, and (SFA), is widely enshrined in public education plans. These are essentially and inevitably long term objectives and do not address the problems which we currently face. This paper tries to steer a way between the Scylla of the market and the Charybdis of Jomtien. I express scepticism both about market solutions and about the feasibility of significant expansion of education systems, at least in their present forms. While the Jomtien objectives are desirable in principle, the first step must be to do what we can to ensure that governments are capable of managing the reforms in many African countries. This in itself will take up the rest of this decade.
## B. Resources, Costs And Data
It is important to distinguish between educational expenditures and educational costs, and to relate them both to a given product. Analysis of education systems can be misleading because of the failure to make these distinctions. This is exacerbated by the inadequacies of data. In that policy prescriptions can have wide-ranging effects, it is most important that they are made on as full an information base as possible. The purpose of this section is to define briefly the appropriate terms for subsequent analysis.
## (A) Education Expenditures
Budgeted and Actual Expenditures. Expenditures are actual money outlays. It is necessary for the analyst to distinguish between budgeted expenditure on the one hand and actual expenditure on the other: actual expenditures include household and other non-government expenditures. A common error in education finance analysis is the assumption that budgeted expenditures equate to actual expenditures. This is partly because the standards of public accounting in many countries are very poor, and only budgeted expenditures are available in the public domain. Publication of actual expenditures, which are often incomplete, is usually at least two years after the end of the fiscal year,23 and budget estimate books commonly have three types of analysis:
actual expenditure (present minus two years), revised budget estimates (last year) and budget estimates for the current year. In that the expenditures can be as much as 30 per cent over or under the estimates, the use of budget data as a proxy for expenditure is particularly misleading.
Total Expenditure Estimates. Another common feature of education analysis is the presentation of tables showing 'total expenditure on education', which normally, of course, show only total government (often budgeted) expenditure, sometimes of the Ministry of Education only. Firstly, household expenditure is a major component of total expenditure: at the primary level, for example, household direct expenditure on education can equal and indeed surpass government expenditures. Secondly, most education budget estimates fail to include the interest costs of capital and project expenditures, whether financed by loans, grants, or 'own' funds. Thirdly, in many countries external assistance, which may not be included in the government budget, can substantially increase total expenditures. Fourthly, it is well known that public expenditures on education and (more so) on training are made in many other ministerial sectors apart from education. These omissions or inaccuracies can result in substantial underestimates of actual expenditures.
## (B) Education Costs
While costs to the economist are a measure of what has to be given up to achieve something, to the accountant they are money outlays (except for depreciation). Economic costs are made up of direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are usually money expenditures. Where average, or unit, direct costs are analysed, they often refer only to public expenditure divided by the appropriate unit, usually enrolments, at a given point in time for a given level of educational provision. The total direct costs of education exceed the levels of expenditure by governments, and the excess is borne by households and firms. To define the direct costs it is necessary to specify at the same time what is actually being purchased. The difference between the actual expenditures and the (estimated) direct costs of providing a reasonable quality and quantity of education is the level of under-funding.24
For example, the costs of production of books can be more or less estimated, a 'reasonable' level of teachers' salaries can be proposed based on various measures and indices, building costs are usually known within, say, a 20 per cent variation for any given design, and the maintenance of pupils, teachers, materials, equipment and buildings can be estimated within an acceptable level of tolerance. If we then buy what we understand as 'education' but in fact receive something different, we have purchased a different product, and its costs are not those of 'education'. If we say that we are buying 'education' we expect that what we are buying will serve its intended purpose. In this sense education expenditures do not equate to education costs in this particular time period.
Total cost, however, is a wider concept, and includes the costs to society as a whole, usually termed 'social costs'.25 The measurement of what has to be given up to purchase education is complex. The most widely analysed indirect cost is the 'opportunity cost' to individuals and households, that is, the alternative uses to which they could have put the resources had they not invested them in education. Less widely analysed are the opportunity costs of government expenditure and of external assistance. External assistance can promote inefficiency, as in the case, for example, of 'tied aid', where recipient governments are obliged to purchase goods and services from the 'donor' country even though these goods and services might be more expensive than suitable alternatives available from other sources. Another social cost which is little analysed the cost of tax finance. Raising and administering taxes require expensive bureaucracies. In most countries tax systems discriminate against the poorer sections of the population, or they encourage the inefficient use of resources. Finance raised through such systems has significant social costs. While we are mainly concerned with government expenditures and the planning of the education sector, it is necessary to bear in mind the nature and scope of costs of provision of education, as we will see later.
## (C) Data
The education system analyst requires three categories of basic data, 'physical' data relating to enrolments and other quantities, financial data relating to costs and expenditures, and economic data relating to the economy as a whole. Interpretative data are derived from these basic data, such as enrolment rates, average expenditures and other ratios National Income Accounting. At the apex of the data structure national income accounts are frequently drawn upon for policy prescriptive purposes. The unreliability of national accounts is well known, but despite this they continue to be widely used, for example, in comparing government education expenditure as a ratio of GDP between countries, and in advocating that expenditure on education reach a given level, say 5 per cent, of GDP. In these cases the numerators and the denominators of the ratios are so unreliable that the resulting ratios are of little use, especially for comparative purposes.26
Public Budgets. The next commonly used aggregate financial interpretative data are educational expenditures expressed as proportions of public expenditure. The most frequent failure in considering these data is the need to distinguish between discretionary and non-discretionary expenditure. Interest payments on government debt are a priority obligation in government expenditure. Sectoral budgeted expenditures are therefore secondary claims, and government has discretion on allocation. Total discretionary budgeted expenditure is therefore total budgeted expenditure after provision for local and foreign government debt repayments is made.27 Many analysts cite ratios which use total budgeted expenditure as the denominator, and it is not always clear from published statistics whether debt obligations are included or not in the total recurrent budget estimates. Some countries have been expected by international institutions to raise sectoral shares because of confusion of discretionary and total expenditures. If the 'gross' ratio of education expenditure to total recurrent expenditure (including debt repayment) falls over time it is difficult to determine whether the fall is because of increased debt repayments or because government policy is to reduce expenditure on education. The debt issue cannot be overemphasised and is discussed further below in relation to capital budgeting and foreign aid.
The next key issue is the composition of education budgets. Different countries include different items, and Ministry of Education budgets do not include all budgeted expenditures on education in many countries, particularly those in which education management responsibilities are devolved on local government or federal state ministries. It is often difficult to determine the total public budgeted expenditure on education because of the variety of data sources that must be consulted.28 Published and easily available data within countries rarely provide information on education finance which is useable for detailed analysis. Few government Statistical Abstracts and Digests include budgetary data. Capital Budgets. A major data weakness is capital budgets, which are often very misleading since many contain recurrent elements and omit foreign grant and loan contributions. The servicing of foreign loans is to be found in a consolidated budget, and does not form part of sectoral budgets, although there is a case for them to be recorded there. Capital budgeting is discussed later. Educational Cost Benefit Analysis. A final point should be made about rate of return analysis. The use of internal rates of return to education has been vigorously promoted over the last fifteen years, and has had a great influence on education policy, although the reported historic 'high' rates of return have not been reflected in many cases in overall national economic performance. The technique has many serious flaws, most of them being well known (such as its inability to take quality into account29, and the equation of differences in earnings with the effects of education on productivity), some less so (such as the true extent of costs and benefits, including social costs and benefits30, and externalities31). Internal rate of return to 'education' calculations are without doubt subject to serious upward and downward bias (which may not, contrary to the suggestions of some writers, cancel out), yet the findings, surprisingly calculated to a single decimal point, are invariably used to justify the emphasis of public investment on primary education. The use of cost benefit analysis for education policy making is not the subject of this paper, but it has had important effects on education planning and budgeting. In reality, it takes many years to redirect public expenditure from one level of the education system to another, during which time relative internal rates of return may alter between levels for several reasons, including their dependence on average wages of school leavers which may change rapidly in a short time.32 As such a redirection may imply the introduction of fees and private education, of which there is little experience in many countries, there are major political and social issues at stake. While cost-benefit analysis in principle provides important policy data, in practice the potential for significant error suggests that evidence of internal rates of return to schooling should be used with circumspection, if at all, particularly in countries with low school quality.
## C. Alternative Sources Of Education Finance
Although it is by now universally recognised that public education systems in most African, South Asian, Caribbean and Latin American countries are severely underfunded in relation to what they are trying to achieve, the mechanisms for improving efficiency are not in place. Progress can only be made if planning and budgeting are improved, and this cannot happen while ancient and inappropriate government financial and planning approaches and systems remain. In general, governments must follow one or both of two types of policy to improve the quality and level of provision of education. On the one hand existing resources must be used more efficiently, and on the other resources must be augmented. A necessary condition for both must be the development of realistic budget and expenditure control systems for all government expenditures which work hand in hand with better planning. The necessity of a public subsidy to education is justified by the presence of constraints on private credit (individuals often cannot borrow to finance education); imperfections in the availability of information (parents may systematically underestimate the value of education because of lack of information); externalities (such as the apparent relation between length of primary schooling and reduced fertility rates); and the public good aspect of education. Public goods are goods which, because they cannot be withheld from one individual without withholding them from all, must be supplied communally. Access to basic education might qualify as a public good. The presence of any of these conditions indicates 'market failure', and as they are all to a greater or lesser degree applicable to education, subsidies to the provision of education services can be justified on economic grounds. At the same time, funds for education, whether from tax or nontax sources, are not infinite, and will always be rationed. The case for providing a fully subsidised service is thus undermined by the inability of net fiscal sources (ie taking also into account direct and social costs incurred in providing subsidies out of taxation) to satisfy the social optimum, taking into full account the various external benefits to education. Even were sufficient funds to be available to support a fully subsidised system, bureauaatic inefficiency in unaccountable education services leading to
'government failure,'33 would have to be taken into account. A balanced approach is therefore needed.
Efficiency. Much of the literature considers the option of reducing unit costs.34 But improvements in efficiency can take place, with or without reductions in unit costs. If we use the average cost per student as a measure of efficiency, then clearly costs may be reduced by reducing the quality of the product. It is difficult to see how average costs can be reduced in many African countries without further deterioration in the system. Some components of average expenditures should be reduced, but should result in transfers to other components in order to *increase* average expenditures per pupil or teacher. This is contrary to the view of those who believe that the greater role of the market permits governments to save money.35 The problem for the public sector is to raise average expenditures within the constraint of existing total public expenditures: and for the education system as a whole, total and average expenditures must be increased within the constraint of *net additional* private resources. Embedded in the proposition that unit costs can be reduced is the inescapable need for the scope and volume of publicly financed activities to be reduced. 'Efficiency' measures will yield some transferable funds in the form of available cash. This is important. For example, many education projects have had as their stated aim the increase in pupil-teacher ratios in order to reduce the total number of teachers, the resulting 'savings' then to be applied to other parts of the sector. In reality, under the usual budgeting systems, what savings that are made are rarely identifiably transferred in the form of extra cash for, say, books. They are translated into a reduced rate of growth of the education budget: increments on non-salary charges are held at the 'normal' rate. In the context of extreme underfunding it is not clear how significant such transfers will be. Sources of additional funding will tend to be found outside the normal tax system in the foreseeable future. The 'liberalisation' of the education market, the encouragement of private schools and the formalisation of cost-recovery schemes are expected to go a long way to bridge the finance gap. Most countries expect a growing proportion of total expenditure on education to come from non-fiscal sources. The main point to be made at the policy level is how far user fees can and should augment, and how far substitute for, public resources, assuming, of course, no deterioration in the quality of the product. There is relatively little evidence on which to base confident predictions of the extent to which expenditures on education can be increased through allowing a market in education service provision to develop. The development of such a 'market' would be through (a) the introduction and expansion of 'user fees'; (b) the expansion of the private education sector; and (c) the greater use of non-government sources of specific goods and
## (A) User Pees End 'Cost-Sharing'
It seems to be widely accepted that subsidies should be focused on primary education, and that the higher up the system the lower the subsidy should be.36 However, because of higher costs, the ratio of subsidy to private contribution generally increases the higher up the education pyramid a student climbs.37 Whereas direct parental contributions finance up to half or in some cases even more of the total expenditure at the primary level, this share falls rapidly at the public secondary level. At the university level direct and indirect parental contribution as a proportion of total expenditure is often very slight. In order to reduce the burden of subsidy at higher levels many countries have introduced compulsory fees for secondary and tertiary education.38
User fees may replace government subsidies to education, they may augment them, or they may partly replace and partly augment at the same time. Most proponents of fees assume that fees should and will augment total expenditures. In general it seems that the approach proposed by Thobani39, which has influenced the thinking of international agencies involved in education, is most widely accepted: fees should be increased so long as there is 'excess demand' for the service. As I have noted, however, deterioration in the education system changes the product and 'excess demand' has little meaning. Excess effective private demand for 'education' as a service which will clearly benefit its 'users' by enabling them to learn will not be observed because of this. In a number of African and South Asian countries parents are withdrawing their children from school because of poor quality and because they do not consider schooling relevant to their needs. Clearly, where there is substantial underfunding combined with deteriorating quality, gains from increased user fees may generate resources for expansion and quality improvement, and add significantly to total resources expended on education. However, it is not at all evident that sufficient attention is given to substitution effects. If household budget ceilings are fixed, the requirement to pay fees could well mean that money which had previously been spent on children and schools (for example, on books and construction), would be switched to fee payments, and parents would expect a greater level of public provision to provide what they themselves had previously provided. This means that no augmentation of total expenditure on education would take place. Similarly, little is known about the opportunity costs of fees paid by the 'rich' for higher education, though much is written about the need to lower taxes to promote investment by the 'rich'. It is thus necessary to distinguish between compulsory fees and voluntary contributions, and to understand the degree of substitutability between them. Where compulsory fees are concerned, a distinction must be made between fees collected by the school and used in the school, and those collected and administered centrally. Compulsory fees are in effect 'earmarked' taxation, that is, taxes collected for a specific purpose,40 where they are for compulsory education. As I have noted, taxation has its own associated costs, and therefore the result of charging fees which cause households to transfer expenditure from direct voluntary contributions to compulsory fees could result in a net decrease in education expenditure due to the costs of fee collection and administration.
In addition, many fee proposals may not have sufficiently considered the effect on households of the combination of user charges and the tax system. The collection of fees and non-fee contributions for compulsory education outside the tax system, either through coercion or through deliberate starvation of subsidies forcing up private contributions, can increase the regressive nature of the tax system.41
Two broad justifications are commonly advanced for 'cost-sharing' policies. The first is that governments have insufficient revenue expenditure to finance education services fully; and the second is that a decreased reliance on 'government' revenues will promote competition and therefore efficiency. In so far as 'cost-sharing' in education has any meaning at all it refers to the sources of finance for education. Sources may be discretionary or non-discretionary for both household and government budgets. Both governments and households have limitations on what resources they can budget for any given activity. For individuals and households there are three types of 'costsharing': (a) voluntary contributions; (b) obligatory charges which do not go into government revenues but are retained, for example, at the school; and (c) obligatory charges which go into government revenues. Voluntary contributions may be correctly considered as cost-sharing while obligatory charges must be considered as taxes. However, where government allows for a certain level of 'voluntary' contribution by deliberately reducing subsidies, even voluntary contributions become obligatory.
The basic question is what affects the relative levels of voluntary and obligatory expenditures. Taxes and compulsory fees paid by individuals are obligatory (nondiscretionary) they must be paid - and hence there is no essential distinction to be made between them. Where fees are used directly for a specifically identified purpose, unlike most taxes which go into a common pot, they may be considered as earmarked, but they are nevertheless obligatory. 'Cost-sharing' does not therefore signify a division of financing responsibility: revenues still derive from citizens. Rather it signifies a redistribution of financing shares. The basic relation between public expenditures on education on the one hand and direct payments households may make apart from their normal tax obligations on the other is that the *payments that households make are generally residual,* that is, after public subsidies are taken into account citizens are asked to-make up any shortfalls. There is therefore a clear relationship between public sector efficiency and the level of 'private' contribution: parents may be required to pay more to support government or private sector inefficiency. How can I, as a parent, influence the *costs* of the education which I
am *obliged* to cover, directly or indirectly, whether for public or private education, if I want my children to be educated? Can I say 'reduce the number of subjects so at least some are well-resourced'; or 'in our school we can't afford all the teachers we are allocated'; or 'change the school year and modify the examination system to fit into the fishing calendar so my children can help in the fishing season'? I can't, of course. The whole construct of the 'market' is that it creates competition and choice, but it is obvious to nearly every parent, particularly those without much money, that in reality there is not much choice, and hardly any at all where the determinants of the costs of education are concerned.
There is a major need for research into the relation between the costs of schooling and how people can pay them. At the household level expenditures may be made from current income, from borrowing, and from sales of assets. Nearly all surveys of household expenditure assume expenditures to be from current income. But if the sum total of current income is insufficient to cover household expenditures, whence comes the income to make up the difference? It must come from debt or from sales of assets. If it comes from other members of the extended family it may come from current income, or from debt, or from sales, but in aggregate the total incomes and expenditures must balance. Assets such as cows or taxis earn income. It may make sense to sell them if they finance higher yielding assets, rather than if they finance consumption. If households sell assets to finance education, assuming education to be investment and not consumption (many, if not most, surveys treat education expenditure as consumption expenditure), it is, in effect, a switch of investments out of cows or taxis into human capital. Thus, where individuals are required to purchase education, it is necessary to understand the sources of finance used for the purchase. If I believe my children will earn more from having attended school, the additional future earnings might enable me to buy two cows or two taxis, and my short-term hardship might be justified. If in fact they do not earn sufficient to have made my sacrifice worth while, I have made a serious loss. Moreover, society has also made a loss. In the past budget deficits were financed by government borrowing and foreign aid. In principle there is nothing wrong with a deficit as long as people are willing to finance them. As governments are no longer able and/or willing to finance deficits, households and firms are being asked to do so. If individuals wish to receive education and an academic certificate they will have little choice but to pay increasing levels of fees, regardless of the efficiency of government provision. This is the logic of the Thobani 'rule'.
As I have mentioned, the argument is that at the primary level parental contributions should in general augment public resources, while progressively at the higher levels they may to some degree substitute for public resources, but in order to redirect the resources to basic education. In reality, this is hard to achieve. Higher government expenditure on primary education might, for example, enable poor households to release money used to finance education for other equally important uses. Furthermore, in countries where equity considerations are important in policy making, it is possible that focused subsidies such as scholarships will reduce net revenues from fees, as the costs of subsidies are balanced against the extra revenue from fees.42 Where fees substitute for public finance, it is assumed that the public finance thus released will be returned to the education sector in other areas. This, as I have noted, is one of the basic justifications underlying fee proposals such as those found in the cited World Bank literature,43 but it is by no means clear from this literature that it actually happens. I
suggest that it is unlikely to happen in the absence of appropriate planning and reformed budgeting systems.
## (B) Private Educational Provision
Much of Africa's 'modern' education system up to independence was private in the sense that it was run by missionaries. The secularisation of education and the perceived need for nation-building, as well as in some cases political activities of churches, led to an almost total take-over of educational institutions by governments. Missionary schools were not profit-making, but aimed for self-sufficiency, depending on local and foreign contributions. The reasons for encouraging the development of private schools in less developed countries generally lie with the inability of governments to provide sufficient student places from tax finance. Like fees, it is a way of capturing more private finance outside the tax system. This is deemed to be more efficient in the sense that it avoids the costly public bureaucracy necessary to administer the public system. However, it is necessary to take into account the costs of regulation.44 At the same time private schools, particularly in that they operate for the most part within education systems in Africa which are geared to getting pupils through examinations, may, if left sufficient flexibility, serve as centres of innovation, even to the point of shortening the length of the primary or secondary school cycle with no loss of examination success. The European experience, particularly in Scandinavian countries, provides interesting examples of this phenomenon. There is an important distinction to be made between profit-making and non-profit private schools. In the case of private profit-making schools there is no reason to suppose an equally proportional relationship between rises in household spending on schooling and total expenditure on education because of the profit which school owners take out. It is thus by no means axiomatic that the replacement of public schools by private schools will result in an equal augmentation of resources, particularly when regulation costs are taken into account.45
The privatisation of education may not necessarily favour the better off by the creation of elite private schools access to which is restricted by price, as is often believed. There may be significant incentives to compete for subsidised school places, which are allocated on entry requirements which include academic performance as measured by examinations. Examinations have distorted education systems and equated examination passes with education. To the extent that there is a relation between examination success and relative social advantage, examinations become a rationing device for future study, and favour the better off in their search for publicly subsidised school places. More importantly, whatever the economic status of students, those with lower academic achievement, which is not the same as saying those with less academic ability, may have less access to good schools.46
There is undoubtedly an important role to be played by private schools in African countries. How important remains to be seen. Private schooling should not be seen as a panacea, and its potential as a future demand on government obligations under multipart systems must be borne in mind: where private schools may suffer financial problems there may be strong calls for government help.47 Private systems are often subsidised directly or indirectly, and may account for a proportionately larger percentage of total expenditure than of total enrolments. Indeed, the real issue is how subsidies to 'private' schools are operated, as in most countries they operate through the tax system or directly though grants. In many ways it is unhelpful to be constrained by the term 'private', and perhaps we should consider the issue more in terms of diverse forms of state funding. To realise the possibilities that exist significant changes would be required in how government budgets for education are made up and regulated.
## (C) Alternative Provision Of Goods And Services
Many countries have now contracted the publishing of school books to private sector publishers, and are contracting teachers and others to work on curriculum development, in contrast to previous reliance on Ministry of Education units to do this work. There has been less experimentation in some of the other parts of the education service, particularly in high cost areas such as the training of teachers. As teachers make up the single greatest cost component of primary and secondary education, and, at the same time, in nearly all countries perceive themselves to be underpaid and working in poor environments, a prime concern must be to improve their conditions. To achieve this they must (a) have more capital to work with (better buildings, books and equipment, etc); and (b) in most countries have improved salaries. Yet because teachers are in most cases only supplied by government which is constrained by public expenditure ceilings, neither of these improvements are likely to be achievable in most Sub-Saharan African countries in the near future.
In addition, the cost of teachers to schools is fixed by centrally determined norms, expressed both in salary scales and levels of qualification. In many countries the problems of poor quality in schools are also found in teacher training institutions, and the professional capability of teachers suffers. Put another way, although teachers may possess appropriate paper qualifications attesting to years of training, they are not axiomatically well-trained teachers. This would explain to a large degree the findings of researchers which suggest that the level of training of teachers may not be significantly associated with pupil performance in many countries, particularly in primary schools.48
Any discussion of education fees and private schooling in Africa is likely to end indeterminately as most countries have little experience of the complex interaction between household and government expenditures and the quality of educational provision. The relevance of the issue to public budgeting is the need for planners to determine the amount of private finance available to supplement government finance at all levels, and to determine the effects of the distribution of subsidies on the availability of education to all income groups. The foregoing brief discussion of approaches to augmenting the resources which are available to support the development of educational systems highlights the problems facing planners in the implementation of the proposed 'new priorities'. While several key policy targets are proposed, they are often based upon assumptions that have not yet been tested and which have a number of practical difficulties attached to them. Countries should not accept such policy advice without giving careful thought to how it should be initiated and tested. This involves setting place the appropriate mechanisms to allow them to do so effectively.
[Previous Page] [Top of Page] [Next Page]
[Previous Page] [Table of Contents]
## Part Ii: Approaches To Reform
A. Issues in planning and budget reform B. Implementing improved systems C. Conclusions: Affordability and sustainability
## A. Issues In Planning And Budget Reform
The approaches discussed in this part of the paper arise directly out of the analysis of issues in Part I. They are concerned primarily with the question of how to achieve sustainable reform of education systems through better use of domestic resources combined with focused applications of foreign aid. I argue that a key reason for the whole or partial failure of many initiatives, whether they be related to financing education, to the introduction of curriculum reforms, to the improvement of teacher quality, or to the introduction of greater participation of communities in schooling, to name four common reform targets, has been the neglect of budgeting processes. This neglect has now become critical because of the inability of most budget systems to cope adequately with contraction. The problems addressed in this paper are not new, as I have noted. It has long been recognised that available resources have been spread more and more thinly over more students at the expense of quality and effectiveness. In spite of this, answers to how plans and resources should be related have rarely been addressed in technical detail. While, for example, the first *IIEP Fundamentals of Education Planning* monograph published in 197049 specifically proposed reforms to budgeting and related techniques, training courses and technical literature did not take these proposals forward. Part of the reason was that during the 1970s economic and political conditions were such that in many countries, supported by foreign aid, there was little perceived need to make the necessary changes. In anglophone ax-colonies the same budget systems as were implanted in colonial times are still in use. The Educational Budget. The budget is the most significant influence on sectoral planning and management, and is the most comprehensive policy document issued by Government. That budgeting needs to be improved is generally recognised in the aid literature, although there appears to have been little academic interest expressed in the subject in professional journals, but less well understood are the difficulties in altering significantly the structure of planning and budgeting in one sector only. It is necessary to take into account the changes needed in the entire system of which the education sector is a part. Otherwise fundamental incompatibilities will exist between sectoral and Treasury formats. The result of the failure to change the structures of planning and budgeting has meant that exhortations to achieve greater efficiency cannot be effectively translated into practice.
Furthermore, discussions of planning and budgeting cannot concentrate solely on recurrent budgeting alone, as has so often been the case. Capital budgets, in some countries replaced by 'development'50 budgets, is a crucial aspect of the planning process, as is the need to account effectively for the use of foreign aid. In some countries foreign aid represents a significant proportion of total government education expenditure in itself, while in others the volume may be low relative to total spending although its influence on policy may be significant. I outline below the different types of budgeting, followed by a consideration of the approaches to budgetary and planning reform which are, I suggest, necessary conditions for sectoral reform. Types of Budgeting. Budget techniques and processes can be placed at different points on a continuum which ranges from incremental approaches at one end to programme and zero-based budgeting at the other. Incremental systems are used in public budgeting in most countries and take as their starting point the budget and sometimes the actual expenditure for the previous year. These systems tend to be departmental in their objectives. Rational51 systems relate budgets to objectives and take into account wider objectives which cut across departments and institutions. The problem is therefore to combine the ideal with the practical.
## (A) Incremental Budgeting Systems
Most current systems are in an incremental bid format based on line items in the budget categories. Separate ministries, departments and institutions prepare the next year's estimates in isolation from each other, adopting as their base point the current year's volume of services and expenditure levels. These estimates take the form of bids, as in an auction, and when they are aggregated they inevitably exceed the amount available to finance them. In an efficient bid system departments then adopt a systematic approach to reducing their bids. In most African countries teacher salary budgets are largely inviolate, and last minute reductions in non-salary budgets are imposed by Ministries of Finance, often with no consultation with the bidders. Control of sorts is exerted over salaries merely by allowing them to decline in real terms, although if total budgets also decline in real terms the proportion of salaries in the budgets remains constant.52
Disadvantages of Incremental Budgeting. This system suffers from many disadvantages:
(a) It cannot cope with reviews of the base budget, and consequently bidders are unlikely to propose reductions. The objective for each bidder is to maximise the bid, and the strongest available argument is the volume of the base year's expenditures, which consequently must be maintained even if they are unnecessary, in the case of underspent allocations. (b) It encourages a fragmented, departmental approach, in which public departments which have common objectives bid against each other, even when their aims are related. This fragmentation in its extreme forms is manifested by different departments bidding against each other for exactly the same purpose.53
(c) It takes no account of objectives, but emphasises financial control of inputs. The bureaucratic imperative is to keep within budget, but no attempt is made to evaluate the effectiveness of the expenditure in achieving agreed goals. A continuing and idealised relationship between inputs and outcomes is assumed: as long as the money is spent the desired outcome is assumed to be achieved. (d) It encourages a short term view. Budgets are annual exercises. Where capital budgeting is concerned there is no room for estimating incremental recurrent budget implications, and the planning horizon is short.
Advantages of Incremental Systems. The principal advantage of the incremental systems, and the reason for their robustness in the face of their deficiencies, is that they are readily amenable to the political process of negotiation.54 The base is not challenged, and disputes can therefore be focused on the incremental proposals, which in the education sector can be conveniently divided between salary and non-salary expenditures, the former being politically more sensitive than the latter. Incremental budgeting encourages compromise and the mitigation of conflict. Sometimes the political process creates pressure for the increase of a line item precisely because of the fixed nature of the base: a common example of this is boarding costs for secondary school pupils. The final decisions on the budget, whether from the Ministries of Finance or from political sources, are invariably removed from the budget managers, who may be among the last to be notified, and hence there is little room for conflict. The political dimension cannot be ignored. The failure of many budget reforms had its roots in the resistance of political authorities to reviewing and cutting programmes which in some way would threaten their positions or even government stability.55 The result has been, however, a progressive deterioration of education systems in times of financial stringency, as no means have been available to adapt services to available resources.
## (B) 'Rational' Budgeting Systems
The combination of more or less fixed base budgets and concern with quantities of throughput rather than with quality and quantity of output must be characterised as an irrational combination for planning and budgeting purposes in the sense that the level and allocation of resources are not derived from a reasoned consideration of relative priorities. 'Rational' forms of budgeting require that the justification of each item of expenditure be related to a target output, itself related to an overall policy goal or set of goals for the education sector and for the economy as a whole. Programme Budget Systems. At the other extreme from bid budgeting are Planning Programming Budgeting Systems (PPBS), referred to here generally as Programme Budgeting (PB).56 Although budgets are, in principle, plans expressed in financial terms, in practice, particularly in government budgeting, their construction may become divorced from specific objectives and targets and become driven by other criteria. Programme Budgeting is basically an approach to the formulation of plans and budgets where attention is focused on objectives, and activities are grouped into 'programmes'
each one of which is concerned with a single objective.57 In a company this approach is an alternative to departmental budgeting where each department of the organisation makes a budget. Instead, planning and budgetary control may cut across departments where each department is concerned with a part of a programme. The application of the approach to government budgeting may or may not alter expenditure control mechanisms, but will affect how the budget is built up and how the activities on which the budget is based are monitored. The mechanics of PB are broadly as follows:
(a) Establish sectoral policies with overall goals broken down into programmes with defined objectives, sub-objectives and activities; (b) Analyse programmes in terms of
(i) identification and quantification of resources required to meet objectives (ii) existing resource allocations
(iii) identification of alternative ways of achieving the objectives derived from needs analysis
(iv) comparative quantitative and qualitative evaluation of alternatives and their social and economic costs and
benefits;
(c) Prepare budgets on the basis of the analysis, with narrative statements of output measures and justification; (d) Feedback and review.
Zero-Based Budgeting. A form, which in some ways is less extreme and in others more, is Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB), which requires that the total cost of every item included in a budget be justified and approved. No base or minimum expenditure for any activity or budget line is automatically acceptable. The approach forces an evaluation of all expenditures and their associated activities. ZBB seeks to expose functions and goals which may have exhausted their usefulness. In its purest form PPBS is a limited technique because of its complexity. It was introduced into US and UK public budgeting58 in the 1960s and 70s, but its attractions began to fade. There are practical problems in allocating activities to programmes and developing accounting systems that cut across departments. There is considerable potential for conflict as base budgets are regularly reviewed. Within government structures it is difficult to encourage multi-disciplinary approaches, particularly if it means a reduction in the volume of activity in a department in order to rationalise. Finally, there is a danger of policy instability and frequent major changes, often occurring because planners were wrong in their initial assumptions and forecasts. They became replaced by systems which retained elements of PB, with enhanced capability for regular value for money surveys of programmes and improved virement systems. As with PPBS, ZBB is impractical as a standard system. It is not in general physically possible to subject programmes and activities to annual reviews of their base assumptions. It is, however, possible to establish *ad hoc* mechanisms for scrutinising the base, such as value for money studies. These, together with elements of PB, form the basis of a system of practical budgeting which is feasible in its aims and techniques, and flexible in its mechanisms. Education planners will readily recognise the features of the system: they are the basis of effective planning. It is possible to develop approaches to budgeting which take account of the strengths and limitations of each system and of political and bureaucratic realities. In brief, the overall objective of any reform to budgeting must be to combine the planning function with the budgeting function, and to subject financial allocations to proper scrutiny of the activities which they support. New budgeting and planning procedures must retain the virtues of the traditional systems while at the same time they must reduce its defects.
Advantages of Programme Budgeting. There are two key advantages of the programme approach to the budgeting of public resources. First, it demands by its very nature participatory planning and policy making from the bottom up, and it hence makes the allocation of public resources more democratic. This is important when resources are inadequate: public dissatisfaction can be minimised if there is a broad consensus on their disposition, and enhanced transparency creates a better atmosphere for the introduction of cost-sharing. Secondly, plans can be monitored, and budget control ceases to be limited to ensuring that financial ceilings are not breached. It provides a means of short term monitoring of targets which can only be achieved if the resources allocated to them are realistic in the first place. In other words, plans are directly related to available resources. Effective budgeting depends on good estimates of what resources are available. Under incremental budgeting, even if budget ceilings are given in advance, institutions within the system still benefit from trying to bargain higher shares, with the main arguments revolving around their previous allocations. The reduction of the volume of activities to be supported by the budget is rarely an option. Institutional planners may build up their budget bids on, for example, numbers of pupil places, books required, etc. but these bids are rarely derived from a conscious *prioritisation* of activities, but rather from maintaining or improving the *status quo.* It is unlikely that a system which is based only on incremental budgeting can effectively incorporate a process of ranking activities in order of priority and costing them. This is made more difficult by the need to effect changes over periods of more than one year. For example, teachers' salaries have over the years in many countries become treated as fixed costs, and all other charges to the budgets are residual, yet everyone recognises the absurdity of employing people who cannot do their work because of inadequate facilities and equipment and who are inadequately paid. Education systems are major employers, and this makes restructuring difficult because of the human implications of reductions in the total system: it is difficult to plan a way out of the problem in the absence of immediately available and substantial additional resources. Financial Planning Systems. In order to overcome this problem, systems which may be described as 'financial planning' or 'volume planning' systems are increasingly employed. These are concerned with longer planning horizons, usually of three years, and are characterised by the advance provision of expenditure guidelines, joint capital and recurrent budgets and a more relevant budget specification and classification than the line item budgets described above. However, their focus is still primarily incremental and they do not involve *a priori* justification of the base budget. The emphasis is still a departmental one, and the same criticisms relating to the measurement of outcomes may apply. However, when considered on a rolling basis with programme budgets, they become powerful tools for medium term planning.
## B. Implementing Improved Systems
The main problem which in many cases seems almost insuperable without major political commitment is that rational budgeting techniques in education sectors cannot be introduced effectively without reforming total budget systems, across all sectors. The approach to realising reform is described below, and, as I argue, the approach must be at a reasonable pace. Its basic elements are:
(a) the introduction of linked rolling plans and budgets, which involves:
(i) strengthening macroeconomic forecasting for the purposes of overall government revenue estimation (ii) better estimation of domestic revenues for education (iii) identification of near-term education sector objectives
(b) strengthened decentralised processes in planning and budgeting, involving:
(i) a more 'pyramidal' planning structure (ii) identification of 'planning/cost centres' for planning and
budgeting purposes
(c) the introduction of programme elements into budgets, which involves:
(i) revisions of budget formats and classifications (ii) identification of programmes
(d) reform in capital budgeting (e) better procedures for planning and reporting foreign aid grants and loans (f) improved expenditure estimation
(g) more accountable budget implementation and improved expenditure control
## (A) Rolling Plans And Budgets
Rolling expenditure planning enables governments to have a medium-term perspective of the future financial obligations created by existing policies. A three year perspective is usually considered reasonable and feasible. Revenue and expenditure budgets are made for the current year and for the next two years, and as each year draws to a close, a new third year is added. Rolling plans should be distinguished from development plans, which are mainly concerned with new policies and interventions. They are not substitutes for annual budgeting, but are part of the process of preparing for annual budgets by setting indicative planning targets for the ministerial sectors. They allow sector planners to prepare forward estimates of their financial requirements which are then considered in relation to the predicted available resource ceiling. The technique allows time for sector planners to adjust their plans and expectations to resource constraints, and gives a certain degree of security about the future. In many ways, the adoption of medium term forward budgeting by its very nature pushes the system towards programme budgeting. Most of the policy reforms discussed in the first part of this paper need to be tested in the countries where they are introduced: experience in other countries may not necessarily be relevant, though some have more evidence of success than others. By establishing mechanisms whereby they can be tested without major disruptions governments will have greater flexibility to innovate and also insure against effects of failure. Data deficiencies can be remedied and policy makers alerted in good time to problems which may arise. Rolling planning and programme budgeting are essentially 'bottom-tip' in character, and the effects of policy changes can be evaluated within the normal planning process as managers respond to changes. Improved classification of revenue and expenditure can ensure that there is greater transparency in government budgeting, allowing *inter alia* the assumptions behind fee and local taxation systems to be tested adequately.
Economic Forecasting. The common and conventional reaction of civil servants accustomed to the old British budget procedures is that government cannot safely predict what it will be able to spend next year, and therefore cannot make advance budgetary commitments. In many countries education sectoral allocations have sometimes not been approved until after the start of the fiscal year. While in some instances this is understandable, there is a certain absurdity to this view when considering education systems and the predictability of their base financing requirements: the main issue is by how much expenditure can be increased. It is possible to make reasonable predictions of government revenues over a three year period, and to make sufficient allocation to education to cover 'core' expenditure, and then to allow for under or over estimation which would mainly effect the rate of increase of education expenditure, perhaps through contingency budgeting. The revenue forecasts can be adjusted every year, and, of course, during the year. The assumptions on which they are based should also be made known so that sector planners can evaluate them and be prepared for changes.
Estimation of Education Sector Revenues. Most education planners would prefer to have some indication of the likely future allocations to education to no indication at all.
A weakness of line item budgeting is that it encourages planners to defend existing budget allocations rather than to seek better ways of allocating their revenues: if it becomes apparent that a particular line is no longer important it is difficult for planners to argue that they should keep the sums allocated for transfer to another line, which would then receive a proportionally greater increase than the 'normal' rate of increase. The base for education planning is enrolments in educational institutions: it is from these that all physical requirements derive. Enrolments can reasonably be predicted, although there is a surprising number of countries which do not have up to date and acceptably accurate enrolment data.59 The more certainty about the level of finance in the near future, the easier it is to plan realistically for institutional maintenance and growth, and also to programme significant changes in systems. Planning on an annual basis can be a barrier to change. If it is estimated pessimistically, any additional revenue expenditure can be contingently planned, on a percentage basis (for example, 20 per cent of any additional to forecast total revenue will be allocated to education), and/or against contingent budgets (if further resources become available, supplementary budgets which have already been drawn up are ready for implementation). At the end of each fiscal year plans and budgets are prepared for the 'new' third year, on the basis of the sectoral expenditure forecasts given for that year. Without the parallel introduction of rolling multi-annual budgeting it is likely that all budget processes will be pulled back to annual incrementalism. It may also be the case that some of the objections to incremental planning can be overcome by multiyear planning, thereby reducing the scope of necessary changes to the system.60
Consolidated expenditure forecasts should distinguish sources of revenue. Thus government budgets alone may not reflect the full costs of the system, but obligations to finance the system fully must be defined in plans. If this is not done, policy decisions about relative allocations within the sector become meaningless. For example, if the university sector receives one half of its total revenues from domestic resources, and, say, the other half from foreign aid; and if the planned structure of total education expenditure indicates a desired proportion of university expenditure as being no more than 15 per cent of total expenditure; the government budget may reflect such a proportion, but in terms of total expenditure the proportion might reach, say, 25 per cent because of relative favouring of universities by foreign agencies. Once revenue forecasts for education are available, they need to be broken down to the sub-sectoral levels (primary, secondary, tertiary, etc); and then to the different planning/cost centres (see below).
Medium-Term Sectoral Planning. Multi-year budgeting encourages medium-term sectoral planning. It should also discourage an excessive concern with long term vaguely quantified strategic plans (such as ten year plans), which are necessary, but which should be relatively short statements of policy and intent. The failure of most African countries to sustain progress in achieving plans is sufficient warning of the inadequacy of the long term planning approach. The three year plans will be the expression of the detailed direction of the system. If revenues are on a falling trend, then planners are in a position to plan for retraction (or lack of expansion) rather than wait for a suddenly imposed regime of expenditure cutbacks.
## (B) Improving The Planning System
A necessary condition for the introduction of better planning and budgeting is improvement of the processes of plan formulation. Under the current systems in most countries, Ministries of Finance in the end are the real policy makers, particularly in times of contraction. There is little point in improving the processes because in most cases the work which goes into developing budgets is wasted when the final budget hearings take place. In other words, planners and the people on whose behalf they are supposed to plan are disenfranchised and subject to last minute arbitrary decisions. This has become a way of life and is accepted with resigned fatalism. Planning and budgeting should not be passive tasks. Plans and budgets need to be implemented, and accountability for implementation should rest on those who have formulated them. Many, if not most, systems tend to divorce the planner from implementation, and in top-down systems such as those in most African countries, planners (and politicians) make decisions for others to implement without extended and real consultation. Strengthening educational planning and budgeting would include the introduction of a *pyramidal structure of planning and budgeting* which would involve all relevant players in the process. The obvious basic unit of planning activity is the education institution. At the primary level the school might in principle be considered as a centre of activity, although primary schools would probably not be feasibly translated into planning/cost centres (a cluster system would be more effective). In many countries this is not dissimilar to earlier education systems which emphasised local control. At the secondary level it is more feasible to introduce an element of school based budgeting and planning.
## Pyramidal Planning Structures. In A System Which Contains A Number Of Layers In The
planning and budgeting pyramid, a longer budget time horizon allows planners to devolve many planning functions. Over time more and more disaggregated budget centres could be informed of the resources available to them on a three year rolling basis. The experience of voluntary agencies working in basic education, for example, demonstrates the feasibility of allowing village committees how to decide to allocate given sums of money. The shape of the system is illustrated in Figure 1.
Overall sector strategy, planning and budgeting
Joint function of central ministries, including finance and education ministries
Sub-sectoral planning budgeting, and
expenditure control.
Sectoral ministries.
Regional planning, budgeting and expenditure control.
Regional
Institutional budgeting, planning and expenditure control.
Universities and colleges; secondary schools
District budgeting, planning and expenditure control
Districts
Sub-district budgeting, planning and expenditures control.
Sub-district agencies, schools, communities.
A strength of this approach lies in the legitimation of the allocation of reduced and insufficient finance for given activities: if communities and institutions can decide how to spend their limited resources rather than have it decided for them they are arguably more likely to 'own' their schools and institutions and contribute to their development.
There are some important implications of the approach at the school level, most particularly relating to the training, recruitment and payment of teachers. The heterogeneity of education systems must also be recognised. Approaches to budgeting at primary, secondary and post-secondary levels should differ, and be related to accountability for budget implementation. While in rural areas primary schools are community institutions, secondary schools and urban primary schools are often less community based: in these cases school governance becomes an issue. Universities are in many ways the easiest institutions in which to initiate budget reform, and they lend themselves well to programme linked budgeting, although experience suggests political rather than practical difficulties work against such reform. Thus, a key feature of the eventual system would be the final realisation of participation of school communities in decisions about the allocation of subsidies: this has been a paper policy in many countries for a long time. For example, primary teachers may fail to arrive at their postings because of the absence of accommodation, remoteness, and other factors. Many school buildings are in a state of collapse. Over time the teaching profession becomes demoralised by a persistent lack of resources, low pay and difficult conditions, and no amount of training and exhortation will be effective. The mistake is to believe that planners and educationists can always decide what diverse communities want to do about the problem. At the moment, for example, when the teacher does not arrive at post, the salary is clawed back by the Treasury. The school has effectively lost a significant part of its budget. This is because of the bureaucratic division between salaries and non salary costs, which could be modified under a reformed budget system. There is no a *priori* reason why funds budgeted for salaries cannot be vired to provide a better environment, or buy materials, or in any other way enhance the quality of school life.
Planning/Cost Centres. At present most countries have a structure of district education offices and local government, and it is usually possible to allocate revenues between them. These are in effect 'cost centres' for primary education and sometimes secondary education. At the post secondary levels budgeting is usually done at the institutional level. Under a rolling plan system cost centres can be given a reasonably firm allocation for the next year as well as indicative allocations for the subsequent two years. As planning capacity is extended and strengthened at district and local authority levels, the districts themselves can create further cost centres, as shown in figure 1.
## (C) Programming The Budget
I have noted that the main reasons for the failure of programme budgeting to be widely adopted lie in the difficulties that political and institutional authorities have in reexamining the base budget, and in the complex ways in which the technique has tended to be introduced.61 An examination of the programme budget formats which have been tried confirms that they have required a great amount of skill and time. It should be noted that many of the recorded attempts to introduce programme budgeting did not take place in the framework of forward expenditure planning on a rolling basis. However, programme budgeting should not be regarded as a fixed system: there is no 'right' approach (see the box for an outline description of the main elements). Indeed, the paucity of experience in the application of its techniques ensures that every approach to its introduction will be original, which may have the advantage of ensuring that it is locally relevant. One major difference between the experiences of many countries in the recent past and now is the rapid diffusion of micro-computers over the last decade, particularly the last five years. Its introduction should be gradual and be accompanied by intensive training within the contexts of the institutional changes described above.62 I do not propose major upheavals in budgeting and planning.
Experience suggests that the success of past attempts to introduce programme budgeting is more to be found in improved practices after the 'pure' technique is abandoned, rather than in major permanent change to the financial system as a whole.63
It is for this reason that I emphasise in this paper the need for improved planning as it relates to financial requirements to support plans, rather than propose a set technocratic solution. Elements of the budget can be programmed, and education budgets lend themselves to this approach, for a number of reasons, including the following:
(a) a large component can be centrally managed, such as teachers' salaries (although ways of introducing flexibility into teacher recruitment and posting should be sought); (b) the relation of teachers and the associated 'capital' (books, materials,
classrooms, etc) they require is relatively easy to determine; (c) some components of the budget, such as universities, colleges and large schools, can themselves programme their institutional budgets, which can still be presented in the sectoral budget estimates as lump sum line items; (d) similarly, decentralisation of budget formulation (eg to districts) can involve programme budgeting at the decentralised level, with a simplified presentation to the Ministry of Education, thence to Finance.
Budget classification is at the heart of programme budgeting (see box). The main problems arise when expenditure classifications become too complex, but it is possible to avoid this problem by not being too ambitious in the design of the system, as I have noted. It should always be borne in mind that the basic purpose of programme budgeting is to relate plans to resources and then enable planners to evaluate outcomes by stating objectives, goals and targets, and relating outcomes to the resources used to achieve them. The easy availability of micro-computers and accessible software allows a great deal of flexibility in budget construction. It is possible to build up programme budgets without affecting expenditure control and accounting systems, one of the main problems experienced in past attempts to programme budgets. Budget codes enable budget items to be 'cross-walked' from programme budgets into line item formats. The computer programming required is not complex. The development of the system can thus take place over time, and it is not necessary to overturn the line item format in order to introduce programme budgeting. The extent to which the easy availability of computers takes risk out of budget reform is not fully appreciated.
The education system as a whole is broken down into 'programmes'. These might simply be 'primary education', 'secondary education, 'technical education', 'higher education', 'special education', and so on. One programme might be the maintenance of the existing system. Each programme is broken down into objectives and subobjectives. Objectives might be 'curriculum development', or 'reduction of early leaving', or 'instructional programmes' or 'support programmes' They can be very close to existing classifications in many instances. A sub-objective of 'curriculum development' might be 'new maths materials'. Objectives are in turn made up of activities. It should be noted that one of the most common problems is to avoid double counting: for example, an activity in the sub-objective 'new maths materials' might be the training of teachers, which could itself be another objective. To achieve a specified objective a number of activities may be undertaken which cut across departmental boundaries, such as would occur with a sub-programme 'increase girls' participation' in the programme 'primary education'. The budget should relate to Government policies and goals, and therefore the justification for spending must be tied to these policies and goals, contained in the narrative statement for each activity. Goals cannot normally be achieved in one year, so that annual targets (or attainable goals) are necessary. The target must be a quantitative expression of policy, and any programme may have more than one target. Activities would tend to have one target. It must be possible to monitor targets. Expected outputs would be specified. Plans would therefore need to be broken down into a series of annual work programmes which can be accomplished with available resources. There are likely to be significant variations in approach to budget reform at the different education levels. Universities and large secondary schools, for example, can prepare institutional programme budgets64, while at the primary level budgets are likely to cover the whole sub-sector.
The introduction of programme budgeting to education should be governed by a number of broad principles. First, it should be slow and be piloted in selected regions/districts. Second, programmes should be broad at first, thus changing the minimum amount of the current formats. Third, the principle of relating plans to budgets and *vice versa* should apply to all main expenditure heads: in other words, programme budgeting should at least cover a part of all main spending. At the same time the type of budget process which is being aimed at should be defined, even if it takes many years to get there. Above all, experience suggests that reform of budgeting systems in one sector alone will create tensions with the Ministry of Finance systems, and that this will erode the effectiveness of the reform: financial systems must change Budget Formats and Classifications. As I have noted, budget classifications must be able to reflect the rolling forward expenditure plans. The purpose of classification is to make government operations transparent and to render them amenable to economic analysis. Under incremental budget systems the most that can be said about education sector budgets relates to issues such as the balance between salary and non-salary budgeted expenditures, or the 'low' expenditure on supplies. Sector 'overheads', such as planning and administration, cannot easily be analysed. The budget gives very little idea of what is actually happening in the system. Revenue classifications should distinguish different sources of revenue, such as revenue from fees (both direct and through loan recovery), foreign aid (analysed between grants and loans), local taxes, and so on. Both revenue and expenditure classifications should distinguish between capital and recurrent finance. At the same time capital and recurrent classifications should be standardised: capital expenditure should be included in programmes alongside recurrent expenditure, and the budget codes should be the same. This goes a long way towards avoiding the problems that arise from doublebudgeting. For example, if sub-programme 230 is 'curriculum development', resource centres to be constructed under the capital programme would have the same subprogramme code as recurrent expenditures for, say, salaries of curriculum developers. In this way all expenditures associated with curriculum development would be transparent, and the relation between capital spending and associated future recurrent finance requirements would be clear.
## (D) Capital Budgeting
In general, capital expenditure is an outlay which is of value in the provision of benefits beyond the end of the year of account. This does not imply that capital expenditure is by definition 'developmental' while recurrent expenditure is not. Capital expenditure can either be made out borrowed funds or out of internal, or 'own', funds. It has been long recognised that capital expenditures in education systems in developing countries have resulted in an expansion of assets which cannot always be maintained or replaced, and which have had considerable finance costs. Foreign aid has contributed significantly to capital expenditure, as I have noted. Most existing approaches to accounting for capital expenditure are based on the analysis of loan principal and interest. Where capital expenditure is financed by 'own' funds or by grants it appears in the accounts only in the year in which it was made, as there are no interest costs attached to it. More usually, perhaps, foreign aid grant expenditure does not appear at all in capital accounts. The costs of public sector services are therefore linked to financing decisions and not the actual use of assets in providing those services. As loan repayments and interest costs are not included in the education sector budgets, the costs of asset use are not included in calculations of educational costs, as I discussed in the first part of this paper. Even were loan repayments to be included in the sector budget, where the main source of capital finance is grants there would be no entries for finance costs. Fixed assets are, to the education sector managers, debt free, and this explains much of the poor accountability for asset stocks.
In general, the acquisition of a fixed asset brings with it three elements of direct expenditure: the initial outlay; the maintenance of the asset through its lifetime; and the interest expense where the asset is financed through borrowing: where it is financed through grant aid or 'own' funds, a common practice in public authorities in developed countries is to apply notional finance costs. Of course, the indirect cost of grant aid is the alternative use of the finance, which, in reality, may not be an option, as in the case of tied aid. The main differences between capital budgeting in the private and public sectors is that in the private sector provision is made for depreciation of fixed assets, ensuring that the profit and loss account bears a charge for the use of the asset, and that distributable profit takes this charge into account. Depreciation is the measure of the reduction of the economic life of the asset as it wears out or is consumed. It should be allocated so as to charge a fair proportion of the cost or valuation of the asset to each accounting period expected to benefit from its use. Depreciation allowances reflect both the charges for the use of the asset and for maintaining the capital in the business intact. Public sector assets are not normally depreciated. The consequence of this is that the costs of services are not separated from decisions about how they are financed and that there is no provision for asset replacement.
Although the public sector has traditionally not depreciated assets, there is considerable interest in a number of countries in this issue. In the UK, for example, local authorities are being recommended to change the way they account for assets, including the introduction of depreciation charges.65 This will involve the standardisation of asset lives: for example, schools are given a 50 year life, furniture 15 years and vehicles 3-8 years. All assets are to be valued at replacement cost (unless they are to be discontinued, such as a school closing down). There are compelling reasons why the introduction of better capital accounting might not be feasible in African countries, including its potential complexity, the difficulty of valuing many assets, and the lack of working accounting procedures. However, there has been in many countries an undoubted tendency to create assets which cannot be replaced or maintained, particularly when they are financed through external grant funds. The introduction of depreciation accounting in public budgets would create a register of assets and asset values; and ensure through the budget the proper provision for asset replacement.66
There are two categories of conclusion from the foregoing discussion. The first is that education authorities in most African countries have little incentive to protect the value of assets and make provision for their replacement. The second is that they are not involved in the management of finance costs, and therefore have little interest in them.
Ways of tackling these problems should be sought which suit the systems of individual countries. Where, for example, management is devolved upon local governments, local accounting systems could be strengthened over time to the point where they can produce balance sheets showing asset values. In most countries such a time is probably far off, though education sector institutions, such as universities and autonomous colleges, should keep proper capital accounts.
The budgeting and accounting conventions to be applied to private schools could include the requirement that revenue accounts bear a charge for depreciation. This should certainly apply to those instances where private secondary schools receive grants of public money to finance capital assets. A condition should be that they present their yearly audited accounts to show that proper provision is made for asset replacement. This would impose discipline on expenditures and help to create reserves. Programme budgeting requires that the purchase, maintenance and replacement of assets acquired through domestic or foreign finance be included in the budget for each programme. Most capital expenditure programmes such as school building and equipment, or even textbook 'programmes' take place over several years. Under a rolling system future capital replacement requirements can be foreseen and built into the future budget. At the institutional level it may be possible to introduce procedures so that reserves can be built up over time for asset purchase.67
The concepts of capital maintenance and replacement are central to the achievement of sustainable systems. While in many countries they are almost irrelevant because of the acute underfunding in recurrent budgets, it is important that discipline be imposed. Depreciation accounting is the standard and effective way of encouraging good use of assets, and, although it may not be a viable alternative for many years in most African countries, the concepts which underlie it should be carefully considered when building new budget systems. There is a good case for aid 'donors' to take more interest in how the assets they have helped to finance are protected.
## (E) Budgeting Accounting Foreign Aid
I have noted that foreign aid has played and is playing a major part in the development of the education systems in many countries, and that a good deal of aid is not included in normal government budgeting and accounting systems. There are several reasons for this, including the lack of confidence of many 'donors' in government financial procedures and the significant amount of foreign aid which is purchased outside the recipient country, such as technical assistance and certain goods. Advantages to recipients of keeping aid out of normal budget processes include access to flexible funds which bypass government budget controls. In many countries aid in the form of balance of payments support is increasingly important, and has brought with it its own problems, including those associated with the use of, and accounting for, counterpart funds.68 However, sound budgeting must be comprehensive, and all government revenues should be paid into, and all expenditures paid out of, a single Consolidated Fund. While this state of affairs may, in the case of foreign aid budgeting and expenditure, be difficult to achieve, it should, as in the case of better capital budgeting and accounting, be a target.
External assistance to education brings with it three inherent dangers. The first is that it encourages expansion beyond the capability of domestic resources to service the expansion. The second danger is the encouragement of inappropriate technology and structures, and the third is the resulting rise in expectations accompanied by a dependence on 'donors'. All of these can create an excessive dependence on foreign resources to maintain the system unless foreign aid is planned for in a rational manner to fit into existing priorities.
Foreign Aid and Education Expansion. General literature on foreign aid69 tends to concentrate on agriculture, water supply, industry, and sectors where outputs can be relatively easily measured. Where education is discussed it is in terms of physical achievement which is invariably expansionary. Rising enrolment rates are assumed to be a positive achievement, and a well-educated population is assumed to be a necessary condition for economic growth. Whether these assumptions are fair or not, an important characteristic of the education sector is usually ignored: it is in most countries the single greatest item of public expenditure after defence. Expansion of education provision almost always means an increase in public spending. The seemingly easy availability of development finance encouraged countries to experiment and accept foreign initiatives with little thought to their sustainability or appropriateness. Foreign finance promoted the expansion of education systems to the point where they sought to reach all sections of the populations, which became accustomed to the idea of universal provision. At the same time the expectations of education managers were raised while, in many cases, they concurrently became to greater or lesser degrees de-skilled because of the tendency for 'donors' to design programmes themselves and for hierarchical and authoritarian civil service structures to ignore local managerial staff. In some countries external assistance comprises nearly all the 'development'
expenditure in education sectors, although there may be little apparent relationship between 'development' expenditure and recurrent budgets, a relationship which is to be expected because each new investment should carry with it additional recurrent obligations. Development programmes have tended to be adjusted to a level permitted by available foreign exchange, and additional resources for meeting local costs have often had to come from inflationary sources.70 Expansion of education sectors appears to have been frequently determined solely by the availability of foreign exchange from foreign aid, with little reference to what each country can afford to maintain from its own fiscal resources. The alternative is to deploy external assistance at a reasonable level to support domestic deficits, and of course, in the case of foreign loan finance, to support debt repayment. In many countries the proportion of foreign aid accounted for by the costs of technical assistance is around one quarter of the total, and in some the total expenditures on technical assistance exceed the civil service salary bill.71 Technical assistance is rarely passed through or reported in budgets. While some countries insisted that technical assistance be integrated into the public service, over the years agencies required that their projects operated autonomously, outside 'normal' structures. Failure to account for the expenditures on technical assistance distorts many cost analyses in the education sector: examples include curriculum development and higher education. A key issue is therefore for countries to regain, where they have lost it wholly or in part, control over education systems and their future development. One of the necessary conditions of doing so is to improve budgeting and accounting for foreign aid. The first step is to ensure that aid to the education sector reflects sector priorities. The best way to identify priorities is to consider what they would be in the absence of foreign aid, in other words, how the sector would be planned for on the basis of domestic resources only. Domestic resource planning and budgeting does not necessarily imply that countries should try to dispense entirely with external assistance. It is a way of encouraging planners and managers to identify core funding requirements of the sector.72
Underfunding. 'Underfunding' has tended to express the finance gap between a reasonable level of funding for *the education services that actually exist* and the available resources to support them. The concept excludes by implication any reduction in the scope of services, and is used as a justification for external assistance to support existing systems in order to avoid restructuring. A better way of looking at the finance gap would be in terms of the desired expansion of the system to provide a better and more comprehensive service. I have already noted the example of Universal Primary Education, where, instead of planning for a sustainable increase in enrolments, governments (and aid 'donors') encouraged through positive measures a rapid increase which could not be supported, forcing themselves to seek yet more external funding.
The same applies to the expansion of higher education in many countries. Thus, core funding should relate to the fiscal capacity of the country to support its education system, rather than to what is required to finance an extensive system modeled, for example, on the best characteristics of those which exist now in developed countries.
External assistance can then be applied with circumspection to develop the system. Each programme's foreign aid component should be identified separately where possible, and the rolling three year budget should show how the component will be sustained, One approach to the introduction of programme budgeting would be to programme all components of the education sector which benefit from foreign aid. In many countries the introduction of such a system would show in a very short time the extent to which externally financed initiatives cannot be sustained. It may be possible for education planners to indicate a ceiling for foreign aid in any period: this could be, for example, a rule of thumb ratio of aid to the domestic resource ceiling.73 It is clear that these changes cut across all sectors, and cannot be limited to education ministries. They rely on leadership and cooperation by Ministries of Finance, including, for example, the development of manuals of instruction to sector planners on how to treat foreign aid. They also rely on cooperation by donors, both to pass the funds through the budget as policy and budget practices improve, and in the analysis and evaluation of current projects.74
## (F) Improving Expenditure Estimation
Irrespective of the changes to the budget format, techniques of budget estimation will in most countries need to be strengthened. Estimation should be simpler under rolling programme formats because activities are more clearly set out and because the iterative process of relating estimates to available resources enables budgeters to adapt their estimates. A commonly recommended approach is the use of 'norms' and formulae.
This involves establishing quantities required to achieve given objectives, such as average ratios of books to pupils across subjects, the number of pupils per teacher, the number of teachers per various types of allowance, and so on. While in many respects these are desirable, they can also promote overestimation and a loss of flexibility, and the approach has many disadvantages in annual incremental budgeting systems. Many countries in which norms are given to education ministries by finance ministries find that their norm-based budgets are disregarded at the last minute-by the finance ministries in the process of budget reduction. The requirement to budget to norms has little point if they are not respected. Another problem with norm-based budgeting is that norms become fixed and inflexible. For example, as book procurement and distribution capacity develops, textbook-student ratios can increase. The current tendency is to fix 'ideal' norms and then aim at them, rather than to set realistic ones and achieve them. A related problem is the existence of conditions which make the achievement of norms almost impossible, for example, where universities try to achieve efficient staffing levels starting from a position of over-staffing.
Where the estimation process is more effectively iterative a more flexible approach is possible. Norms can be adapted and changed as required. Managers are in a better position to define their requirements in terms of what they want to achieve rather than in terms of fixed quantities prescribed for them. Furthermore, variations in what can be provided outside the government budget can be taken into account: if desks, or chalk, are easily available locally then they can be provided by schools and the savings be applied elsewhere in the system. Thus the estimation process cannot be separated from the allocation process. While the use of norms is useful as part of the process of identifying total resources required, under programme budgeting with identified cost-centres schools or clusters of schools can eventually become the lowest unit of allocation. However this is done, whether by capitation grants or by other means, the integrity of the cost-centre budget and the right of its managers to allocate from it should be respected within reasonable guidelines. For example, while norm budgeting would specify fixed quantities of particular items for delivery to a school, parents and teachers in a primary school may wish to reallocate some of the money for chalk or desks to books, and should be allowed to do so. Such a process implies a degree of zero-based budgeting, which is a useful way of evaluating the effectiveness of norms. Ministries could run annual ZBB exercises on selected norms.
## (G) Expenditure Management And Accountability
In many countries education ministry and some institutional accounts fail to receive auditors' approval. The reasons may be numerous. Rules and regulations of expenditure management may not be respected by concerned officials: payments are made against pro-forma invoices, without supporting vouchers, or without authorization; cash books are not maintained; bank reconciliations are not produced; stores are not recorded; the payroll includes ghost employees; and so on. The combination of lax expenditure controls, off-budget foreign aid and cash-starved finance ministries creates serious difficulties for education expenditure management to the extent that there may be up to three parallel budgets: that approved by the legislature; departmental and institutional budgets which include foreign aid as well as the legal budget; and a cash operated budget by the finance ministry concentrating on timely releases of the approved budget to education, sometimes failing to release the required amounts. Many expenditure management problems originate in poor budgeting, and the proposals outlined in previous paragraphs are designed to address these problems. Programme budgeting specifies more clearly who is responsible for budget implementation, and sector structures need to be adapted to reinforce accountability. Forward budgeting allows overspending to be adjusted against next year's budget, so that education ministry managers see clearly the effects of their actions on future releases. Initiatives to improve accounting, cash management and expenditure reporting must go hand in hand with improvements to budgeting, both in education ministries and in finance ministries, and aid 'donors' should take a keen interest in ensuring that these initiatives take place. Otherwise it will be unlikely that foreign aid will be passed through the budget.
## C. Conclusions: Affordability And Sustainability
Phased Implementation. While revenue classification can be improved in a fairly short time, the reclassification of expenditures is more complex, as is the strengthening of capital and foreign aid budgeting. In the first part of this paper I emphasised that a necessary condition for the implementation of the reforms which have been proposed for education systems in Africa was the setting in place of appropriate management and planning mechanisms, and that this alone could take many years. Expansion policies such as Schooling For All and Universal Primary Education not only depend on resource availability but also on management capacity. I have also noted the constraints on domestic resources and the possible decrease in the levels of foreign aid available to Africa. 'The Receding Managerial Limit'. 'Planning implies on the one hand a purpose, and on the other, the organization of resources to accomplish this purpose in some desired manner.'75 A key resource of any organisation is its management, and at any given time the capacities of the existing management staff set a limit to the expansion of the organisation. This paper has set out approaches to overcoming the problem of the
'receding managerial limit',76 through improving the tools available for managers and the structures in which they work, but also by suggesting a different approach to marshalling the resources they have to hand. The constraints which apply to all other reform initiatives also apply to those suggested here. They must be phased in slowly. Sustainable Development. The concern with sustainable development has been brought to the fore by environmental concerns, where they relate to the impact of projects on, for example, national income, human welfare, depletion of physical resources and technological change. The criteria in these cases relate to *irreversible* effects of projects, how to foresee them, measure them, and accommodate or avoid theme In many respects the economics of the environment is similar to the economics of human resources, most particularly in their long term horizons, and the associated problems of valuing externalities. The essence of environmental economics has been the elaboration of techniques to value what was previously thought to be unevaluable. This may well be mirrored in educational analysis, as many of the current approaches encourage shortterm viewpoints, as I have noted in Part I. While poor decisions in educational policy may well lead to irreversible damage, in the sense of opportunities lost, sustainability in a practical sense must mean the ability of countries to maintain education provision of reasonable quality *with domestically generated resources:* the ability to borrow and repay loans, and to maintain asset stocks is part of domestic capacity.
Affordability. The title of this paper suggests that education is an unaffordable commodity. In relation to the total educational wants of a population this is probably by definition true. However, by concentrating on reforms and improvements which will result in a better fit between available resources, local management and professional capacity, and the scope and size of educational systems, African countries can afford better quality. These reforms and improvements cannot be restricted to the education sector alone, but must be undertaken parallel to improvements and reforms in Ministries of Finance and in civil services in general. Such an approach contrasts with expansionary approaches such as those of the Jomtien Conference which commit countries to build their education systems up further on weak foundations, and to follow this more cautious approach would be to heed the lessons of the last two decades,
## Policy Implications For Donors
In this paper I have argued that most countries are likely to experience considerable difficulty in implementing simultaneously the triple initiatives of expenditure reallocation, improved budget management and system expansion. The main implication for donors of the types of policy I have proposed is the need to recognise that the pace of change is almost certain to be slow, in contrast with the aspirations of many donor initiatives, particularly those within the context of the social dimensions of structural adjustment.
In particular, it is important that the availability of foreign aid does not encourage the unsustainable expansion of education systems, resulting in a serious deterioration of quality. The growing importance of programme aid and counterpart funding via balance of payments support has heightened awareness of the need for governments to improve policy as well as policy implementation processes, but donors should take care to avoid unrealistic prescriptions. At the same time, donors should reflect the introduction of rolling plan budgeting in aid policies, with longer term commitments of aid to be passed through budgets in order to give governments a better idea of what resources are likely to be available, of course within an acceptable and feasible planning framework. This would require a much better match of projects and educational policy than has hitherto been observable. At the level of programme design for the strengthening of planning and budgeting in the education sector a key lesson of the past is the need for coordination between sectoral ministries and ministries of finance. I have suggested that in most countries there is a need to improve overall public sector budgeting and that failing to do so will dilute the effect of improvements at the sectoral levels. Sectoral donors should take a wider view of their interventions. Many may consider this to be a daunting task, but I argue that a gradual process of reclassification of budget heads is possible and that there need be no conflict between the budget formats used by ministries of finance and education. When the mechanisms by which change may be effected are in place countries will be able to take effective steps to initiate affordable and sustainable improvements in their education services.
Perran Penrose Cambridge, UK March 1993
1. See Sahn, D.E. Public Expenditures in Sub-Saharan Africa During a Period of
Economic Reform. *World Development,* Vol 20, nr 5, 1992, pp 673-693.
2. 'Inflation des effectifs et des coûts, stagnation des débouchés et stabilisation des perspectives d'emploi, telles vent les caractéristiques de la stagflation scolaire' ('The inflation of enrolments and costs, the stagnation of job opportunities and the levelling off of employment prospects, are the characteristics of educational stagflation'). Hallak, J. *A Qui Profite L'Ecole?* Presses Universitaires de France, 1974, p 149.
3. Eg Coombs, P.H. *What is Educational Planning.* IIEP, 1971.
4. Eicher, J.C. *Educational Costing and Financing in Developing Countries,* World Bank Staff Working Papers Nr 655, 1984, is one of the best analyses of finance issues.
Also see World Bank, Financing Education in Developing Countries: An Exploration of Policy Options, 1986; Haddad, W.D. *et al,* Education and Development: Evidence for New Priorities, World Bank Discussion Papers Nr 95, 1990; Stromquist, N. A Review of Educational Innovations to Reduce Costs in Financing Educational Development: Proceedings of an International Seminar held in Mont Saint Marie, Canada, 19-21 May 1982, IDRC and CIDA, pp 69-94; Colclough C. with K. Lewin, Educating All the Children, Oxford, 1993. Other references are given throughout this paper.
5. Markets, it has been said, work incrementally. All required changes - in price signals, in people's response to incentives, in shifts of resources - take time... The likelihood of market failure is a function of the degree of urgency - or impatience - attached to a particular change. The *prima facie* case for government action to promote development in underdeveloped countries rests largely on the belief that what is needed is rapid economic development, the compression into a few decades of a process that in the West took centuries' (Arndt, H.W. 'Market Failure' and Underdevelopment. World Development, Vol 16 Nr 2, Feb 1988, quoted in Killick, T. A Reaction too Far: Economic Theory and the Role of the State in Developing Countries, ODI London,
1989, pp 62-63). A key condition for improvement, which Killick analyses, is the improvement of government and civil service administration: 'What matters more than its absolute size is how the state goes about its tasks and what relationship it establishes with the private sector'.
6. See Dougherty, C. Education and Skill Development Asian Development Bank/World Bank Seminar on Vocational and Technical Education and Training, Manila, January 1990, p 22 *et passim.*
7. This paper does not elaborate on the relationship between education and economic growth. It is more likely that determinants of South East Asian growth are more to be found in industrialisation strategies and their relation to education strategies than in education alone. The World Bank *World Development Report* of 1991 (mainly Chapter 3) proposes that education is a sufficient condition for economic growth. However, the assumption behind growth models underpinned by human capital theories that output is determined solely by supply factors, all resources being fully employed, cannot be easily defended in the case of Africa. For an excellent summary analysis of this issue see Fanelli, J.M., R. Frenkel & L. Taylor, The World Development Report 1991: A Critical Assessment. Feb 1992, available from the economics department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. For an interesting account of the education strategy in one South East Asian country, see Woo, J.H. Education and Economic Growth in Taiwan: A Case of Successful Planning. *World Development,* Vol 19, Nr 8, 1991, pp 1029-1044. There is much to recommend the study of East Asian education development experience to provide fresh perspectives on education in Africa.
8. See Blaug, M. Education and the Employment Problem in Developing Countries, ILO, 1973, pp 79 ff. This classic paper, written twenty years ago, is as applicable today as it was then, and its prescience is sobering. For a fascinating, and instructive, historical discussion of the same issue, see West, E.G. Education and the Industrial Revolution Batsford, 1975, pp 245 ff.
9. See Tilak, J.B.G. Education and Its Relation to Economic Growth, Poverty, and
Income Distribution: Past Evidence and Further Analysis, World Bank Discussion Paper Nr 46, 1989, for a summary of these influences.
10. See footnote 32.
11. See also Lall, S. Human Resources Development and Industrialization with Special
Reference to Sub-Saharan Africa in Griffin K. and J. Knight (ed), Human Development
12. All the same, many countries have managed to increase levels of total public spending although there were declines in the period around 1982-84. See Sahn, op cit. for evidence for this and other statements in these paragraphs. Although his data are mainly from secondary sources, and may include budget data rather than verified actual expenditure, they do seem to support the claim that public expenditures have been robust. He does not, however, make distinctions between unilateral external assistance and loans, and it is therefore not always easy to decide how far growth is a function of large inflows of foreign grant aid. For the 1970s, see Zymelman, M. The Burden of Education Expenditures and its Forecast, World Bank, Washington, 1978.
13. A contemporary case is Tanzania, with a ratio of Official Development Assistance
(ODA) to GNP of nearly 50 per cent - a high figure when considering the likely understatement of aid flows. It should be noted that the denominator of the ratio is in many ways most important: Tanzania does not by any means have the highest per capita level of external aid. For example, neighbouring Malawi has a higher per capita ODA, but the ratio to GNP is about half that of Tanzania. Considerable care is needed, as always, in interpreting this type of data because of the potentially serious inaccuracies of national income accounting and different economic structures. See also footnote 26.
14. For example, World Bank, Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth,
1989: 'Total expenditure on human resource development should be steadily expanded until it reaches 8 to 10 percent of GDP annually, about double present spending (with donors meeting about half the total). Infrastructure spending should rise to around 6 percent of GDP. This would cover capital and recurrent expenditure and ensure adequate resources for maintenance and running costs' (p 12). This last was to be financed through higher taxation and lower public wage bills. Aid was to provide recurrent as well as investment finance. How all this is to be financed is not addressed at all: see, for example, the weak discussion of 'sustained financial support for human resource development' on pp 87-88.
15. US$ 30 billion for the world by the year 2005. Minimum aid flows to Africa are given as US$ 15 billions, (Colclough and Lewin op cit. p 239). Another UNICEF report, *The State of the World's Children,* OUP, 1993, gives a figure of US$ 25 billion per year to provide basic health and education services.
16. For a dissident voice, see Hallak, J. Education for All: High Expectations or False Hopes?. presented to the Oxford Conference, September 1991. Hallak also writes that financial factors 'become vital issues only if the economy is in bad condition'.
17. Sahn, *op cit.* calculated elastiaties of social sector spending with respect to GDP
(greater than unity) and to total government expenditure (less than unity). The variations from unity are slight, and the time series is short. It is reasonable to conclude that they are both around unity and that therefore economic growth and decline (at least as measured by total GDP, which may be misleading) are not associated with significantly more than proportionate growth or decline in social sector spending. Sahn emphasises the need for detailed country studies, however.
18. Reducing the current external cash flow obligations and payments on debt account will thus probably be the most cost effective form of official external resource transfer to Africa in the 1990s.' Helleiner, G.K. Africa's Adjustment and External Debt. World Development, Vol 20, Nr 6, 1992, pp 779-792. An issue which is often overlooked is the rising domestic debt costs resulting from financial liberalisation policies.
19. See Beeby, C.E. *The Quality of Education in Developing Countries,* Harvard
University Press, 1966, for an analysis of 'stages' of educational development.
20. Berg E, Rethinking Technical Cooperation: Reforms for Capacity Building in
Africa, UNDP, 1993. A feature of foreign consultants and aid agency staff has been a certain lack of accountability. Whereas engineers require professional indemnity insurance against design negligence and error, I know of no case of an agency or individual being sued by a country for bad advice. Timothy Curtin (Curtin, T. The Economics of Public Investment in Education in Papua New Guinea, University of Papua New Guinea Press, 1991, p 4) makes the somewhat extreme point that those who make up what he calls the 'consensus school' of educational cost-benefit analysis could be locked up under regulations governing the provision of financial services for misleading analysis!
21. Dore, R. *The Diploma Disease,* Allen and Unwin, 1976, pp 72 ff. 'In the Third
World today the importance of qualifications is greater than in the advanced industrial countries. Education systems are more likely to be geared to qualification-getting, and the consequences for society and its patterns of development are likely to be even more deplorable than in our society.' (p 83)
22. eg Devon, R.F. Foster's Paradigm Surrogate and the Wealth of Underdeveloped
Nations. *Comparative Education Review,* October 1975, p 403, in relation to Papua New Guinea. This piece is a rejoinder to Foster, P. Dilemmas of Educational Development: What We Might Learn from the Past. in the same issue, p 375, and is not altogether fair to Foster who, inter alia, suggests shorter education cycles (p 384)
23. This is not confined to developing countries: in the UK there is now a lag of about one year before local government education expenditures are consolidated and reported.
## 24. But See Page 24.
25. 'Society' should not be confused with 'government' (see, for example, Psacharopoulos, G. and M Woodhall, Education for Development: An Analysis of Investment Choices, OUP, 1985, pp 35-37).
26. The literature on national income accounting is immense. See also the technical notes on the quality of data in *Accelerated Development in Sub-Saharan Africa,* pp 187- 188, and in the World Bank's *Development Reports.* More recent IMF, of purchasing power parity (PPP) national incomes show startling new international rankings. Similarly, the custom of expressing national financial data in US dollars at current exchange rates has resulted in re-workings of national income series in some countries to make them appear consistent over time.
27. There are usually also other items of non-discretionary expenditures such as those relating to pensions and upkeep of key state institutions, and, in some countries significant 'special' items relating, for example, to costs of restructuring: these are often labelled 'discretionary' but in reality should probably be considered as nondiscretionary.
28. For example, in Tanzania the Ministry of Education budget only accounts for about
25 per cent of the total public education budget, with local government budgets taking the largest share: there is a separate ministry for higher education. Other ministries' expenditures on education add about 3 per cent to total government expenditure on education. In Nigeria the Federal allocation to the states' accounts for the largest share of budgeted expenditure at state level, but separate reference must be made to state budgets for the full picture. For sources see Penrose, P. Review of Public Expenditures in the Education Sector in Tanzania, July 1992, available from the European Commission in Brussels; World Bank, Nigerian Secondary Education Sector Report: A Study in Contrasts, West Africa Department, August 1991; Penrose, P. Issues in Education Finance and Planning in Nigerian Secondary Education World Bank West Africa Department, April 1992; Hinchliffe, K. Federation and Education Finance: Primary Schooling in Nigeria. International Journal of Education Development, Vol 9, Nr 3, 1990, pp 157-162. Many African governments have significant local government involvement in primary education, with concomitant fragmented budgetary reporting.
29. Education cost-benefit analytical techniques are concerned with years at school rather than what is learnt within school. The confusion of schooling with education results in a misspecification of the earnings function which will lead to overestimation of the returns to expansion of low quality schooling, which has indeed occurred in many countries, and neglect of alternative quality improving investments which will have relatively higher rates of return. See also P. Glewwe, Schooling Skills and the Returns to Investment in Education. LSMS Working Paper N176, World Bank, 1991.
30. For example, the failure to take into account benefits to society from indirect taxation (see Curtin, op cit) and costs to society of public services financed from inequitable tax systems.
31. Externalities occur when all the benefits and costs of transactions are not fully incorporated in their market prices. They can be positive or negative. Evidence on externalities is difficult to collect, particularly in manipulated labour markets. See, for example, Knight, J.B. and R.H. Sabot, Education, Productivity, and Equality: The East African Natural Experiment. OUP, 1990, pp 23 ff. The extent to which social benefits accrue from increased labour productivity may also be exaggerated. However, the importance of externalities to the various levels of education should not be underestimated. For example, externalities to higher education may be significant, but, of course, are hard to measure. It may well be that externalities to primary education, being easier to measure, are more seductive in their policy implications. Consider, for example, Psacharopoulos, G. Priorities in the Financing of Education. International Journal of Educational Development Vol 10 Nrs 2/3 1990, pp 157-162: 'Why should the limited educational budget of a country × finance the production of a microchip specialist who will be employed in the local branch of a multinational firm?'. The author subsequently asserts that *because* externalities to higher education are hard to measure, and because the existence of greater externalities to primary education is 'intuitively' more likely, fiscal resources should not be used to pay for higher education. One man's intuition... There may well be a much better case for public investment in post-secondary education than is commonly admitted at present, particularly in terms of 'dynamic externalities' (how they relate to innovation and growth) (see Stewart F. E.
Ghani, How Significant are Externalities for Development?. *World Development,* Vol 19, Nr 6, 1992, pp 569-594 for an overview of this issue, but not on education). Leslie, I.L. Rates of Return as Informer of Public Policy. *Higher Education* Vol 20, 1990, gives a comprehensive description of externalities to higher education. Also, for example, Knight Sabot show how educational expansion can reduce inequalities in pay, a very important externality not normally taken into account in cost-benefit analyses. The presence of 'negative externalities' should not be neglected: for example, unemployed school leavers can be a source of political instability. Another negative externality not unknown in some developed countries is to private schooling, where the private schools prove to produce rulers, politicians and civil servants rather than entrepreneurs and industrialists...
32. See Knight Sabot, *op cit.* pp 41-42, for evidence of this in Kenya. Where the returns to schooling are measured by wage differences associated with differences in length of schooling (assumed to be the marginal product of education), they usually assume that the average wage of standardized labour measures the wage received by the marginal (ie new entrant) worker. Because school leavers with more schooling take jobs previously taken by those with less schooling, the average wage for any given cohort may fall over time. Average and marginal wages would therefore not be equal, leading to overestimation of returns, particularly to primary schooling. Indeed, compression of wages is another externality to take into account. In reference to their own estimates of returns to schooling, which are among the most sophisticated yet published, the authors write: 'We do not wish to perpetuate the illusion of precision created by oversimplification' (p51).
33. Snower, D.J., The Future of the Welfare State. *Economic Journal,* vol 103, nr 418, May 1993, pp 700-717.
34. See, for example, Colclough, C Who Should Learn to Pay? An Assessment of Neoliberal Approaches to Education Policy. in Colclough C. and J Manor, States or Markets?, Clarendon Press, 1991. Also Watson, K. Alternative Funding of Education Systems. *Oxford Studies in Comparative Education* Vol 1, 1991, pp 113-146.
35. For a cogent description and analysis of this view, see Camoy M. and C Torres, Educational Change and Structural Adjustment: A Case Study of Costa Rica, Operational Policy and Sector Analysis Division Working Document, UNESCO, Paris, September 1992, passim and p 60.
36. World Bank, *Financing Education in Developing Countries.* See Lockheed, M.E.,
A.M. Verspoor and Associates, Improving Primary Education in Developing Countries, Oxford, 1991, pp 173 ff for the case against fees for primary schooling, as well as a review of issues of local finance. Curtin *op cit* presents a case for higher education
subsidies. Also, V. Lavy, Investment in Human Capital: Schooling Supply Constraints in Rural Ghana. LSMS Working Paper Nr 93, World Bank, 1992.
37. See Jimenez, E, Pricing Policies in the Social Sectors: Cost Recovery for Education
and Health in Developing Countries, Johns Hopkins, 1987, Chap 5.
38. There is considerable hostility to the idea of publicly funded higher education in the donor literature, while in reality it is likely that bilateral donors provide considerable support to African universities. Without making judgements on the scope and nature of externalities to higher education, the ability of 'better off' university students to pay fees, or the distribution of underfunding between levels of education, it is not in general realistic to expect many African governments to be seen to attack the university sector. A more selective approach would be to encourage more efficient institutional management and to give less support to social science faculties and poor quality
'research'. Stronger efforts to develop university-enterprise links are also much needed. Neglecting these issues on the grounds that universities are 'elitist' only raises the opportunity cost of public subsidies to higher education. See Penrose, P. Evaluation of Linkages in the Field of Higher Education and Training: Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland report by DHV Consulting for the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, June 1992, Chap 5, for a summary of some of the issues. Also Coombe, T. A Consultation on Higher Education in Africa, Ford Foundation, Jan 1991, for a voice sympathetic to higher education but accepting the low performance in research as well as poor management. Evidence for strong bias towards social sciences and arts can be found in Association of African Universities, Study on Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency in African Universities, A Synthesis Report, AAU, May 1991, pp 74-81. For the failure of African universities to develop linkages with enterprises (public or private), which is related to the relatively low importance attached to physical sciences, itself related to lack of finance, see AAU, University Productive Sector Linkages: Review of the State of the Art in Africa, November, 1990. For a review of the issues see Saint, W. S. Universities in Africa: Strategies for Stabilization and Revitalization World Bank Technical Paper 194, 1992: the orientation and conclusions of this paper raise interesting questions.
39. Thobani, M. 'Charging User Fees for Social Services: 'The Case of Education in Malawi', World Bank Staff Working Paper Nr 572, 1983. For the argument that fees should substitute for public resources, see Bertrand, T.J. and R. Griffin, The Economics of Financing Education: *A Case Study of Kenya,* World Bank, 1984.
40. Earmarked taxation is in the demonology of Treasuries, which invariably disapprove of it, though its time may come. See Lockheed et al, *op. cit.* pp 189 ff for some case studies of earmarking, though some of the examples given may not be all they seem. There is a growing literature on the subject.
41. Regressive taxation occurs when the less well off pay a greater proportion of their marginal income than the better off. The opposite is progressive taxation. Indirect taxes can be regressive: they are considered progressive when levied on 'luxury' goods. The extent to which education should be considered a luxury will vary according to type and level, and would determine the scale of regression. Many countries have moved towards regressive taxation in the last decade or so.
42. Colclough, C. Resources for Education in Developing Countries. International
Journal of Education Vol 10, Nrs 2/3,1990, pp 115-119.
43. See also Jimenez, *op cit,* pp 82 ff and Table 7.5. 44. See Brown, B.W. Why Governments Run Schools. Economics of Education Review,
Vol 11, Nr 4, 1992, pp 287-300, for a discussion of this issue in the United States. The author suggests that regulation costs are very high and that private for-profit school owners engage in 'opportunistic behaviour' which leads to a low quality of service.
45. There is relatively little contemporary work on this subject. One study in Latin America shows that while average expenditure by households for each child on primary education have increased, total expenditures on education have not increased because the profits are retained by school owners and not reinvested in education. See Schiefelbein, E. Restructuring Education through Economic Competition: The Case of Chile. *Journal of Educational Administration* Vol 29, Nr 4, 1991, pp 17-29. E G West, op cit, in writing about the 'public/private displacement mechanism' suggests the reverse process took place in Britain from 1833 to 1945, as public schools took over from private schools and average expenditures on education declined (chap 15).
Schiefelbein previously recorded some evidence of better examination performance in private schools in Chile (Schiefelbein, E. Education Costs and Financing Policies in Latin America. Education and Training Department Discussion Paper, World Bank, 1985).
46. See Knight, J. Education Policy Issues in a Period of Stabilization and Structural Adjustment in Griffin & Knight, *op cit.* chap 3, especially p 66 ff. 'The hope that meritocratic selection criteria would prove sufficient to ensure that the various income groups were represented in secondary schools in proportion to their numbers was disappointed in the United Republic of Tanzania... '; and '... those with the greatest ability to bear the cost of their children's education are the most likely to receive large subsidies. These results for Kenya probably have general application'.
47. Also in many countries private or semi-private schools have been directly supported from foreign aid, which is in many cases being withdrawn.
48. See, for example, Haddad *et al,* for a review of some evidence. For an earlier study, see Husen, T et al, Teacher Training and Student Achievement in Less Developed Countries, World Bank Staff Working Paper Nr 310, Dec 1978, p 42 *et passim.*
49. Coombs, *op cit.*
50. The concept of 'development' budgeting in principal incorporates, the investment nature of much 'recurrent' expenditure. Unfortunately 'development' budgeting, as with capital budgeting, has too often become exclusively concerned with capturing more foreign aid.
51. 'Rational' in the sense that reasoned justification for proposed expenditures is required. In another sense, the rationality of politicians would tend to resist reasoned technical justifications. Budgets always express tensions between different type of rationality. See, for example, Wildavsky, A. The Politics of the Budgetary Process. Little, Brown Co, 1984 (4th edition), pp 198 ff.
52. This phenomenon is not new. It has long been recognised that the elasticity of primary school teachers' salaries to national income is less than unity (although there have been short-run exceptions). See, for an early study, Blott, D. and M Debeauvais, Education Expenditure in Developing Countries: Some Statistical Aspects. in Financing Education for Economic Growth, OECD, Paris, 1960, pp 73-88. The authors used a form of purchasing power parity in place of official; exchange rates, which made their findings particularly valid.
53. Such as adult education, which in many countries is provided in different ministerial sectors.
54. Wildavsky, *op cit.* pp 135-138, and p 216: 'The tension between analysis, which seeks out error and promotes change, and organisation, which seeks stability and promotes its existing activities, is inevitable'.
55. Wildavsky, *op cit;* Dean, P.N. Government Budgeting in Developing Countries, Routledge, 1989; Babunakis, M. Budget Reform for Government: A Comprehensive Allocation and Management System (CAMS), Quorum Books, 1892, p 5 et passim. Nozick, D. (ed, *Current Practice in Programme Budgeting,* London 1973). The reasons for the failure of the US budget reforms in the 70s were complex, but related to the political resistance to rational budgeting combined with the development of excessively complex techniques. Observers such as Wildavsky who in the end argued for the retention of incremental budgeting recognised that their criticisms were less relevant to developing countries (Caiden, N. and A. Wildavsky, Planning and Budgeting in Poor Countries, Wiley, 1974)
56. Sometimes referred to as performance budgeting, or programme and performance budgeting, as in the UN Manual for Programme and Performance Budgeting, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN, 1968. See Dean, op cit, for a review of the UN manual.
57. Or, as Wildavsky wittily puts it, 'the affair with resources has been replaced by the
romance with objectives', *op cit,* 1984, p 181.
58. See Babunakis and Nozick *op cit* respectively for summaries of US and UK
experiences.
59. It should, of course, always be emphasised that enrolment does not equal attendance, and in countries with poorly resourced systems attendance rates will predictably fall, often seasonally. Indeed, attendance rates may be viewed as 'real enrolment rates'.
Where the ratio of attendance to enrolment is significantly less than unity many base planning data become meaningless, and considerable waste ensues.
60. See Hirsch, W.Z., M J Marcus R M Gray, Program Budgeting for Primary and Secondary Public Education: Current Status and Prospects in Los Angeles, Praeger, 1972, for some approaches to fiscal modeling, as well as a somewhat complex example of PB from Los Angeles.
61. This paper does not set out to review past and current PB experiences. Some countries, such as Malaysia, Sri Lanka, India, Philippines, Singapore, attempted to introduce full-scale programme budgets, with indifferent success, reviewed in Dean, op cit. Also the small island of Grenada in the Caribbean has programmed its budget within slightly modified budget categories: this simply allows objectives to be specified within the budget document, which would probably not be useful for a restructuring exercise in a bigger country. Some countries, such as Uganda, have converted budget votes to 'programmes'. Ghana also began to introduce elements of programming to the education sector, but it did not persist. Benin and The Gambia are currently embarking on budgeting reforms in the education sectors. Relatively few have attempted an overall reform involving three year rolling budgets linked with plans, in which the Ministry of Finance is involved in supporting sectoral reforms. Kenya introduced a three year rolling system, but its credibility may have been somewhat tarnished by inaccurate revenue forecasting and therefore a failure to allow institutions and managers to prepare for substantial contraction. Tanzania is introducing interesting reforms in social sector budgeting. Other countries which have introduced forward budgeting include Botswana.
62. Examples of the types of suitable training materials are found in IIEP, Educational Cost Analysis and Budgeting Report of a Training Programme, Saltpond, Ghana, UNESCO, 1989; and UNESCO, Report on Trainers' Training Programme in Educational Cost Analysis and Budgeting at the District Level, Ghana Ministry of Education/UNESCO/UNDP, August 1991, available from UNDP.
63. Dean, *op. cit.,* pp 138-139. 64. UNESCO Manual on the Application of URC Norms to Programme Linked
Budgeting, Republic of Ghana Ministry of Education, UNESCO/UNDP Document Nr 20, October 1989.
65. See CIPFA, Capital *Accounting in Local Authorities: The Way Forward,* Chartered
66. Capital expenditure in the education sector is sometimes difficult to define. In some cases, such as textbooks, expenditure on depreciating assets is treated as recurrent expenditure. In fact, textbooks may be also considered as capital expenditure with a two or three year straight line depreciation, though of course in reality books deteriorate most rapidly at the end of their lives. See MacGregor, C., K. Mortimer T. Lisher, Study on Book Provision in Kenyan Education ODA/World Bank, November 1990, East Africa Dept of the World Bank.
67. Penrose, P., T.C. Gardrler B. Shone, Budgeting for Higher Education in Ethiopia, Commission for Higher Education, Ethiopia, 1987.
68. Such as earmarking by donors for specific purposes and the problem of aid fungibility. See Maxwell, S. (editor), Counterpart Funds and Development. IDS Bulletin, Vol 23, Nr 2, April 1992.
69. General reviews include Riddell, R.C. *Foreign Aid Reconsidered,* Currey, 1987, and Cassen, R. and Associates, *Does Aid Work?,* Clarendon Press, 1986.
70. See Doriye, J. M. Wuyts, Aid. Adjustment and Sustainable Recovery - The Case of Tanzania. Working Paper for the Department of Economics, School of Oriental and African Studies, London University, March 1992.
## 71. Berg, *Op Cit.* P 14.
72. Having said all this, there is a disturbing tendency for aid donors and lenders to be fixated on the issue of reporting external assistance at the expense of supporting recurrent budget reform and improvement. Terms of Reference for some World Bank Public Expenditure Reviews, for example, arguably lay excessive emphasis on aid budgeting and expenditures and result in insufficient analysis of recurrent budgeting issues.
73. Such techniques would not, of course, overcome problems of aid fungibility, but all of the proposals in this paper presuppose the improvement of the public sector planning and administration culture so that deliberate subversions of the system are reduced.
74. To achieve total success in passing aid funds through consolidated revenue accounts is probably not possible. Donors will always have grounds to suspect that government policies are not in harmony with aid policies. For example, the European Commission is currently in dispute with the UK government over regional funds: normal UK leasury practice is that all funds go through the Treasury, while the EC does not accept that the Treasury will pass them in full to the regions (*Financial Times,* Feb 25, 1993).
75. Penrose, E. *The Theory of the Growth of the Firm,* Basil Blackwell, 1959, p 44.
76. *Ibid,* chapter 4.
77. Pearce, D., E Barbier A Markyanda, Sustainable Development, Economics and
Environment in the Third World, Earthscan, 1990, ch 1; Redclift, M. Sustainable Development, Exploring the Contradictions, Routledge, 1987, chs 2 & 3.
## Bibliography
Arndt, H. W 'Market Failure' and Underdevelopment, *World Development,* Vol 16 Nr 2, Feb 1988
Association of African Universities, Study on Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency in African Universities, A Synthesis Report, AAU, May 1991 Association of African Universities, University Productive Sector Linkages: Review of the State of the Art in Africa, AAU, November 1990
Babunakis, M. Budget Reform for Government: A Comprehensive Allocation and Management System (CAMS), Quorum Books, 1982 Beeby, C.E. *The Quality of Education in Developing Countries,* Harvard University Press, 1966
Berg E, Rethinking Technical Cooperation: Reforms for Capacity Building in Africa, UNDP, 1993 Bertrand, T.J. and R. Griffin, The Economics of Financing Education: A Case Study of Kenya, World Bank, 1984 Blaug, M. *Education and the Employment Problem in Developing Countries,* ILO, 1973 Blott, D. and M. Debeauvais, Education Expenditure in Developing Countries: Some Statistical Aspects, in *Financing Education for Economic Growth,* OECD, Paris, 1960
Brown, B.W. Why Governments Run Schools, *Economics of Education Review,* Vol
Caiden, N. and A. Wildavsky, *Planning and Budgeting in Poor Countries,* Wiley, 1974
Carnoy M. and C. Torres, Educational Change and Structural Adjustment: A Case
Study of Costa Rica, Operational Policy and Sector Analysis Division Working
Document, UNESCO, Paris, September 1992 Cassen, R. and Associates, *Does Aid Work.?,* Clarendon Press, 1986 CIPFA, *Capital Accounting in Local Authorities: The Way Forward,* Feb 1989 Colclough, C. Resources for Education in Developing Countries, International Journal
of Education, Vol 10, Nrs 2/3, 1990, pp 115-119 Colclough, C. Who Should Learn to Pay? An Assessment of Neo-liberal Approaches to Education Policy, in Colclough and Manor Colclough C. and J. Manor, *States or Markets?,* Clarendon Press, 1991 Colclough C. with K. Lewin, Educating All the Children, Oxford, 1993. Coombs, P.H. *What is Educational Planning?,* IIEP, 1970 Coombe, T *A Consultation on Higher Education in Africa,* Ford Foundation, Jan 1991 Curtin, T. The Economics of Public Investment in Education in Papua New Guinea,
University of Papua New Guinea Press, 1991 Dean, P.N. *Government Budgeting in Developing Countries,* Routledge, 1989 Devon, R.F. Foster's Paradigm Surrogate and the Wealth of Underdeveloped Nations, Comparative Education Review, October 1975 Dore, R. *The Diploma Disease,* Allen and Unwin, 1976 Doriye, J. and M. Wuyts, Aid, Adjustment and Sustainable Recovery - The Case of Tanzania, Working Paper for the Department of Economics, School of Oriental and African Studies, London University, March 1992 Dougherty, C. Education and Skill Development, Asian Development Bank/World
Eicher, J.C. *Educational Costing and Financing in Developing Countries,* World Bank Staff Working Papers Nr 655, 1984
Fanelli, J.M., R. Frenkel & L. Taylor, The World Development Report 1991: A Critical Assessment, Feb 1992 Foster, P. Dilemmas of Educational Development: What We Might Learn from the Past, *Comparative Education Review,* October 1975 Glewwe, P. Schooling, Skills and Investment in Education, LSMS Working Paper Nr
76, World Bank, 1991. Griffin K. and J. Knight (ed), Human Development and the International Development Strategy for the 1990s, Macmillan, 1989 Haddad, W.D. *et al, Education and Development: Evidence for New Priorities,* World Bank Discussion Papers Nr 95, 1990 Hallak, *J. A Qui Profite L'Ecole? Presses* Universitaires de France, 1974 Hallak, J. Education for All: High Expectations or False Hopes?, presented to the Oxford Conference, September 1991 Helleiner, G.K. Africa's Adjustment and External Debt, *World Development,* Vol 20,
Nr 6, 1992, pp 779-792 Hinchliffe, K. Federation and Education Finance: Primary Schooling in Nigeria, International Journal of Education Development, Vol 9, Nr 3, 1990 Hirsch, W.Z., M.J. Marcus & R.M. Gray, Program Budgeting for Primary and Secondary Public Education: Current Status and Prospects in Los Angeles, Praeger, 1972 Husen, T. et al, Teacher Training and Student Achievement in Less Developed Countries, World Bank Staff Working Paper Nr 310, Dec 1978
IIEP, Educational Cost Analysis and Budgeting: Report of a Training Programme, Saltpond, Ghana, UNESCO, 1989
Jimenez, E, Pricing Policies in the Social Sectors: Cost Recovery for Education and Health in Developing Countries, Johns Hopkins, 1987
Killick, T. A Reaction too Far: Economic Theory and the Role of the State in Developing Countries, ODI London, 1989
Knight, J. Education Policy Issues in a Period of Stabilization and Structural Adjustment in Griffin & Knight, Knight, J.B. and R.H. Sabot, Education, Productivity, and Equality: The East African Natural Experiment, OUP, 1990
Lall, S. Human Resources Development and Industrialization, with Special Reference to Sub-Saharan Africa, in Griffin and Knight Levy, V. Investment in Human Capital: Schooling and Supply Constraints in Rural Ghana, LSMS Working Paper Nr 93, World Bank, 1992. Leslie, I.L. Rates of Return as Informer of Public Policy, *Higher Education,* Vol 20, 1990 Lockheed, M.E., A.M. Verspoor and Associates, Improving Primary Education in Developing Countries, Oxford, 1991 MacGregor, C., K. Mortimer & T. Lisher, Study on Book Provision in Kenyan Education, ODA/World Bank, November 1990
Maxwell, S. (editor), Counterpart Funds and Development, *IDS Bulletin,* Vol 23, Nr 2, April 1992 Nozick, D. (ed), *Current Practice in Programme Budgeting,* London 1973. Penrose, E. *The Theory of the Growth of the Firm,* Basil Blackwell, 1959 Penrose, P., T.C. Gardner & B. Shone, Budgeting for Higher Education in Ethiopia, Commission for Higher Education, Ethiopia, 1987 Penrose, P. Evaluation of Linkages in the Field of Higher Education and Training: Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, June 1992 Penrose, P. Issues in Education Finance and Planning in Nigerian Secondary
Penrose, P. Review of Public Expenditures in the education Sector in Tanzania,
European Commission, July 1992
Psacharopoulos, G. and M. Woodhall Education for Development: An Analysis of
Investment Choices, OUP, 1985 Psacharopoulos, G. Priorities in the Financing of Education, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol 10, Nrs 2/3, 1990, pp 157-162 Riddell, R.C. *Foreign Aid Reconsidered,* Currey, 1987
Sahn, D.E. Public Expenditures in Sub-Saharan Africa During a Period of Economic Reform, *World Development,* Vol 20, nr 5, 1992, pp 673-693 Saint, W.S. Universities in Africa: Strategies for Stabilization and Revitalization, World Bank Technical Paper 194, 1992 Schiefelbein, E. Restructuring Education through Economic Competition: The Case of Chile. *Journal of Educational Administration,* Vol 29, Nr 4, 1991, pp 17-29 Snower, D.J. The Future of the Welfare State. *Economic Journal,* Vol 103, nr 418, May 1993, pp 700-717 Stewart, F. & E Ghani, How Significant are Externalities for Development?, World Development, Vol 19, Nr 6, 1992, pp 569-594
Stromquist, N. A Review of Educational Innovations to Reduce Costs in Financing Educational Development: Proceedings of an International Seminar held in Mont Saint Marie, Canada, 19-21 May 1982, IDRC and CIDA, pp 69-94 Thobani, M. Charging User Fees for Social Services: The Case of Education in Malawi World Bank Staff Working Paper Nr 572, 1983 Tilak, J.B.G. Education and Its Relation to Economic Growth, Poverty, and Income Distribution: Past Evidence and Further Analysis, World Bank Discussion Paper Nr 46, 1989
UNESCO Manual on the Application of URC Norms to Programme Linked Budgeting, Republic of Ghana Ministry of Education, UNESCO/UNDP Document Nr 20, October UNESCO Report on Trainers' Training Programme in Educational Cost Analysis and Budgeting at the District Level, Ghana Ministry of Education/UNESCO/UNDP, August 1991
UNICEF, *The State of the World's Children,* OUP, 1993 United Nations, *Manual for Programme and Performance Budgeting,* Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN, 1968
Watson, K. Alternative Funding of Education Systems, Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, Vol 1, 1991, pp 113-146
West, E.G. *Education and the Industrial Revolution,* Batsford, 1975
Wildavsky, A. *The Politics of the Budgetary Process,* Little, Brown & Co, 1984 (4th edition)
Woo, J.H. Education and Economic Growth in Taiwan: A Case of Successful Planning, World Development, Vol 19, Nr 8, 1991 World Bank, Financing Ed Education in Developing Countries: An Exploration of Policy Options, 1986 World Bank, *Nigerian Secondary Education Sector Report: A Study in Contrasts,* West Africa Department, August 1991
World Bank, *Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth,* 1989 Zymelman, M. *The Burden of Education Expenditures and its Forecast,* World Bank, Washington, 1978
DFID Department for International Development
94 Victoria Street London SW1E 5JL ISBN: 0 90250 067 8
[Previous Page] [Top of Page] | en |
4775-pdf |
## Prolific Offenders - Defining A Prolific Offender Introduction
Prolific offenders who are they, why do we have so many, how do they become so prolific. These are the questions that are often asked. This is the first in a series of analytical papers which will explore this group of offenders, to answer these questions where possible. In the first instance we are seeking user's views on the definition of a prolific offender. There is no common definition of a prolific offender and for the first time we try to define this group of offenders. For these analysis, a systematic approach has been adopted in trying to fully define a prolific offender. A prolific offender needs to be considered through various stages; their current age and the time available to offend (an offender aged 16 will have had a lot less time available to offend than a 50 year old). The proposed age group specific definitions are detailed below:–
## Definition Juvenile Prolific Offenders Are Defined As Those Who:
are aged 10-17, and
have 4 or more previous sanctions Young adult prolific offenders are defined as those who
are aged 18-20, and
have 8 or more previous sanctions, of which 4 or more were received whilst the offender was aged between 18 and 20.
Where a young adult does not meet the criteria for a prolific young adult offender but received 4 or more previous sanctions as a juvenile, they will then form part of the juvenile prolific cohort. Adult prolific offenders are defined as those who:
are aged 21 or older, and
have 16 or more previous sanctions, of which 8 or more were received when the offender was aged 21 or over.
Where an adult does not meet the criteria for a prolific adult offender but has 8 or more previous
sanctions, 4 or more of which were received as a young adult, they will then form part of the young adult prolific cohort.
Where an adult does not meet the criteria for a prolific adult nor a prolific young adult offender but has 4 or more previous sanctions as a juvenile, they will then form part of the juvenile prolific cohort.
## Methodology To Define A Prolific Offender
A basic definition means a prolific offender must have multiple offences resulting in convictions or cautions in their criminal career history. However, a threshold number of previous offences needs to be set when defining a prolific offender. In the Criminal Justice System Statistics quarterly publication a *persistent* offender is considered to be an offender with 8 or more previous convictions or cautions. In most analyses, an offender with 15 or more previous sanctions is considered a prolific offender. However, that definition is too simplistic to use as a single measure to define prolific offenders. Using a single value - such as 15 previous convictions or cautions - to define the cohort is likely to focus primarily on adults who have had most time to offend. For example, adult offenders potentially could have committed many offences in their long criminal career whilst juvenile or young adult offenders will have had less time to offend in a shorter criminal career. A different threshold therefore needs to be considered by age group, as there are different sentencing guidelines and outcomes for juveniles and adults. Given these factors, it is more reasonable to have 2 criteria and multiple thresholds for defining the term 'prolific' for three age groups of offenders:
Criteria 1: Offending History - this applies to the minimum number of previous convictions or cautions needed for an offender to be considered prolific by the three age groups; 10 to 17, 18 to 20 and 21 or over.
Criteria 2: Criminal History Pattern - this criteria is applicable to the spread of an offender's previous criminal history i.e. the age group when the majority of offending took place. An individual committing 15 offences as a juvenile and one as an adult could not be considered
a prolific adult.
Criteria 1: The MoJ's extract of the Police National Computer identified just over 5 million individuals aged 10 or older having received their last conviction or caution, dealt with by police force in England and Wales and British transport police, between 2000 and 2016. These offenders had an average of 4 offences per offender. Using a basic assumption that a prolific offender should have more offences than the average offender, those with less than 4 offences were removed from the analysis leaving 576,086 distinct offenders. Of these, 38,386 were aged 10-17, 46,011 were aged 18-20 and 491,689
were aged 21 or over1.
The next step is to define the number of previous convictions or cautions required to be considered a prolific offender for each age group; juvenile (aged 10-17), young adult (aged 18 to 20) and adult (aged 21 or over);
The 38,386 juvenile offenders with 4 or more convictions or cautions had an average number of 4 offences per offender. Based on the assumption that a prolific should have more offences than the average, a juvenile prolific offender is defined as an offender who
has been convited or cautioned on 5 separate occasions.
Undertaking similar analysis for a prolific young adult offender, of the 46,011 young adults with 4 or more convictions or cations, they had an average of 8 offences. Therefore, a young adult would need to have been convicted or cautioned on 9 separate occasions to be considered a prolific offender.
For adult offenders, of the 491,689 adult offenders with more than 4 sanctions, they had an average 16 offences each. Thus, an adult would need to have been convicted or cautioned on 17 separate occasions to be considered a prolific offender.
## Criteria 2: Criminal History Pattern
The purpose of the second measure is to ensure that offenders who met the first measure are properly defined according to the spread overtime of their previous sanctions. For example, if an adult prolific offender received the majority of their sanctions when they were aged 18-20 or under, they would be reclassified as a young adult prolific offender (as this is the age at which they were most prolific). Similarly, a young adult prolific offender who had received most of their sanctions when they were aged 10-17 would be reclassified as a juvenile prolific offender.
## Working Example 1
"Juvenile prolific": An offender is defined as a juvenile prolific if on their last appearance in the criminal justice system
they were aged 10-17 and had 4 or more previous convictions or cautions (20,690 offenders);
they were aged 18-20, had a total of 8 or more previous convictions or cautions, and had less than 4 previous convictions or cautions when aged 18-20 (33,352 offenders); and
they were aged 21 or older, had less than 16 previous convictions or cautions, had less than 4 previous convictions or cautions when aged 18-20 and had 4 or more previous convictions or cautions when aged 10-17 (107,056).
## Working Example 2
"Young adult prolific": An offender is defined as a young adult prolific if on their last appearance in the criminal justice system
they were aged 18-20, had a total of 8 or more previous convictions or cautions, and had at least 4 previous convictions or caution when aged 18-20 (8,109 offenders); and
they were aged 21 or older, had a total of 16 or more previous convictions or cautions, had less than 8 previous convictions or cautions when aged 21 or older, and had 4 or more previous convictions or cautions when aged between 18 and 20 (110,373 offenders).
## Working Example 3
"Adult prolific": An offender is defined as an adult prolific if on the last appearance in the criminal justice system
they were aged 21 or older, had a total of 16 or more previous convictions or cautions, and had 8 or more previous convictions or cautions when aged 21 or older (211,945 offenders).
## Definition Of A Prolific Offender
Earlier in this paper the proposed definition of a prolific offender was set out. Table 1 shows that of all prolific offenders, 20,690 (4%) were juveniles (aged 10 - 17), 41,462 (8%) were young adults (aged 18-20) and 429,374 (87%) were adults (21 or older) based on their last appearance in the criminal justice system. Looking at the spread of previous convictions or cautions (shown in Working Examples 1, 2 and 3 above) four fifths of prolific offenders aged 18-20 and a quarter of those aged 21 or older are classed as Juvenile prolific offenders. A quarter of prolific offenders aged 21 or older would be classed as a young adult prolific offender.
Characteristic
Juvenile Prolific
Young Adult Prolific
Adult Prolific
Non-prolific
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Age 10-17
20,690
12.8%
648,378
12.9%
18-20
33,352
20.7%
8,109
6.8%
590,767
11.7%
>=21
107,056
66.5%
110,373
93.2%
211,945
100.0%
3,805,980
75.4%
The following flow diagram gives a visual representation as to how the prolific offender cohort has been selected.
## Feedback And Questions
We would welcome any feedback from users on the proposed definition for a prolific offender.
## Questions
1. Do users agree that a prolific offender should be defined on an age group basis, i.e. if the
majority of the offending took place as a juvenile, then that is the age group for which they are defined as a prolific offender irrespective of their age at last offence?
2. Do users agree that to be prolific an offender must have committed more offences than
the average of the age group they are in?
3. Do users agree with the criteria used to define prolific offenders? 4. Would users find a more in depth analysis of prolific offenders based on this definition
useful?
5. If you disagree with the proposed definition, please provide detail as to what you believe
makes a prolific offender.
Please send your feedback to statistics.enquiries@justice.gsi.gov.uk by Friday 15th December 2017. Subject to any feedback received with regards to the proposed prolific offender definition we will be publishing offence and outcomes analysis of a prolific offender in the February 2019 publication. | en |
0390-pdf |
th
Nature and dates held by the Crown Prosecution Service on a historic child sex abuser. Request Concerning the case of R Barton-Wood who was convicted of historic child sex abuse in February 2018. I would like to know if any information has been received about his case since his conviction at Ipswich Crown court. If so, then I would like to know the nature of the information and the date on which it was received. Response Richard Thomas Barton-Wood was convicted on the 31 January 2018, since that date the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has not received any material that relates to Mr Barton-Wood. Information Management Unit 020 3357 0899
IMU@cps.gov.uk
Crown Prosecution Service, Information Management Unit,
Floor 8, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ | en |
1771-pdf |
## Partner'S Repayment Claim
Your reference If these details are incorrect, please amend them here.
Please use this reference if you write or phone.
It will help to avoid delay.
Issued by Phone
## Claim For Repayment Of Subcontractor Deductions In The Tax Year To 5 April 2015
Use this form to claim repayment of deductions made during the tax year to 5 April 2015.
When not to use this form Use your tax return instead of this form if you are making your claim **after** 5 April 2015, the end of the tax year.
If you are in business on your own, rather than in a partnership, ask us for claim form CIS40(2014) 'Individual's repayment claim'.
To make your claim:
- complete each part of this form in turn, unless you are
directed otherwise
- keep a record of the details from the payment and
deduction statements for the tax year, ready to complete
your tax return after 5 April 2015
- send the original payment and deduction statements to
us at the above address, together with this fully
completed form
We will work out any repayment you are due.
## Help To Decide When To Claim Repayment Complete This Part First To Help Decide If You Should Claim Repayment Now.
My tax affairs and those of the partnership are up to date.
(This includes sending in tax returns and Employer and Contractor payments.) Put X in one box.
The partnership accounts which end in the year to 5 April 2015
have been prepared and the business profits are now known or the partnership has ceased and final accounts have been prepared. Put X in one box.
No Yes No Yes I hold the **original** payment and deduction statements for the tax year, fully completed by the contractor, showing the deductions made. Put X in one box.
If you have put an X in all the Yes boxes in this part, go to
'Personal details' on page 2. If you are unable to answer yes to one or more of these statements you should not make a claim now.
No Yes Please contact any HM Revenue & Customs office if you need help.
I have paid all tax and Class 4 National Insurance contributions due. Put X in one box.
No Yes
## Personal Details Complete For All Claims.
1
4
Partnership tax reference number
Your National Insurance number
2
5
Your date of birth DD MM YYYY
Your daytime phone number
(It is often easier to clear up any queries on your claim
over the phone.)
3
Are you married or in a civil partnership? Put X in one box.
Yes No If No, go to question 4
If Yes, enter your husband's or wife's or civil partner's date of birth DD MM YYYY
## Details Of Your Claim We May Ask For Evidence To Support The Details You Enter Here.
6
9
Has the business ceased? Put X in one box.
Enter the total partnership deductions from the payment
and deduction statements for the period since
6 April 2014
Yes
No
•
£
7
10
Enter the date, between 6 April 2014 and now, on which
either the partnership ceased or the accounting period
of the partnership ended DD MM YYYY
Enter the total of any other income you have received
since 6 April 2014 which has not had Income Tax
deducted, treated as deducted or treated as paid
•
£
8
For the accounting period ending on the date you have
shown above in question 7, please enter:
the gross business income, excluding VAT
•
1
£
We will normally send any repayment by cheque to you at the address shown on page 1. If you want to receive repayment in this way, please continue by completing the 'Statement of Consent by the partnership', starting on page 4.
the total allowable business expenses and capital allowances
•
2
£
the net business profit (box 1 minus box 2)
If you want the repayment sent to a bank account, or to someone else (a nominee), first complete 'Sending the repayment elsewhere' on page 3 followed by the 'Declaration'. Please also make sure that you complete the 'Statement of Consent by the partnership', starting on page 4.
•
3
£
## Sending The Repayment Elsewhere A Nomination Here Relates To This Claim Only.
Would you prefer a repayment to go to your bank or building society or to a nominee?
Fill in either (a) or (b) below.
(b) Send the repayment by cheque to my nominee,
shown below.
(a)Send the repayment direct to the bank or
building society account, as detailed below.
Declaration Complete for all claims. False statements can result in prosecution.
I: - enclose all the **original** payment and deduction statements
- have kept copies of the payment and deduction statements
- authorise any repayment to be made to the person shown at (a) or (b) above, if applicable
- confirm that the information I have given here is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief
Signature Date DD MM YYYY
## Statement Of Consent By The Partnership Complete For All Claims.
We must have this Statement of Consent signed by all the partners, before we can make any repayment.
If the partner is a company, a director or the company secretary should sign this Statement of Consent, under the company name.
Please use this page, page 5 and any continuation sheets necessary to record all of the partners.
Full name and address of the partnership (use capital letters)
Name Address Postcode
For each partner, show the allocation of:
- **partnership profit** for the accounting period ending in the
tax year 6 April 2014 to 5 April 2015 - your accountant(s)
will be able to calculate each partner's share of profit, as
adjusted for tax purposes for the year; if you do not have an
accountant(s) please contact any HM Revenue & Customs
office for advice
- **partnership deductions** shown in payment and deduction
statements since 6 April 2014
Partnership tax reference
Number of partners
Number of completed continuation sheets
Partner's name
Partner's tax reference Share of profit as adjusted for tax purposes for the year
Partner's signature
£
•
Share of deductions from payment and deduction statements
£
•
Partner's name
Partner's tax reference
Share of profit as adjusted for tax purposes for the year
Partner's signature
£
•
Share of deductions from payment and deduction statements
£
•
Partner's name
Partner's tax reference
Share of profit as adjusted for tax purposes for the year
Partner's signature
£
•
Share of deductions from payment and deduction statements
£
•
| Partner's name | Partner's tax reference |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|
| Share of profit as adjusted for tax purposes for the year | |
| Partner's signature | |
| £ | |
| - | |
| Share of deductions from payment and deduction statements | |
| £ | |
| - | |
| Partner's name | Partner's tax reference |
| Share of profit as adjusted for tax purposes for the year | |
| Partner's signature | |
| £ | |
| - | |
| Share of deductions from payment and deduction statements | |
| £ | |
| - | |
| Partner's name | Partner's tax reference |
| Share of profit as adjusted for tax purposes for the year | |
| Partner's signature | |
| £ | |
| - | |
| Share of deductions from payment and deduction statements | |
| £ | |
| - | |
| Partner's name | Partner's tax reference |
| Share of profit as adjusted for tax purposes for the year | |
| Partner's signature | |
| £ | |
| - | |
| Share of deductions from payment and deduction statements | |
| £ | |
| - | |
| Partner's name | |
| Partner's tax reference | |
| Share of profit as adjusted for tax purposes for the year | |
| Partner's signature | |
| £ | |
| - | |
| Share of deductions from payment and deduction statements | |
| £ | |
| - | |
| £ | |
| - | |
| 1 | |
| Deductions made from payment and deduction statements | |
| 2 | |
| £ | |
| - | |
| Deductions made from payment and deduction statements from all | |
| continuation sheets | |
| 3 | |
| £ | |
| - | |
| Total deductions shown in payment and deduction statements | |
| (box 1 plus box 2) | |
Finally, complete the 'Declaration' on page 3. | en |
4453-pdf |
##
OPERATIONAL SELECTION POLICY OSP49
## Records Of Uk Export Finance 1978 Onwards
Document Authority
The National Archives' Records Collection Policy was published in November 2012, and replaces the 2007 Acquisition and Disposal policy. The Records Collection Policy sets out which records the National Archives will and will not accept for permanent preservation, when they will collect them and where they will be held.
Operational Selection Policies are intended to be working tools for those involved in the selection of public records. This policy may, therefore, be reviewed and revised in the light of comments received from the users of records or from archive professionals, the department's experience of using the policy, or as a result of newly discovered information.
This policy is a presentation version of an Appraisal Report. Appraisal Reports have been developed to implement The National Archives' Appraisal Policy published in August 2004. They are designed to provide structured information about the responsibilities, work and records of an organisation so that appraisers can identify records of potential historical value. They provide a transparent record of decisions on the selection of records, in whatever format, for permanent preservation. Selection decisions are based on the requirement both to document the work of the organisation and to provide information about specific topics of potential long-term interest.
If you have any comments on this policy please email:-
Information.managment@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk or write to: Information Management and Practice Department
The National Archives Kew Richmond Surrey TW9 4DU
CONTENTS:
Executive summary Section 1: Background Information Section 2: Material from the department transferred to The National Archives in the past Section 3: Analysis of the records produced by UK Export Finance Section 4: Records to be selected for The National Archives Section 5: Additional information and follow-up
## 1. Executive Summary
Historical value of records
The UK Export Finance (UKEF) is the UK's national export credit agency. It supports British exports by providing insurance to exporters against not receiving payment from their overseas buyers and by providing guarantees to banks in respect of loans made to overseas borrowers in order to assist the purchase of UK goods and services. UKEF also insures UK investors in oversees enterprises against loss caused by the occurrence of political risks and reinsures export credit agencies in other countries which provide support for UK exports. UKEF reports to the Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills but is an independent government department which derives its powers from the Export and Investment Guarantee Act 1991. UKEF exercises its statutory powers in accordance with the financial objectives set by HM Treasury the policies set for it by the Government and international agreements which relate to the activities of national export credit agencies.
The historical value of UKEF's records lies in the fact that:
-
they record the development of UKEF as an organisation, in particular over the period between 1991 and the present when various options were considered for UKEF's future and UKEF underwent significant organisational
change;
-
they detail the development of UKEF's policies and products in relation to the promotion of UK exports and overseas investments as well as in relation to matters such as combating corruption in export transactions and protecting the environment;
-
they detail UKEF's support for, and the effect of its involvement in the
financing of, specific UK projects overseas; and
-
they describe UKEF's contribution to the UK's economy by supporting British
exports and investments overseas. (Although UKEF works specifically with
only a small sector of the population nevertheless its work can have an impact on particular sectors of the economy and therefore on the prosperity of the UK).
The relevance of the Acquisition Criteria
The work of UKEF falls within two themes of the Acquisition Criteria: 3.1 Policy and administrative processes of the State: the formulation of policy and its execution 3.1.4 Regulation and support of economic activity by government, including industry, services, agriculture, transport, energy, trade and employment and productivity The records of UKEF are likely to have research value for the following reasons:
- History of government's relationship with, and support for, exporters and
business
- History and development of government's policy on sustainable development
and the impact of climate change issues.
The records which will be selected for permanent preservation will be those policy records which document how UKEF functions, whether its functions should remain in the public sector, how it was organised, how some of its policies were developed, its relationship with its statutory advisory body and, through a selection of its case files, evidence of how its statutory duties were fulfilled. The records of the Management Board will be selected, as it is the forum where the strategic issues facing UKEF are debated and the performance objectives and framework for the organisation are agreed. During the period of the report there has been significant consideration of the existence, remit, value, structure, policies and rules of UKEF. Management, policy and project records relating to these reviews will also be selected. The records of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council (EGAC) will be selected. The EGAC is a statutory body that, since 1991, advises the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on matters relating to the exercise of his functions under the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 (as amended by the Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Act 2009)1. Most of UKEF operational work is routine but there are some projects which UKEF is asked to support which may be controversial because, for example, they involve potentially high environmental and social impacts. Such cases involve lengthy consideration of issues and can generate parliamentary and media interest.
International agreements2, particularly the OECD
Recommendation on Common Approaches on the Environment and Officially Supported Export Credits establish the criteria by which UKEF and other export credit agencies assess projects involving high potential environmental impacts. Such projects are notified publicly on UKEF's website. Case files which meet the criterion of having a High Potential Impact will be selected.
## Section 1: Background Information 1.1 **Name Of Department** Uk Export Finance (Ukef) In November 2011 Uk Export Finance Became The Operating Name Of The Export Credits Guarantee Department (Ecgd) 1.2 **Type Of Organisation**
UKEF is a central government department established by statute which reports to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
1.3 **Annual budget**
UKEF supports a wide range of exports and investments, issuing guarantees and insurance policies for which UKEF charges premiums, the amount of which is informed by a policy of pricing to risk, including recovery of operational costs, and an OECD agreement which has established minimum rates to be charged by official export credit agencies. UKEF aims to operate at no cost to the Exchequer. Ministers have periodically issued assurances to Parliament that UKEF is required to break even over the long term.
UKEF's Annual Review and Resource Accounts are available from the Department's website.
1.4 Number of employees
As at April 2014 UKEF's headcount was 252 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff.
1.5 Records
UKEF does not currently have an Electronic Document and Records Management System, and electronic records are instead held on a shared drive. There is some variation in the file/folder structure as between divisions within the Department and, therefore, UKEF has continued to adhere to a "print to paper" policy for its records.
For the purpose of this Appraisal Report, the records to be selected will be paper records.
## 1.6 **Background, Functions And Activities**
UKEF was established in 1919 in order to help to re-establish international trade following the First World War. Its existence was regularised by the Overseas Trade (Credit and Insurance) Act 1920. The Act gave the Board of Trade power to make arrangements for granting credits to UK persons and companies for exports to overseas parties to a limited number of countries listed in the schedule to the Act. The Export Guarantees Act 1937 amended and consolidated the Overseas Trade
Acts 1920 - 1934 and provided similar cover to the 1920 Act. The Export Guarantees Act 1939 granted additional powers to UKEF for providing guarantees which were in the national interest and for the purpose of arranging economic assistance to countries outside the UK and established the Export Guarantees Advisory Council. The Overseas Investment and Export Guarantees Act 1972 authorised the Secretary of State to insure UK investors in overseas enterprises against loss arising from war, expropriation, restrictions and remittances and similar risks.
The Export Guarantees and Overseas Investment Act 1978 consolidated all the previous acts and distinguished between export guarantees which were to be provided for the purpose of encouraging trade with other countries and were in connection with the export manufacture, treatment or distribution of goods and the rendering of services and guarantees and other arrangements in the national interest. The Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 (the EIGA) made changes to the purposes for which UKEF could exercise its statutory powers. Rather than empowering UKEF to enter into arrangements for the encouragement of trade with other countries or which were in the national interest, the EIGA permits UKEF to enter into arrangements to facilitate, directly or indirectly, supplies by persons carrying on businesses in the UK of goods and services to persons outside the UK. It also permitted UKEF to make arrangements which, in its opinion, are in the interests of the proper financial management of its portfolio. Part 2 of the EIGA permits the Secretary of State to transfer or delegate UKEF's functions and enabled UKEF's short-term credit insurance business (known as the Insurance Services Group) to be privatised by its sale to NCM (UK), now known as Atradius in 1991.
The Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Act 2009 made an amendment to s.1(1) of the EIGA in order to recognise a change that had taken place over a number of years in international contracting where, increasingly, project sponsors placed business with UK exporters and paid them in cash or from short-term borrowing before then seeking refinancing under an export credit loan. UKEF had difficulty in finding the statutory power to provide support for such refinancing loans because, as the goods and services in question had been supplied, UKEF's support could no longer facilitate their supply for the purposes of s.1(1) of the EIGA. The amendment addressed this problem by replacing the requirement in s.1(1) of the EIGA for UKEF's support to facilitate exports by a requirement for it to be entered into "in connection with" UK exports from the UK, even if those exports had already taken place. UKEF's main functions are now to:
- provide insurance to exporters of capital equipment and project related goods
and services against non-payment by overseas buyers;
- guaranteeing loans by banks to overseas borrowers to assist the purchase of
goods and services from suppliers in the UK; and
- provide insurance to UK investors against loss arising from political risks in
relation to investments in overseas enterprises.
UKEF's current products are either:
- financial guarantees (i.e. buyer credit facilities, supplier credit financing facilities,
lines of credit); or - policies of insurance– (i.e. the export insurance policy, bond insurance policy
and overseas investment insurance policy).
In 2005, UKEF began a process of moving towards becoming a government trading fund under the Government Trading Funds Act 1973. A notionally capitalised trading fund was introduced in April 2005 with a view to full trading fund status being achieved in April 2007, which was then extended to April 2008. Subsequently, Ministers decided that, UKEF would not become a Trading Fund but, from April 2008, would operate under a new financial framework agreed with HM Treasury. In 2009, UKEF launched a Letter of Credit Guarantee Scheme to assist UK exporters during the global downturn. The scheme was designed to increase the availability of short-term export finance by giving guarantees to UK banks who confirmed letters of credit issued by overseas banks in favour of UK exporters in order to protect those UK banks against non-payment by the overseas issuers. The scheme is intended to operate until March 2011. Also, in 2009, UKEF launched a public consultation on proposed changes to its Business Principles and ancillary policies and published a review of its anti-bribery procedures with the consultation document. The outcome was that the Government decided to make changes to UKEF's Business Principles, including adopting a policy of following international agreements when considering the environmental, social and human rights aspects of projects and exports for which UKEF's support is requested rather than operating its own separate or additional policies.
UKEF's Direct lending Facility (DLF) was launched in September 2013. It provides loans to overseas buyers who purchase goods and services from British Exporters. The facility was originally envisaged as a backstop, designed for when the market failed to function. At the Budget in March 2014 the Facility was transformed into one of the most competitive export finance products in Europe. Its capacity was doubled to £3 billion; the interest rate was reduced to the lowest rate allowed under international obligations, along with other changes that make it easier for more firms to access the scheme. UKEF is willing to deliver lending in partnership with a private sector provider this would be a bank or suitable non-bank entity. Overall benefits is that the exporter is paid as though it has a cash contract and also the buyer or borrower has time to pay over a number of years and can borrow at very competitive fixed rates of interest. Overall the DLF is placing British based exporters on an equal footing, when compared with Europe's most competitive export credit agencies.
## 1.7 Name Of Parent Or Sponsoring Department. If None, Minister Who Lays An Annual Report Before Parliament
UKEF is a separate government department and therefore does not have a parent department. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills lays UKEF's annual report and accounts before Parliament.
## 1.8 Relationship With Other Departments
BIS
The Chief Executive of UKEF reports to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and President of the Board of Trade and the Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs. There is regular contact with those parts of BIS that interface with the work of UKEF.
Shareholder Executive The Shareholder Executive was created in September 2003 to fundamentally improve the government's performance as a shareholder in government owned businesses and to provide a source of corporate finance expertise within government. It advises UKEF and Ministers on a wide range of shareholder issues such as objectives, governance, strategy, performance monitoring, board appointments and remuneration.
HM Treasury UKEF may only exercise its powers under the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991, with the consent of HM Treasury. HM Treasury gives this consent by means of a Consent Document covering all UKEF's activities. This consent is linked to a Financial Framework Document agreed between UKEF and HM Treasury which requires UKEF, when conducting its activities, to meet certain financial objectives and to provide regular reports to HM Treasury on the extent to which these objectives are achieved. The Consent Document and Financial Framework Document have to date been reviewed and revised annually. UKEF works closely with HM Treasury in building a strong international consensus for improvements to the official export credit system and in respect of UK debt policy through the UK's participation in the Paris Club of Official Creditors.
1.9 Relationship with other agencies/NDPBs/NGOs The Export Guarantees Advisory Council The first Council was established under the Export Guarantees Act 1939 to give advice relating to general policy matters in respect of specific markets, as well as all business operations. Its successor of the same name has the remit, under the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991, to give independent advice to the Secretary of State on any matter relating to the exercise of his functions under the Act. Members are appointed by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in accordance with rules set by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA). Full terms of reference are available on UKEF's website. In practice, the focus of the work of the Council is to give advice of the application of UKEF's ethical policies related to bribery and corruption, sustainable lending, the environmental, and social and human rights impacts of the projects it is asked to support and transparency (Freedom on Information).
International Union of Credit and Investment Insurers - Berne Union
The main role of Berne Union, of which UKEF was a founder member in 1934, is to facilitate cross border trade by supporting international acceptance of sound principles in export credits and foreign investment, and to provide a forum for professional exchanges amongst its members.
The Paris Club The Paris Club is an informal group of official creditors whose role is to find coordinated and sustainable solutions to the payment difficulties experienced by debtor nations and to avoid defaults on loans made by debtors. It is composed of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) governments, of which the UK is one. The UK is represented by HM Treasury and UKEF. Although the Paris Club has no legal basis or status it provides a forum in which creditor countries can agree the basis on which the debts of a debtor country should be rescheduled after that country has approached the Paris Club. Rescheduling is a means of providing a debtor country with debt relief through a postponement (and, in the case of concessional rescheduling, a reduction in) its debt service obligations.
Special Interest Groups UKEF engages with a number of such organisations (which have an active interest in the Department's work) in particular when consulting publicly on changes proposed to its services and operations. A number of civil society organisations monitor UKEF's activities and respond to public consultations. These include Amnesty, The Corner House, Campaign Against Arms Trade, WWF-UK and Jubilee Debt Campaign.
As well as individual customers, UKEF engages with trade associations. The main such groups are: the British Exporters Association (BExA), an independent national trade association representing the interests the export community; the British Bankers Association (BBA), representing the interests of all banks operating in the UK, and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), a lobby organisation that promotes the interests of UK business. These organisations are broadly supportive of UKEF's role and their members are among UKEF's customer base.
## Section 2: Material Transferred To Tna In The Past
The records at TNA date from UKEF's establishment:-
ECG 1 Minutes and papers of the Export Credit Committee, the Export Credit Advisory Committee, the Export Credit Guarantee Advisory Committee and Export Guarantee Advisory Council - all external advisory bodies to UKEF
ECG 2 Minutes of UKEF's Executive Committee ECG 3 Papers of sub-committees of the Export Credit Advisory Council and Export Guarantees Council
## Ecg 4 Miscellanea
ECG 5 Records from the Secretariat, later the Chief Executive's Office. This series contains policy files selected to illustrate the development of the organisation, legislative changes, the introduction of schemes and loan agreements, departmental reviews, relations with the Berne Union, precedent cases, some case files concerned with the departments involvement in major overseas projects and papers of the Export Guarantee Committee
ECG 6 Specimen forms - no records transferred - series closed ECG 7 Treasury Delegated Authorities: Copy Letters - no records transferred -
series closed ECG 8 Transferred to ECG 5
ECG 9 Minutes of the Comprehensive Group Board and the Insurance Services Board up to the point of the privatisation of the Group and its transfer to NCM (UK) in
1991
ECG 10 Copies of published Trading Accounts which later formed part of the Annual Report.
No further reports will be added to this series (OSP36 Publications/Grey literature)
ECG 15 - High Impact Case Files
## Section 3: Analysis Of Records Produced
3.1 Committee structure within the department, including statutory committees directing the work of the organisation but independent of the department. (Table 3. 1: Key committees)
Terms of reference3
Appraisal
Check of
File series
hypothesis
quality of
Name of committee
information
Select
-
Full
agendas,
Provides advice on general policy, specific
markets
and
business
minutes
and
papers
external body which advises on
general
Export Guarantee Advisory Council 1939-1991
policy
and
operations The
Export
Guarantees
Advisory
SEC 7034 A 11
Council
("the
Council")
has
been
Export Guarantees Advisory Council from 1991
specific markets Select
–
external
advisory body which advises on the operation
of
UKEF business principles
established under Section 13 of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 (as amended by the Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Act 2009) ("The Act"). Its statutory purpose is to give advice to the Secretary of State, at his request, in respect of any matter relating to the exercise of his functions under
the
Act.
In
particular,
the
Secretary of State is required to consult the Council in exercising his duty under Section 11(2) of the Act (in relation to reinsurance).
| Select | - | Full |
|------------------------------------------|------|---------|
| 5 | | |
| | | |
| minutes | and | |
| papers | | |
| highest level of | | |
| decision | | |
| making | in | |
| Management Board - | | |
| MB - from 2003-2004 | | |
| 4 | | |
| | | |
| (previously EGAC was | | |
| more closely involved | | |
| in operational matters) | | |
| UKEF | | |
| as it supports | | |
| the | CE | in |
| setting | | |
| strategic | and | |
| governance | | |
| framework and | | |
| overall | | |
| performance, | | |
| monitoring and | | |
| management | | |
| of UKEF | | |
| | | |
| The Management Board (MB) supports | | |
| the Accounting Officer in the discharge | | |
| of his responsibilities and has | | |
| accountability to the Secretary of State | | |
| for Business, Innovation & Skills: | | |
| a. exercising oversight of the Chief | | |
| Executive and the Executive | | |
| Committee; | | |
| b. monitoring the application of the | | |
| principles of good governance; | | |
| c .ensuring the strategic goals of UKEF | | |
| are properly tested and examined; | | |
| d. advising on policies and strategies; | | |
| providing advice on achieving policies | | |
| set by Ministers; | | |
| e. monitoring performance; assessing | | |
| and monitoring enterprise-wide risks; | | |
| and | | |
| f. recommending accounting policies | | |
| and the Annual Review and Resource | | |
| Accounts. | | |
| | | |
| Executive | Committee | (EC) | is | |
|-------------------------------------------|----------------|-----------------------------------------|-------------|----------|
| responsible for advising the Chief | | | | |
| Executive | on | the | operational | |
| Executive Committee | | | | |
| - EC | | | | |
| Not selected - | | | | |
| provides | | | | |
| advice to CE, | | | | |
| makes | | | | |
| decisions | on | | | |
| management of UKEF's business. It | | | | |
| supports the Chief Executive in the | | | | |
| discharge of his responsibility as the | | | | |
| Accounting | Officer | for | the | overall |
| organisation, | performance | and | | |
| management of UKEF | | | | |
| within | the | policy | and | resource |
| operational | | | | |
| activities. | | | | |
| Important | | | | |
| operational | | | | |
| issues will be | | | | |
| discussed | by | framework set by Ministers and policies | | |
| on which Management Board (MB) | | | | |
| have provided advice. | | | | |
| Management | | | | |
| Board | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Audit Committee | | | | |
| Not selected - | | | | |
| decisions | | | | |
| referred | to | | | |
| Management | | | | |
| Board | | | | |
| The role of the Audit Committee is to | | | | |
| assist and advise the Accounting Officer | | | | |
| in relation to his responsibility for | | | | |
| matters of financial reporting, including | | | | |
| the production of annual Resource | | | | |
| Accounts, and issues of risk, internal | | | | |
| control, governance and associated | | | | |
| assurance. The Audit Committee is a | | | | |
| sub-committee of the Management | | | | |
| Board. | | | | |
| | | BSIC is responsible for ensuring that | | |
| UKEF's | investment | in | business | |
| systems, processes and infrastructure | | | | |
| is | well-targeted, | well-managed, | in | |
| Business Systems and | | | | |
| Infrastructure | | | | |
| Committee - BSIC | | | | |
| Not selected - | | | | |
| operational | | | | |
| committee | - | | | |
| decisions | | | | |
| referred to EC | | | | |
| accordance with strategies and policies | | | | |
| and is expected to represent value for | | | | |
| money. | | | | |
| | | Not selected - |
|-------------------------------------------|-------------|---------------------------------------|
| operational | | |
| committee | | |
| considering | | |
| risks | at | |
| Risk Committee (RC) | | |
| from October 2004. | | |
| Work previously was | | |
| the remit of the Market | | |
| Committee (early | | |
| 1990s - 2004) | | |
| | | |
| RC is responsible for advising the Chief | | |
| Executive on the effective management | | |
| of UKEF's credit risk exposures at the | | |
| case specific and portfolio level, and in | | |
| accordance with policies set out in | | |
| UKEF's Credit Risk Policy Statement | | |
| (CRPS). RC is responsible also for | | |
| ensuring that credit risks are properly | | |
| monitored | and | controlled |
| portfolio level– | | |
| see proposed | | |
| selection | | |
| criteria | for | |
| UKEF's processes and systems. | case files | |
| | | ISAC is responsible for ensuring that |
| the information required for UKEF's | | |
| business | operations, | systems |
| Information Security | | |
| Assurance Committee | | |
| (ISAC) | | |
| processes are appropriately secured in | | |
| accordance | with | UKEF's, |
| Not selected - | | |
| operational | | |
| committee | - | |
| decisions | | |
| referred to EC | | |
| regulatory | and | central |
| requirements. It is a sub-committee of | | |
| the Executive Committee. | | |
| | | |
## 3.2 Areas Of Policy Work Undertaken In The Department
Table 3.2: Policy work in the department
Type of policy
Yes / No
Notes
Appraisal comments
Records to be selected from UKEF
Primary legislative (and related consultative documentation)
Yes
UKEF, working closely with colleagues from BIS and HMT, develops primary legislation affecting the statutory functions of the Department.
Not selected - UKEF a
contributor only - lead with
international and other organisations
Department represents the
UK Govt at international conferences/ on European or International bodies
Yes
UKEF contributes to any collective Export
Credit Agencies issues as the UK's representative on the OECD export credits committees and working parties, represents UK at Berne Union and Paris Club
Records to be selected from UKEF
Secondary legislation (and related consultative documentation)
Yes
UKEF, working closely with colleagues from BIS and HMT develops secondary legislation
affecting the statutory functions of the
Department.
Not to be selected
Department issues advice and guidance
Yes
Via Guidance Notes for UK exporters and banks
Department develops nationwide strategy documents (below White Paper status but above operational level)
No
UKEF develops policy which has an impact on a specialist audience (all export businesses) i.e. bribery and corruption, sustainable development. It Undertakes consultations which may lead to policy and rule changes e.g. support for foreign content
Select project files on reviews of policy, remit and role (see also significant policy issues below)
## 3.3 Operational Work Undertaken By The Department Table 3.3: Operational Work Of The Department And Records Created
| Type of | Is the work | Is the work | Do appeals |
|---------------------------|------------------------|----------------|---------------|
| activity | record | | |
| created | | | |
| captured | | | |
| through a | | | |
| database? | | | |
| captured | | | |
| through | | | |
| publications | | | |
| go elsewhere | | | |
| (e.g. BIS, | | | |
| independent | | | |
| results | | | |
| captured in | | | |
| the Annual | | | |
| (see 6 below) | panel? | Report? | |
| Underwriting | cases | in | |
| response to applications | | | |
| ACBS | | | |
| system | | | |
| Yes | Case file and | | |
| folder | | | |
| arranged | by | | |
| market | for | | |
| Paris | Club | | |
| No | N/A | Total | |
| payments | | | |
| and analysis | | | |
| by business | | | |
| sector | | | |
| Although large sums of | | | |
| money can be involved | | | |
| most cases are routine | | | |
| and will not be selected. | | | |
| High Potential Impact | | | |
| Cases where potentially | | | |
| high | social, | | |
| cases and for | | | |
| guarantee | | | |
| business | by | environmental | and |
| project | development | impacts | |
| are | likely | will | be |
| selected (see 5.1) | | | |
| As above | Handling claims | Yes | Case file and |
| folder | | | |
| arranged | by | | |
| Treasury | | | |
| management | | | |
| , | FREF, | | |
| market | | | |
| No | N/A | Total | |
| payments | | | |
| and analysis | | | |
| by business | | | |
| sector | | | |
| GEFCO | | | |
| claims | | | |
| databases | | | |
| As above | Supporting finance and | | |
| arranging insurance, re- | | | |
| insurance | and | | |
| Yes | Case | | |
| file/folder | | | |
| arranged | by | | |
| guarantees against loss | project | | |
| As above | No | N/A | Total |
| payments | | | |
| and analysis | | | |
| by business | | | |
| for UK businesses | sector. | List |
|-------------------------|----------------|---------------------------|
| of | | |
| guarantees | | |
| and | | |
| insurance | | |
| policies | | |
| issued with | | |
| maximum | | |
| liability | for | |
| each | | |
| exporter/mar | | |
| ket | | |
| Providing, | guidance, | |
| information and support | | |
| No | Printed and on | |
| website | | |
| N/A | N/A | Not selected in line with |
| OSP | 36 | |
| Yes | Booklets, | |
| brochures, | | |
| pamphlets | | |
| Publications/Grey | | |
| Literature | | |
3.4 Categories of electronic systems (Table 3.4 Categories of electronic
systems) System Yes/No
Yes (SharePoint) Electronic Document and Records Management System
No Enterprise Content Management System
Yes Shared Drives
Yes
Personal drives
Yes (SharePoint) Collaboration systems
Yes Email systems
Yes, see table below Datasets including GIS
No CAD systems
No Wikis Blogs
Yes. Chief Executives blog on the intranet
Case management systems
Yes. ARCHi for paper record
file
management. For other case
management
systems see Datasets below
Yes Portable media (laptops, blackberries, memory sticks etc)
Yes HR and Finance systems
No Digital audio, film and photograph collections Other (please state)
Table 3.4.1 Systems and Databases
Name of
Purpose database serves in
Information contained
database
Department
of historical value
ACBS
-
No
(Advanced Commercial
Industry standard commercial banking system. Manages the transactions (loans and claims information) at both the pre-
| and | post-issue | stages. | Following | a | Banking |
|-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------------|-----------|------------|
| System) | by | | | | |
| Fidelity | | | | | |
| planned change to systems architecture in | | | | | |
| Summer 2010, henceforth ACBS will only | | | | | |
| contain data related to issued cases | | | | | |
| ARID | - | UKEF's | Information | Database. | Main |
| Analysis and | | | | | |
| Reporting | | | | | |
| Information | | | | | |
| Database | | | | | |
| source of data for UKEF's corporate | | | | | |
| reports. Following a planned change to | | | | | |
| systems architecture in Summer 2010 | | | | | |
| ARID will be replaced with CEDAR (see | | | | | |
| below), | UKEF's | new | Information | | |
| Database. | | | | | |
| No | UKEF's General Ledger. Main source of | | | | |
| information | for | the | financial | reports, | |
| CODA | | | | | |
| general | | | | | |
| ledger | (by | including UKEF's Annual Accounts. | | | |
| CODA | | | | | |
| Financials) | | | | | |
| No | ECAMS | Used by to manage exposure and capital | | | |
| adequacy in relation to UKEF's financial | | | | | |
| targets. | | | | | |
| CAPRAM | Pricing Model for UKEF's Business. | No | | | |
| No | Credit | | | | |
| Explorer | | | | | |
| Risk modelling and management tool, | | | | | |
| enables monthly reports of expected loss | | | | | |
| and capital funding. | | | | | |
| No | MAGNUS | Precursor to the ACBS system, this legacy | | | |
| system was used to manage UKEF's | | | | | |
| portfolio. | MAGNUS | has | been | fully | |
| decommissioned, with all relevant data | | | | | |
| migrated to the replacement corporate | | | | | |
| systems. | | | | | |
| No | SUMMIT | | | | |
| (Misys plc) | | | | | |
| UKEF's treasury management system. | | | | | |
| Supports UKEF's FREF products. | | | | | |
3.4.2 Website(s)
Under the Web Continuity project the website will be archived three times a year as per OSP27 UK Central Government Web Estate. UKEF's website is fully compliant with relevant standards set by the Information Commissioner relating to Freedom of Information. UKEF's website was transferred to a new, more technically advanced platform in the summer of 2010.
3.4.3 Intranet
The content on the intranet is not sophisticated, containing only simple staff information such as policies, departmental structures, information on travel and subsistence etc. There is the Chief Executive's blog but no wikis. The intranet will not be selected.
## 3.5 Publications Produced By The Organisation
| Types of | Preservation | Appraisal notes |
|------------------------------------------|--------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| publications | strategy | |
| Standards | N/A | |
| Inspections | N/A | |
| On | intranet | and |
| practice | website | |
| Guidance notes for products and services | | |
| available to UKEF's | | customers - working |
| tools - not to be selected | | |
| N/A | | Training manuals, |
| curricula | | |
| Annual reports | At British Library | Printed and deposited at BL - not to be |
| selected | ( | OSP |
| Literature | ) | |
| Research reports | N/A | |
| Main | output | is |
| public | information | |
| e.g. | museums, | |
| archives | | |
| Trade | journals | At British Library |
| publications were discontinued in 2007. | ('ECGD News' and | |
| 'Global Exporter') | | |
| Newsletters | None needed | Newsletters |
| developments, changes, achievements - | | |
| not to be selected | | |
3.6 Scientific records
None
3.7 Significant policy issues for the period of appraisal (see also section
1.6: Background, functions and activities)
Records concerned with the management of all the following reviews will be selected.
Policy issues for the period of this report have centered on both the type of work UKEF should be undertaking and the way in which UKEF carries out its business. UKEF became a re-insurer in 1991 following the privatisation of UKEF's Insurance Services Group (ISG) which was responsible for the provision of export credit insurance for exports of consumer durables, components, raw materials etc normally sold on short term credit. UKEF provided re-insurance to NCM, the new owner of ISG. A review of the provision of this facility was undertaken in 1999 when market conditions changed and business interest declined. One of the key conclusions of the Mission and Status Review (1999-2000)
was that UKEF should develop and publish a statement of Business Principles which would guide its practice and policies in the following areas:-
Business, Sustainable Development and Human Rights, Transparency, Business Integrity and Developing Countries. The 2003 OECD Statement on Combating Bribery in Officially Supported Export Transactions required export credit agencies to take certain measures to deter corruption in export transactions which they support. The revised anti-corruption procedures which UKEF introduced in response to this Statement formed the subject of a lengthy public consultation running from the start of 2005 until mid-2006. The procedures resulting from that consultation were introduced in July 2006. The UK Sustainable Development Strategy committed all central government departments to producing a Sustainable Development Action Plan before 2005. In UKEF's particular case the action plan (finalised in 2007) focused on its opportunities to influence sustainable development through working alongside other Export Credit Agencies and in multi-lateral international fora. In 2009 UKEF launched a Letter of Credit Guarantee Scheme to assist UK exporters during the global downturn. The scheme was designed to increase the availability of short-term export finance by giving guarantees to UK banks who confirmed letters of credit issued by overseas banks in favour of UK exporters in order to protect those UK banks against non-payment by the overseas issuers. The scheme continues to operate. Also in 2009 UKEF launched a public consultation on proposed changes to its Business Principles and Ancillary Policies to bring them in to line with internationally applied standards, as well as publishing a review of its antibribery procedures. UKEF subsequently adopted a new statement of mission and principles. In 2014 work commenced to change EIGA legislation to give UKEF more flexibility in delivering certain sorts of support that might be valuable to UK exporters
3.8 Internal administration records
Operational Selection Policy 38 on Records of Internal Administration states that as well as records selected from the "lead" departments records concerned with reforms may be selected from "non-lead" departments if the impact is significant. Issues of this nature in UKEF's case centered on the possibility of its privatisation and abolition. Although these issues would be considered by the department at a strategic, board, level there was also detailed consideration at a review or project level.
- In 1984 Sir Peter Matthews recommended that UKEF should become a
government owned public corporation that provided insurance and financial services and to do so at a profit. The Government did not accept this although a further review was undertaken to explore the scope for change in the organisation to increase private sector
involvement. - The Kemp Review which ultimately led to the sale of Comprehensive
Insurance Group in 1991.
- A Mission and Status Review took place between 1999 and 2000 and
examined the department's current aims, objectives, role and status taking into account its relationship with the government's wider
objectives. The review concluded that there was a sound business case for retaining UKEF but that its mission and recommended
business principles should be consistent with wider government objectives.
- In 2001 the Government proposed that UKEF should operate as a
government trading fund. UKEF operated a pilot trading fund from April 2005but this idea was abandoned by Ministers in 2007. In April 2008, it was decided that UKEF would operate under a new financial
framework agreed with HM Treasury.
- Records relating to these changes to the structure and role of UKEF
will be selected. The closure of the Cardiff Office and the relocation of staff to London as part of the drive for greater efficiency in 2006 were also significant.
- Records relating to the relocation and funding arrangements will be
adequately covered in the Management Board records which will be
selected.
## Section 4. Records To Be Selected For The National Archives
The following records will be selected:-
Committees The records of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council - Agenda, Minutes and Papers The records of the Management Board - Agenda, Minutes and Papers
Policy work Project/policy records relating to reviews of UKEF's remit role, status, policies
January 2015
29
and rules Operational records
Case files which meet the criterion of having a High Potential Impact under UKEF's case impact analysis process SECTION 5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND FOLLOW-UP
##
5.1 Additional Checks Case Files
Each case file has a unique number. Case files for projects with a High Potential Impact can run to many parts. This is because several divisions in the department would make a contribution to the project according to their function and each would create separate parts of the file. A typical file might contain parts covering:-
1. Control - requests for cover 2. Campaigns 3. Resettlement of inhabitants - possible outcome if project proceeds
4. Briefings
5. Correspondence
6. Reports 7. Consultants' contracts 8. Environmental Impact Assessments - public comments
9. Cultural heritage 10.
Consultancy reports
11.
Legal Advice
12.
NGOs Environmental matters
13.
Select Committee
There is a main file, consisting of perhaps 6 parts, which contains the most important documents for the project. However, it is considered that in order to have a full understanding of all aspects of the project all parts should be selected.
## Osps
There is no OSP which relates directly to UKEF. However, the Appraisal report is in line with the OSPs on Publications and Grey Literature (OSP 36)
and Internal Administration (OSP 38).
Quality of committee minutes and papers
A full set of agendas, minutes and papers has been maintained for the
## Selected Committees. File Series For The Selected Records
- Export Guarantees Advisory Council - SEC 7034 and A 11
- Management Board - SP3 - Reviews of status, policy, remit and role, policies and rules - SR and
SEC 71 and 77 series
- High Impact Case files –Facility/Deal/Guarantee number
5.2 Impact on records of other departments Records of the Shareholders Executive's oversight of UKEF will be selected from BIS.
5.3 Follow-up The Report will be reviewed and updated at least every three years and earlier if there are any major changes to the functions of the department or when there are any significant records management reviews or an EDRMS is introduced.
| en |
3724-pdf |
## London Councils Leaders' Committee Governing Agreement 13 December 2001
London Councils was known as the Association of London Government (ALG) until
December 2006 when the name was changed to London Councils. In this agreement, any
uses the terms 'Association of London Government' or 'ALG' should be taken to mean
'London Councils'.
Please note that the following variations have been made to this agreement since 2001:
-
Schedule 3 (Functions of London Housing Unit Committee) no longer applies, as this body has been disbanded.
-
Schedule 5 (London Boroughs Grants Scheme) was updated on 1st February 2004.
-
Schedule 6 (Standing Orders) has been updated several times, most recently on 15th
July 2014.
-
Schedule 7 (Financial Regulations) was updated in June 2009.
These variations can be viewed on the London Councils website.
Several minor amendments were made to this agreement at the July 2014 Annual General
Meeting of London Councils Leaders' Committee. These amendments are detailed in the
papers and minutes of the meeting, which can be viewed on the London Councils website.
# Association Of London Government:
## Agreement
Ref: PR 6602/21/LJ Standing Orders revised 9 June 2004
CONTENTS Clauses
1.
Preliminary
2.
Commencement and Duration
3.
Definitions and Interpretation
4.
Membership and Standing Orders
5.
Meetings and Proceedings of ALG
6.
Lead Authority Functions
7.
Obligations of ALG and Sectoral joint committees
8.
Obligations of London Local Authorities
9.
Staff
10.
Assets and Liabilities
11.
Financial Arrangements
12.
Costs and Expenses.
13.
Termination and Breach
14.
Dissolution
15.
General
16.
Execution
Schedules Schedule 1 Part 1: The London Local Authorities Schedule 1 Part 2: London Housing Unit Committee: Member Authorities Schedule 2 Parts 1- 3: ALG Functions Schedule 3: Functions of London Housing Unit Committee Schedule 4: Lead Authority Functions
Schedule 5: London Boroughs Grants Scheme Schedule 6: Standing Orders Schedule 7: Financial Regulations Schedule 8: Costs and Expenses
THIS AGREEMENT is made this 13th. day of December, 2001
BETWEEN THE Councils listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 hereto in pursuance of arrangements made under section 101 (5), 101 (5B), 102, 111, 112, 113, 141 and
142 Local Government Act 1972; section 1 Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970; section 20 Local Government Act 2000; the Local Authorities (Arrangements for the Discharge of Functions) Regulations 2000 and all other enabling powers
## 1. Preliminary
1.1
By an Agreement dated 1 April, 2000 (the "First Agreement"), the local authorities named in Part 1 of Schedule 1, in the interests of co-ordinating more effectively the formulation of policy in relation to the functions referred to in the First Agreement and achieving greater efficiency in the use of their resources agreed to establish a joint committee under Sections 101 and 102 Local Government Act 1972 and agreed to delegate (subject to the exceptions and reservations set out in the Agreement) the functions listed in Schedule 2 to the joint committee and to name the joint
committee the Association of London Government ("ALG")
1.2
By the First Agreement, the local authorities named in Part 2 of Schedule 1
agreed to delegate the functions set out in Schedule 3 under section 8
Housing Act 1985; sections 101(12), 111 and 141 Local Government Act 1972; section 1 Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 and any other express or implied enabling power, to a Sectoral joint committee named the London Housing Unit Committee which operates, in relation to the ALG, in accordance with the provisions of this Second Agreement
which govern Sectoral joint committees. Any of the London Local Authorities listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 may elect at any time to delegate
the functions set out in Schedule 3 to the London Housing Unit Committee. Such delegation is hereby deemed a minor variation for the purposes of Clause 15.4 and this Agreement shall thereafter be construed
as if each of those London Local Authorities were listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1. Any of the London Local Authorities listed in Part 2 of Schedule 2 may at any time elect to revoke the delegation of the functions set out in Schedule 3 to the London Housing Unit Committee. Such revocation is hereby deemed a minor variation for the purposes of Clause
15.4 and this Second Agreement shall thereafter be construed as if that London Local Authority's name were removed from Part 2 of Schedule 1.
1.3
The local authorities listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 are herein collectively
named "the London Local Authorities".
1.4
The ALG has acted from the date of the First Agreement as the Association
of the London Local Authorities for the purposes set out in Part 1 of Schedule 2 and receiving subscriptions from the London Local Authorities under section 143 Local Government Act 1972
1.5
The London Local Authorities are the constituent councils for the purposes
of section 48(1)(a) Local Government Act 1985 (Grants to Voluntary Organisations) and by the First Agreement, amended the Scheme adopted thereunder ("the London Boroughs Grants Scheme") in accordance with
Schedule 4 of the First Agreement
1.6
The committee established to discharge various functions in accordance with section 48 Local Government Act 1985 is now known as the ALG Grants Committee and the London Boroughs Grants Scheme as amended is set out in full in Schedule 5 hereto
1.7
The London Local Authorities were the Participating Councils in the Transport Committee for London Agreement dated 15th January, 1998, ("TCfL Agreement") and by the Agreement dated 1 April, 2000, varied the
Transport Committee for London Agreement in accordance with Schedule 5 of the First Agreement
1.8
The Transport Committee for London is now known as the Association of London Transport and Environment Committee ("ALGTEC")
1.9
By the First Agreement, ALG was appointed under section 1 Local
Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 to employ the staff of ALGTEC,
carry out all administrative and appropriate financial functions on its behalf, recover the costs thereof and the costs payable to AGTEC by the London Local Authorities listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1.
1.9
The London Local Authorities are the Participating Councils in the ALGTEC
Agreement of even date herewith ("ALGTEC Agreement") which amends the TCfL Agreement
1.10
The functions of some of the London Local Authorities set out in Schedules 2 and 3 are the responsibility of the executive of those authorities under executive arrangements adopted for the purposes of section 10 Local Government Act 2000 while the functions of other authorities remain the
responsibility of the authorities themselves
1.11
It is expedient that any London Local Authority which should adopt
executive arrangements after the date of this Agreement should be able through arrangements made by their mayors, executives, members of
executives, committees of executives, executive leaders or council managers (as appropriate) to continue as parties to this Second Agreement
IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
## 2. Commencement And Duration
2.1
This Agreement shall commence on 13 December, 2001 ("the Commencement Date") and shall continue until terminated in whole or in part in accordance with the provisions of Clause 13.
## 3. Definitions And Interpretation
3.1
In this Agreement:
"ALG" means the Association of London Government, the joint committee appointed in accordance with Clause 1.1.
"associated committees of the ALG" means the ALG Grants Committee and the ALGTEC which shall operate, in relation to the ALG, in accordance with the London Boroughs Grants Scheme (as amended and set out in full at Schedule 5) and the ALGTEC Agreement. "constituent councils" means the London borough councils and the Common Council, which have made the London Boroughs Grants Scheme, as permitted by section 48 Local Government Act 1985. "Leader" means the person vested from time to time (in accordance with law and the applicable constitutional arrangements) with the political leadership, for the purposes of this Agreement, of each of the London Local Authorities listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1
"Panels of ALG" means the sub-committees appointed by ALG to discharge any of functions delegated to ALG under Clause 1.1 above.
"Parties" means the parties to this Agreement, that is the London Local Authorities listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 "Sectoral joint committee" means a joint committee appointed under section 102 Local Government Act 1972 to discharge functions which a minimum of three and a maximum of 32 of the London Local Authorities have agreed to delegate to it, whose terms of reference have been approved by ALG and which shall operate, in relation to ALG, in accordance with this Agreement.
3.2
The Schedules to this Agreement are intended to form part of this
Agreement.
3.3
Words importing the singular shall include the plural and vice versa. Words
importing any gender shall include both genders. Words importing
persons shall include bodies corporate, unincorporated associations and partnerships.
3.4
Clause headings are inserted for ease of reference only and shall not affect
the interpretation of this Agreement.
3.5
A reference to any statute or statutory provision includes a reference to all
statutory instruments or orders made pursuant to it and includes a reference to that statute, statutory provision, instrument or order as amended, extended, re-enacted or consolidated from time to time.
3.5
In the event of any conflict between Clauses 1-15 and the Schedules to this
Agreement, the provisions of Clauses 1-15 shall prevail.
## 4. Membership And Standing Orders Of Alg And Sectoral Joint Committees
4.1
Each London Local Authority shall appoint its Leader as its representative
to ALG and shall be entitled to appoint deputy representatives in
accordance with Schedule 6.
4.2
ALG may admit to membership such representatives of such other bodies as
it considers appropriate from time to time in accordance with Schedule 6.
4.3
The functions set out in Schedule 2 shall whenever appropriate be
discharged by Panels of ALG constituted in accordance with Schedule 6.
4.4
The members of the London Housing Unit Committee established to
discharge the functions set out in Schedule 3 shall be the Leaders from
time to time of each of the London Local Authorities set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1.
4.5
Each London Local Authority shall appoint its Leader as its representative
to any Sectoral joint committee and shall be entitled to appoint deputy
representatives in accordance with Schedule 6.
4.6
The discharge of the functions set out in Schedule 3 (with the exceptions
of the functions of approval of cross-cutting and strategic policy in relation
thereto, as determined by the London Housing Unit Committee from time to time, and approval of the budget thereof, which are hereby reserved to the London Housing Unit Committee) shall be delegated by the London
Housing Unit joint committee to a sub-committee which shall be constituted in accordance with Schedule 6.
4.7
Each Sectoral joint committee may admit to membership such
representatives of such other bodies as it considers appropriate from time
to time in accordance with Schedule 6.
4.8
The members of ALG Grants Committee shall be appointed by the
constituent councils in accordance with the London Boroughs Grants Scheme as set out in Schedule 5.
4.8
The Standing Orders of ALG are set out in Schedule 6
## 5. Meetings And Proceedings Of Alg
5.1
ALG shall hold a minimum of 8 meetings each year, one of which shall be
an annual general meeting.
5.2
Subject to Clause 5.1, meetings of ALG shall be called in accordance with
the Standing Orders set out in Schedule 6 and the procedure to be adopted at such meetings shall be determined in accordance with Schedule 6.
5.3
Each Sectoral joint committee established hereunder from time to time
shall, unless otherwise determined in accordance with paragraph 1(A)(viii)b) of Schedule 6, hold a meeting directly following each ALG
meeting.
## 6. Lead Authority Functions
6.1
Subject to the provisions of this Clause 6, ALG may appoint one or more of
the London Local Authorities to discharge all or any of the Lead Authority functions as set out in Schedule 4 on behalf of the ALG, any Sectoral joint committee or (subject to the provisions of Schedule 5 and the ALGTEC Agreement) either associated committee.
6.2
In the event that a London Local Authority acting or appointed hereunder withdraws its consent to discharge a Lead Authority function, it shall give (unless otherwise agreed in writing), not less than six calendar months' notice in writing (to expire on 31st March) of its intention to do so to ALG.
6.3
The decision to terminate the appointment of a London Local Authority in
respect of any Lead Authority function shall be by a majority vote of ALG.
6.4
Subject to Clause 6.5 below and notwithstanding any service level
agreement in force at the date of this Agreement, any termination
pursuant to Clause 6.3 may be made by ALG giving (unless otherwise
agreed in writing) not less than six calendar months' notice in writing (to expire on 31st March) to the Lead Authority of its intention to terminate
the appointment and may be given at any time.
6.5
Notwithstanding Clause 6.4, if the London Local Authority is in material
breach of any of its obligations in respect of a Lead Authority function (whether the obligation is contained in this Agreement or in any service level agreement for the time being), any such termination pursuant to Clause 6.3 may be made at any time thereafter by ALG giving not less than one calendar month's notice in writing to the London Local Authority of its intention to terminate the appointment.
6.6
Notwithstanding Clause 6.2, if ALG is in material breach of any of its
obligations to the London Local Authority (whether the obligation is contained in this Agreement or in any service level agreement) the London Local Authority may withdraw its consent to act in respect of a Lead Authority function by giving not less than three calendar months' notice in writing to ALG of its intention to withdraw its consent.
6.7
ALG shall reimburse each London Local Authority appointed under this Clause 6 all costs, charges and expenses (inclusive of VAT correctly levied) incurred in the provision of any services in connection with a Lead
Authority function by that London Local Authority (or arising /outstanding in respect of any Lead borough function performed by any London Local
Authority prior to the Commencement Date of this Second Agreement) within 30 days of receipt of invoices submitted by it to ALG
6.8
The reimbursement payable by ALG to each London Local Authority appointed or acting under this Clause 6 shall be subject to audit by ALG and its authorised representatives and the London Local Authority shall on request make available all accounts, records and other documents reasonably required for such purpose.
6.9
Upon the termination of any appointment of a London Local Authority under this Clause 6, howsoever occasioned, the London Local Authority
shall be entitled to payment from ALG of any outstanding costs reasonably
incurred in the performance of its duties in respect of a designated council
and/or Lead Authority function.
6.10
The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames shall continue to discharge the designated council and Lead Authority functions in accord with section 48(2)(a) Local Government Act 1985 and the London Boroughs Grants Scheme as set out in Schedule 5
## 7. Obligations Of Alg And Sectoral Joint Committees
7.1
ALG shall discharge the functions set out in Schedule 2 and the functions
delegated to it under the London Boroughs Grants Scheme, together with such further functions as all of the London Local Authorities shall resolve to delegate to it, and, in so doing, shall act in the collective interests of the London Local Authorities which subscribe to each of those functions. ALG shall also act as the Association of the London Local Authorities.
7.2
Each Sectoral joint committee established hereunder from time to time
shall discharge the functions which have been delegated to it by the London Local Authorities which have agreed to subscribe to such Sectoral
joint committee and, in doing so, shall act in the collective interests of those London Local Authorities.
7.3
ALG and (subject to Schedule 5 and the ALGTEC Agreement) each
associated and Sectoral joint committee established hereunder from time
to time shall comply with the Standing Orders set out in Schedule 6, the Financial Regulations set out in Schedule 7 and the financial arrangements set out in Clauses 11 and 12 and Schedule 8.
7.4
ALG shall appoint a Chief Executive, and a Finance Officer on terms to be
agreed by ALG. The Finance Officer appointed hereunder shall be responsible for the proper administration of ALG's financial affairs and (subject to Schedule 5 and the ALGTEC Agreement) those of the associated
and any Sectoral joint committees established hereunder from time to
time.
7.5
The Finance Officer shall make appropriate arrangements to procure the
audit of the annual accounts of ALG and (subject to Schedule 5 and the ALGTEC Agreement) the associated committees and any Sectoral joint committee at the end of each financial year by an Auditor approved by the Audit Commission. Copies of audited accounts shall be provided to ALG the associated committees and any Sectoral joint committee and sent to each of the London Local Authorities.
## 8 Obligations Of London Local Authorities
8.1
Each London Local Authority shall:
8.1.1 contribute to the costs and expenses of ALG and any Sectoral joint or associated committee established hereunder from time to time of which that London Local Authority is a member in accordance with the provisions of Clause 12 and Schedule 8. 8.1.2 provide ALG and any Sectoral joint or associated committee with such information as is required by ALG to carry out the functions referred to in Clauses 7.1 and 7.2 and to recover costs in accordance with Schedule 8.
## 9 Staff
9.1
The ALG shall appoint such staff as they think necessary for the discharge
by ALG of the functions set out herein
9.2
The London Local Authorities listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1 shall indemnify
and keep indemnified the London Local Authorities which do not subscribe to the functions set out in Schedule 3 against any and all costs, liabilities and expenses arising after the Commencement Date in respect of the staff
employed to discharge the Schedule 3 functions.
## 10 Assets And Liabilities
10.1
The assets and liabilities which vested in ALG prior to the Commencement
Date shall continue to so vest following the Commencement Date
## 11. Financial Arrangements
11.1
In October of each year (or such other date as shall be agreed by ALG) ALG
shall send the draft budgets for the following financial year for each of the groups of functions set out in Schedules 2 and 4 (to include the designated
council function in respect of the London Boroughs Grants Scheme) for
comment by the London Local Authorities listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 as London Local Authorities subscribing to each of those groups of functions.
The budget for each group of functions shall be finalised and approved in December of each year (or such other date as shall be agreed by ALG) in accordance with paragraph 21.1 of Schedule 6.
11.2
ALG shall send the budgets for the London Boroughs Grants Scheme and ALGTEC in accordance with the ALGTEC Agreement and the London
Boroughs Grants Scheme
11.3
In October of each year (or such other date as shall be agreed) each Sectoral joint committee established hereunder from time to time shall send the draft budget for the following financial year for each of the functions which has been delegated to such Sectoral joint committee for comment by each of the London Local Authorities which are members of such Sectoral joint committee. The budget shall be finalised and approved in December of each year by a simple majority of the representatives of
those London Local Authorities who are present at the meeting and
authorised to vote in accordance with Schedule 6 on the budget in question. The annual budget (including any contingency sum) in respect of
any function shall not be exceeded without the prior approval of a simple
majority of the representatives of those London Local Authorities who are present at the meeting at which the proposal to exceed the budget is under
consideration and authorised to vote in accordance with Schedule 6 .
11.4
ALG and any Sectoral joint committee shall cause proper accounts to be
kept in respect of the functions discharged by ALG, either associated joint committee (in respect of any accounting responsibilities of ALG in relation thereto) and any Sectoral joint committee established hereunder from time to time and shall make all accounts records and other documentation available for inspection by any London Local Authority on request.
11.5
Whenever any sum of money is recoverable by ALG from, or payable by a
London Local Authority to ALG in respect of any of the groups of functions
set out in Schedules 2 - 5, it may be deducted from any sum then due to
that London Local Authority from ALG in respect of that group of functions
and vice versa.
11.6
ALG shall cause to be maintained a separate balance sheet in the name of
ALG in respect of all payments received from the London Local Authorities
in respect of each of the groups of functions set out in Schedules 2 - 3 and
5, such payments to be held as nominee for the London Local Authorities
from which they have been received.
## 12 Costs And Expenses
12.1
The costs and expenses of ALG, either associated committee and any
Sectoral joint committee appointed hereunder from time to time in discharging the functions delegated to them hereunder shall be reimbursed by the London Local Authorities in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 8. For the avoidance of doubt, the consent of all the
London Local Authorities subscribing to each of the functions set out in Schedule 2 shall be required to change the basis on which costs are
apportioned between them in respect of each of those functions.
12.2
ALG shall notify each of the London Local Authorities by not later than
31st. December in each year, unless otherwise agreed, in respect of the Schedule 3 functions and not later than 31st. January each year in respect
of any other function, of the amount due from that London Local Authority
under Clause 12.1, such notification to include a breakdown of the sums payable in respect of each of the groups of functions set out in Schedules 2 and 3 and the date on which payment is due.
12.3
Interest shall accrue at the rate of 2 per cent above the base rate for the
time being of National Westminster Bank PLC on all amounts due to ALG
under Clause 12.1 from the due date until the date of payment in full inclusive.
12.4
In the event of any disagreement as to the amount of costs and expenses to
be borne by any London Local Authority under Clause 12.1 and Schedule 8, the London Local Authority in dispute shall, not later than 14th. February, or a date agreed with the Finance Officer, notify the Finance Officer of the
nature of the dispute and shall provide full supporting reasoning and documentation as appropriate to the Finance Officer. The Finance Officer
and the London Local Authority shall thereafter use all reasonable endeavours to resolve the dispute. In the event that the dispute remains unresolved on 14th. March or a date to be agreed with the Finance Officer, the matter may be referred by either party to such independent CIPFA Accountant of not less than ten years' standing as the parties to the
dispute shall agree. Any such independent CIPFA Accountant shall be deemed to act as expert and not as arbitrator and his/her determination shall, in the absence of manifest error, be binding on ALG and the London Local Authority. In the event that the dispute is resolved at first instance
by the Finance Officer, or by the CIPFA Accountant in favour of the London Local Authority, interest shall not be payable on any outstanding sums. In
the event that the dispute is resolved in favour of ALG by the CIPFA
Accountant, interest shall accrue on all outstanding payments in accordance with Clause 12.3 The costs of dispute resolution hereunder shall be met by the unsuccessful party PROVIDED THAT in the event that any dispute under this Clause 12.4 is in respect of the amounts payable by the London Local Authorities as subscriptions to the functions listed in Schedule 3 or any Sectoral joint committee, or is in respect of the allocation of costs by ALG between ALG functions and those of any Sectoral joint committee, references in this Clause to "the London Local Authority" shall be construed as references to the person nominated for the purpose of dispute resolution by the Chair of the London Housing Unit Committee or any Sectoral joint committee.
## 13 Termination And Breach
13.1
The termination of this Agreement or any part thereof, however caused,
and the serving of notice to terminate shall be without prejudice to any obligations or rights of any of the parties which have accrued prior to such termination and shall not affect any provision of this Agreement which is expressly or by implication provided to come into effect after such
termination.
13.2
Without prejudice to any other rights or remedies, this Agreement or the
relevant part thereof shall terminate on the earlier of:
13.2.1 the unanimous agreement of all the London Local Authorities which are subscribers to any of the groups of functions listed in Schedules 2 - 3 or any Sectoral joint committee; 13.2.2 where by reason of any change in law, or other reason not attributable to the fault of the London Local Authorities, they shall be prohibited from giving effect to their obligations hereunder.
13.3
This Agreement may be terminated by ALG by a two-thirds majority of those
members present and voting in relation to any London Local Authority in respect of any of the groups of functions set out in Schedule 2 or any future functions which are delegated to ALG, and shall be terminated in relation to any London Local Authority at the request of the Chair of a
Sectoral joint committee following a decision to terminate by that Sectoral joint committee in respect of the functions discharged by such Sectoral joint committee, by written notice to that London Local Authority effective
on receipt on the occurrence of any of the following events:
13.3.1 that London Local Authority materially breaches any of the provisions of this Agreement and, in the case of a breach capable of remedy, fails to remedy the same within 28 days of being notified of the breach by ALG and being required to remedy the same; or
13.3.2 where by reason of any change of law or other reason not attributable to the fault of the London Local Authority, that Authority shall be unable to give effect to its obligations hereunder.
13.4
This Agreement may be terminated by any London Local Authority in
respect of any of the groups of functions set out in Schedules 2 and 3 by
that London Local Authority giving one year's notice in writing to ALG to
expire on 31st. March.
PROVIDED THAT if at any time the number of members of ALG is less than 33, the functions and consultations which are hereby discharged by ALG in relation to the ALG Grants Committee and ALGTEC shall continue to be discharged by a joint committee of all the London Local Authorities listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 which shall meet immediately prior to each of the meetings of ALG referred to in Clause
5.1.
13.5
In the event of termination under Clause 13.3 or 13.4, in addition to any
outstanding subscriptions, the London Local Authority shall pay to ALG
such sum as represents the contribution to the capitalised value of that
proportion of the continuing and outstanding liabilities of ALG and/or any
Sectoral joint committee which extend beyond such termination which is
properly attributable to that London Local Authority's membership.
## 14. Dissolution
14.1
In the event of dissolution of ALG and/or any Sectoral joint committee, the
assets thereof, after settlement of all outstanding debts, liabilities and costs or, if none, the liabilities thereof, shall be distributed amongst the London Local Authorities by ALG and/or such Sectoral joint committee in proportion to the contributions of each of the London Local Authorities
hereunder.
## 15. General 15.1 Notices
All notices which are required to be given or received hereunder shall be in
writing addressed to the Chief Executive of ALG or the London Local Authority, as the case may be. Any such notice may be delivered personally
or by first class pre-paid letter or by facsimile transmission and shall be
deemed to have served if by personal delivery, when delivered, if by first class post, 48 hours after posting and if by facsimile transmission, on successful transmission.
## 15.2 Continuing Agreement
All provisions of this Agreement shall, so far as they are capable of being
performed and observed, continue in full force and effect notwithstanding termination, except in respect of those matters then already performed.
## 15.3 Good Faith
Each of the Parties undertakes with each of the others to act in good faith and to do all things reasonably within its powers which are necessary or
desirable to give effect to the spirit and intent of this Agreement.
## 15.4 Variations
No variation to this Agreement, other than variations which ALG (or any Sectoral joint committee in respect of any matters which fall to be discharged solely by any such Sectoral joint committee) reasonably considers to be minor, shall be valid or effective unless made by one or more instruments in writing signed by all the Parties.
## 15.5 Waiver
No failure to exercise and no delay in exercising on the part of any of the
Parties hereto any right, power or privilege hereunder shall operate as a
waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any right, power
or privilege preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, power or privilege. The rights and remedies provided in
this Agreement are cumulative and not exclusive of any rights or remedies unless otherwise provided by law.
## 15.6 Severability
Notwithstanding that any provision of this Agreement may prove to be
illegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall
continue in full force and effect.
## 16 Execution
16.1
This Agreement is executed by each Party by signing the annexed
Memorandum of Participation on behalf of that Party and such Memorandum of Participation shall be evidence of execution by that Party when Memoranda executed by all the Parties are incorporated into this
Agreement.
## Schedule 1 Part 1 The London Local Authorities
The City of Westminster The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham The London Borough of Barnet The London Borough of Bexley The London Borough of Brent The London Borough of Bromley The London Borough of Camden The London Borough of Croydon The London Borough of Ealing The London Borough of Enfield The London Borough of Greenwich The London Borough of Hackney The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham The London Borough of Haringey The London Borough of Harrow The London Borough of Havering The London Borough of Hillingdon The London Borough of Hounslow The London Borough of Islington The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea The Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames The London Borough of Lambeth The London Borough of Lewisham The London Borough of Merton The London Borough of Newham The London Borough of Redbridge The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames The London Borough of Southwark The London Borough of Sutton The London Borough of Tower Hamlets The London Borough of Waltham Forest The London Borough of Wandsworth The Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London
## Schedule 1 Part 2 London Housing Unit Committee Member Authorities
The London Borough of Barnet The London Borough of Brent The London Borough of Camden The London Borough of Croydon The London Borough of Ealing The London Borough of Enfield The London Borough of Greenwich The London Borough of Hackney The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham The London Borough of Haringey The London Borough of Havering The London Borough of Hillingdon The London Borough of Hounslow The London Borough of Islington The London Borough of Lambeth The London Borough of Lewisham The London Borough of Merton The London Borough of Newham The London Borough of Redbridge The London Borough of Southwark The London Borough of Tower Hamlets The London Borough of Waltham Forest
## Schedule 2 Part 1 Functions
1.
To consult on the common interests of the London Local Authorities and to
discuss matters relating to local government.
2.
To represent the interests of the London Local Authorities to national and
local government, to Parliament, to the European Union and other international organisations and to other bodies and individuals, and to
negotiate as appropriate on behalf of member authorities.
3.
To formulate policies for the development of democratic and effectively
managed local government.
4.
To provide forums for the discussion of matters of common concern to the
London Local Authorities and a means by which their views may be formulated and expressed.
5.
To appoint representatives or staff to serve on any other body.
6.
To represent the interests of the London Local Authorities as employers.
7.
To provide services to the London Local Authorities including the
dissemination of information on local government and on other relevant issues.
8.
To provide information to the public, individuals and other organisations
on the policies of the ALG and local government issues relevant to London.
9.
To act as the regional body of the Local Government Association.
## Schedule 2 Part 2: Functions Generally
1.
To act for, and on behalf of, London Local Authorities in their role as
employers, through the provision and development of a range of services
including in particular:
i.
Advice on the application and interpretation of national and provincial
agreements covering administrative, professional, technical and clerical
employees; manual employees, craft employees; and other local
government employees;
ii.
Advice on best practice in the conduct of employment relations and
personnel procedures;
iii.
Policy advice on development and training matters;
iv.
Advice and information across the range of development and training
activities;
v.
The organisation and delivery of regional and individual local authority
training courses/seminars and similar activities;
vi
Research and information on human resources, development and funding;
vii.
Advice on health, safety and welfare matters;
viii.
To represent the view of London local authorities on pay and conditions of
service to the national negotiating bodies; and to advise London representatives on the same bodies.
ix.
To co-operate with The Improvement & Development Agency, The
Employers' Organisation, local authority regional and provincial employer organisations, and other relevant local authority bodies;
x.
To provide professional advice to the employer's side of the Greater London
Provincial Council and the Greater London Joint Negotiating Committee;
xi.
To provide a conciliation and arbitration role in the resolution of industrial
relations disputes;
xii.
To exchange information and opinion with other organisations and to
provide a human resource service to Associate and Subscriber Members and other contracted bodies.
## Specifically:
1.
To appoint members to represent ALG on the Greater London Provincial
Council in such numbers as are provided for in the constitutions of those joint bodies.
2.
To secure, as far as it is possible, the largest possible measure of joint
action, as between member authorities, for the consideration of pay and terms and conditions of service for those employees of member authorities falling within purview of the Greater London Provincial Council.
3.
To represent the views of the Boroughs on pay and terms and conditions of
service for employees to the national negotiating body.
4.
To consider any other appropriate matters referred to it by constituent
bodies relating to the terms and conditions of employment of employees in its scope.
5.
To co-operate as appropriate with other Provincial Employers or other
appropriate bodies in matters of common interest.
## Schedule 2 Part 3: General Functions
1.
To do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or
incidental to, any of its functions under this Agreement and to discharge
such other functions as can be lawfully discharged in accordance with
Clause 1.1.4 of this Agreement.
2.
To employ such staff on such terms and conditions of employment as ALG
considers appropriate to discharge the functions set out in Schedules 2
and 3, the functions discharged by the associated committees of ALG and
any further functions which are delegated to ALG or a Sectoral joint
committee by all or any of the London Local Authorities; to accept such
staff on secondment from any of the London Local Authorities for any of these purposes as ALG considers appropriate and to procure accommodation for the purposes of this Agreement.
3.
To enter into contracts for goods, works and services in relation to any
aspect of the functions hereunder or such other functions as ALG can lawfully discharge and to enter into service level agreements with any of the London Local Authorities or any other body in relation thereto.
4.
To implement, in respect of the functions delegated to ALG by the London
Local Authorities hereunder, any duties or powers arising under the Best Value regime under the Local Government Act 1999.
PROVIDED THAT in discharging the Functions, ALG shall ensure that in all its activities, ALG and all its committees, representatives, staff and advisers pay full regard to the promotion of equal opportunities for all
regardless of colour, creed, disability, gender, race or sexual orientation.
## Schedule 3 London Housing Unit Committee Functions
1.
The Committee shall be concerned with the statutory powers and duties
(hereinafter referred to as "functions") of Constituent Councils and the
housing activities of other agencies, primarily to assist Constituent
Councils to discharge their statutory housing functions.
2.
The Committee shall also be concerned with the housing functions of
councils generally and the housing activities of other housing agencies where it is to the benefit of the Constituent Councils in undertaking their statutory housing functions.
3.
The activities of the Committee shall include:
(a)
provision, organisation and co-ordination of housing publicity and
information on issues relevant to member authorities;
(b)
research and analysis on housing matters;
(c)
evaluation and analysis on housing policy and service issues;
(d)
other appropriate activities consistent with or contributing to the
housing duties and functions of the Constituent Councils.
4.
To carry out for and on behalf of Constituent Councils or other appropriate
bodies or to assist Constituent Councils or other appropriate bodies to carry out investigations into and the collection of information relating to the housing functions of the Constituent Councils and the housing activities of other appropriate bodies.
5.
To make for and on behalf of Constituent Councils or to assist in making
arrangements for such information and the results of such investigations to be made available to Constituent Councils, other local authorities, any government department, other appropriate bodies or the public.
6.
To assist the Constituent Councils in giving publicity to their functions and
the amenities and/or advantages of and entitlements affecting their area
individually and/or collectively.
7.
To provide professional administrative and technical assistance to the
Constituent Councils or other appropriate bodies in the preparation and implementation of specific projects proposed to be undertaken by one or more such Councils or other appropriate bodies.
## Schedule 4 Lead Authority Functions
1.
To procure or provide such professional advice including but not limited to financial, IT, legal, surveying and personnel as ALG may require for the
due and proper execution of its duties
2.
To provide or procure accommodation for the purposes of ALG
3.
To employ staff to undertake any ALG function and/or to provide payroll facilities and access to pension arrangements for staff employed by ALG
4.
To negotiate and execute contracts in respect of goods, works, services
and property transactions on behalf of the ALG on request
5.
To institute and defend in its own name any court proceedings on behalf of ALG on request
6.
Such other functions as may be agreed by ALG
## Schedule 5 London Boroughs Grants Scheme
## By The London Borough Councils And The Common Council Of The City Of London
Note: The Scheme is set out below reflecting the amendments that were agreed by the Constituent Councils as part of the creation of the new ALG and which took effect from 1 April 2000. This version also includes some small amendments which have been made to improve the text. These are indicated by footnotes at the relevant paragraph and explained at the end of the Scheme.
## Introduction
1.1
There shall be a Scheme in accordance with section 48 of the Local Government
Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the making of grants to eligible
voluntary organisations in Greater London.
1.2
The scheme is made by the London Borough Councils and the Common Council of
the City of London (hereinafter referred to as the constituent councils).
## The Grants Committee
2.1
There shall be a London Boroughs Grants Committee consisting of one elected
member representative from each constituent council which shall make all
decisions relating to the making of grants and the operation of the scheme save
those which are reserved to constituent councils under section 8 below.
2.2
If the representative of a constituent council is unable to be present at a meeting
of the Committee, the council may be represented by a deputy who shall be an elected member of that council. A deputy attending a meeting of the Committee
shall declare themselves as such. Having done so the deputy shall be eligible to speak and vote as if they were a member of the Committee.
(Note 1)
2.3
The Committee may establish such sub-committees and other groups of members
as it considers appropriate.
2.4
The Committee shall appoint a Chair, Vice-Chair and Deputy Chair, in accordance
with the standing orders of the Committee.
(Note 2)
## Eligible Voluntary Organisations
3.1
For the purposes of this scheme "voluntary organisation" means a body the
activities of which are carried out on otherwise than for profit but does not include any public or local authority and "eligible voluntary organisation" means a voluntary organisation whose activities will directly or indirectly benefit the
whole of Greater London or any part of it extending beyond the area of any
particular constituent council.
3.2
The Grants Committee may define supplementary criteria of eligibility which shall
be communicated to voluntary organisations applying for grants under the scheme.
## Review Of Needs
4.1
The constituent councils have resolved to delegate the function specified in
section 48(10) Local Government Act 1985 (review of needs of Greater London) to ALG from 1 April 2000 and shall submit, via the Grants Committee, a proposal for reviewing the needs of Greater London to ALG for approval in September of each year.
## The Designated Council And Lead Borough
5.1
The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames shall be the designated council
for the purposes of section 48(2)(a) Local Government Act 1985 (making of grants).
5.2
Subject to Clause 6 of the Association of London Government Agreement dated 1
April 2000, the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames shall provide and be
reimbursed for the following Lead Borough functions in respect of the Grants Unit
established under this Scheme: (1)
the handling of all payroll activities and pension arrangements in respect
of staff employed in the Grants Unit, together with the provision of the
full range of personnel functions to the Grants Unit;
(2)
Legal advice as required from time to time subject to resources being
available.
(3)
Financial advice and continuous internal audit of the Grants Unit's
affairs.
(4)
Computer services for the Grants Unit.
(5)
Accommodation for the Grants Unit and purchasing of equipment and
stationery.
(6)
Committee services.
## The Grants Unit
6.1
The Grants Unit shall be responsible to ALG and the Grants Committee through its
Director and staff for the efficient administration of the scheme and for advice on
policies and priorities towards grant giving within and between services being funded.
6.2
In particular the Grants Unit shall -
(1)
keep under review the needs of Greater London and report to the Grants
Committee and ALG from time to time on a strategy for collective grant giving devised with due regard to those needs;
(2)
draw up and submit for consideration and approval by the Grants
Committee detailed criteria and policies for grant giving in the light of the agreed strategy;
(3)
prepare and submit an annual budget for consideration by the Grants
Committee and ALG by the end of November each year for the financial year commencing the following April. This budget shall include the costs of staffing, office and support services considered necessary to facilitate
the effective and efficient operation of the Scheme, as well as expenditure proposals for grant aid to eligible voluntary organisations, and any contingency provision;
(4)
receive, assess and process grant applications from eligible voluntary
organisations and report on them and make recommendations to the Grants Committee and or any Sub-Committees it may establish;
(5)
administer the payment of approved grants to eligible voluntary
organisations and monitor the use made of such funding;
(6)
convene and service meetings of the Grants Committee, its subcommittees and any other bodies established by it.
## Meetings
7.1
There shall be meetings of the Grants Committee at least twice a year in July and
November, and on such other occasions as may be decided by the Committee or its Chair or in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Committee. (Notes 3 and 4)
7.2
A meeting may be requisitioned by not less than one third of the members of the
Committee. Any such requisition shall be delivered to the Secretary to the London
Boroughs Grants Committee not less than ten working days before the date of the meeting and shall specify the business to be transacted at the meeting. No business other than that set out in the summons shall be transacted at such a meeting.
(Note 5)
7.3
The quorum of any meeting of the Committee or a Sub-Committee shall be one
third of the number of members entitled to be present. No business shall be transacted at any meeting unless a quorum is present.
7.4
The July meeting of the Grants Committee shall approve the strategy, priorities
and any delegation to sub-committees and to the Director of the Grants Unit for
recommendation to ALG. That meeting shall also receive a forward plan and budget for the following financial year for consideration and for approval by ALG.
(Note 4)
7.5
The November meeting shall receive details of the budget for the following
financial year as approved by ALG and shall make recommendations as to the level
of overall expenditure for the consideration and approval of constituent councils
as provided for under the Act. The budget shall include proposals for expenditure
on grants to eligible voluntary organisations, the administrative and staffing costs of the Grants Unit and any contingency provision. In order that the level of expenditure may be speedily determined constituent councils shall respond to the recommendations of the Grants Committee by not later than the third Friday of the following January.
(Note 6)
7.6
The Grants Committee may make such other arrangements for the conduct of
meetings as it considers appropriate.
## Contributions To Expenditure
8.1
The constituent councils shall be required to contribute to any expenditure of the
designated council which has been incurred with the approval of at least twothirds of the constituent Councils; and the amounts of the contributions shall be determined so that the expenditure in respect of which they are payable is borne by the constituent councils in proportion to the populations of their respective areas.
8.2
As respects expenditure incurred before 1 April 1986, rule 8.1 shall have effect
with the substitution for the reference to two-thirds of the constituent councils of a reference to a majority of those councils. Before 1 April 1986, expenditure may be incurred only on administrative expenses. No grants may be paid before 1 April 1986.
8.3
For the purpose of approving expenditure under the Scheme, constituent
councils' approval to overall expenditure for the year shall require the appropriate
majority to agree but decisions with regard to the allocation of expenditure within the overall expenditure approved shall be taken by the Grants Committee in accordance with the Scheme and the detailed operational arrangements.
8.4
For the purposes of rules 8.1 and 8.2 above the population of any area shall be
taken to be the number estimated by the Registrar General and certified by him to the Secretary of State by reference to such date as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine.
(Note 7)
8.5
The total annual expenditure incurred under the scheme by the designated council
shall not exceed such amount as is prescribed by an order made by the Secretary of State, if so prescribed.
8.6
The designated council shall invoice constituent councils one month in advance
for their contributions to the approved budget for the scheme in the following
way: (1)
in March and September of each year for half the expenditure incurred in
respect of the Lead Borough functions set out in paragraph 5.2 above (other costs including staffing and accommodation costs to be recovered by ALG in accordance with Clause 12 and Schedule 9 of the ALG agreement) and a quarter of the expenditure proposed for grants to eligible voluntary organisations and any agreed contingency provision;
(2)
in June and December of each year for a quarter of the expenditure
proposed for grants to eligible voluntary organisations and any agreed contingency provision.
8.7
Constituent councils shall pay their contributions to the scheme not later than the
8th day of April, July, October and January of each financial year in order that payments of approved grants may be made to eligible voluntary organisations before the end of those months, generally in quarterly instalments.
8.8
The Grants Unit shall keep proper records of income and expenditure, and shall
prepare for the July meeting of the Grants Committee a statement of account for
the financial year ended on the previous 31 March. The statement shall be approved by ALG audited by independent auditors appointed by the ALG.
## Operational Matters And Supplementary Provisions
9.1
This scheme shall be read in conjunction with the Eligibility Criteria approved by
constituent councils and reported to the Grants Committee on 17 October, 1985, and the Decision-Making Procedures and Operational Arrangements in force from time to time. Any provisions of the scheme which are supplementary to those prescribed by section 48 Local Government Act 1985 may be varied by a two-thirds majority of the constituent councils acting by ALG on a recommendation from the
London Boroughs Grants Committee.
## Period Of Operation Of The Scheme
10.1
The scheme will continue in force for at least two financial years after that in
which it is made, that is at least until 31 March 1988.
10.2
Subject to rule 10.1, the Scheme may be revoked by the constituent councils (or,
in the absence of agreement between all of them, by a majority of those councils) with effect from the end of any financial year after that in which the decision to
revoke is made.
10.3
The designated council may be giving not less than twelve months notice to the
other constituent councils withdraw its consent to act as designated council with effect from the end of any financial year not earlier than the second financial year after that in which the scheme was made; and in that event the scheme shall terminate when the withdrawal takes effect.
## ________________________________________________________________ Footnotes The Scheme Should Be Read With The Following Clarifying Footnotes.
Note
1.
In rule 2.2 line 4 the word "themselves" replaces "himself".
In line 5 the word "the deputy" replaces the word "he".
In line 6 the word "they" replaces the word "he".
2.
In rule 2.4 line 1, the words "Chair", Vice-Chair and Deputy Chair" replace the
words "Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Deputy Chairman".
3.
In rule 7.1 line 3, the word "Chair" replaces the word "Chairman".
4.
Further to rules 7.1 and 7.4 the Committee agreed at its annual meeting on 17
May 1989 that some of the limitations imposed by these timing constraints were
restrictive. Custom and practice, but particularly the arrangements which have
developed since the PA consultants review of 1989, have moved away from this
original timetable. Some of the functions are now considered in the Policy and
Development Sub-Committee (i.e. priorities and strategy) and the timing has
altered.
Priorities are considered at the June or early July Policy and Development Sub-
Committee meeting with further discussion in September. Budget making has
moved forward to a late October or early November meeting of the Grants
Committee and delegation to the Director is dealt with at the start of the
Committee's four year cycle, running for the duration of that period unless
amendments are needed.
5.
In rule 7.2 lines 2 and 3, the words "Secretary" replace the words "Honorary
Secretary".
6.
Further to rule 7.5, recent legislative changes require that constituent councils
should have agreed to the overall level of expenditure for the following financial
year by 1 February, failing which the Secretary of State will make an Order the
effect of which will be that constituent councils shall be deemed all to have given
their approval to the amount approved, or deemed to have been approved, for the
preceding financial year.
These provisions are contained in Section 48(4A) of the 1985 Act and the Grants
to Voluntary Organisations (Specified Date) Order 1992.
7.
In rule 8.4, the Registrar General's estimate need no longer be certified to the
Secretary of State. Regulation 6.8 of the Levying Bodies (General) Regulations
1992 (coming into force on 11 December 1992) now determines the way in which contributions to the annual overall level of expenditure will be apportioned.
Regulation 6.8 states:
"A levying body shall secure that the expenses to be met by levies by it under these Regulations by reference to the relevant precepting power conferred by section 48 or 88 of the Local Government Act 1985 are borne by the relevant authorities in a proportion calculated by reference to the total resident population of the area of each relevant authority on 30th June in the financial year beginning two years before the beginning of the financial year in respect of which the levy is issued, as estimated by the Registrar General".
This means that the 1999-2000 expenditure apportionment is based on the midyear 1997 estimates, 2000-01 be based on mid-year 1998, and so on.
The Committee's overall expenditure and each borough's contribution towards it, constitutes a levy which the Regulations require to be authorised and sent out to constituent councils by 15 February each year.
The designated council (lead borough) is defined as a levying body further to sections 74 and 117 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. This means that the levy has to be approved formally at a Council meeting of the lead borough before payment requests are sent out.
## Schedule 6 Standing Orders Introduction These Are The Standing Orders And Rules Of Debate And Procedure
for the conduct of meetings of the ALG Leaders' Committee. The standing Orders also apply, wherever appropriate, to the associated committees, any Sectoral joint committee, the sub-committees and Forums of the ALG. The rules have been drawn up having regard to DETR best practice guidance and statutory requirements.
In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the Standing Orders and any provision of the ALGTEC Agreement and/or Schedule 5 hereto, the relevant provision of the ALGTEC Agreement or Schedule 5 shall prevail.
## Revised By Alg On 4 May 2004 Contents
1.
Meetings
a)
Generally
b)
Annual Meeting
c)
Ordinary meetings
2.
Membership
3.
Time and Place of meetings
4.
Notice of and summons to meetings
5.
Chair of meetings
6.
Quorum
7.
Duration of meetings
8.
Deputations
9.
Motions on notice
10.
Motions without notice
11.
Rules of debate
12.
Previous decisions and motion
13.
Voting
14.
Minutes
15.
Record of attendances
16.
Exclusion of public
17.
Members Conduct
18.
Disturbance by public
19.
Urgency
20.
Declaration of Interest
21.
Annual Subscriptions
22.
Delegation of Functions
23.
Supply of information to members
24.
Meeting with outside bodies
25.
Forums of ALG
26.
Access to meetings and documents
27.
Suspension and amendment of the Standing Orders
## 1. Meetings (A) Generally
i) ALG shall hold a minimum of 8 meetings each year, one of which shall be an annual general meeting, except in a year in which elections to local authorities are held in London when fewer than eight may be held.
ii) Subject to Clause 1 (A) (i), meetings of ALG shall be called, and
the procedure to be adopted at such meetings shall be determined
in accordance with the provisions of these Standing Orders.
iii) Each Sectoral joint committee established hereunder from time
to time shall, unless otherwise determined in accordance with clause 1 (A) (i), hold a meeting directly following each ALG meeting.
iv) Any member London Local Authority may give written notice of
an item to be placed on the agenda for any meeting. All notices of items for agendas and reports for circulation with agenda must be received by the Chief Executive not less than ten working days prior to the meeting the agenda relates to.
v) Each London Local Authority subscribing to ALG its associated
committees and any Sectoral joint committee shall be entitled to receive from the Chief Executive sufficient copies of the Agenda, papers and minutes of the proceedings of the meetings of the committees and any Forums and sub-committees thereof.
vi) Deputations shall be entitled, upon prior notification being given to the Chief Executive and at the discretion of the Chair, to attend and address the meeting for not more than ten minutes and
to answer questions from members of a further ten minutes.
vii- Calling Meetings
Meetings may be called at such time and such place :
a) as may be determined by the ALG, the associated or Sectoral
joint committee by resolution; b) the Chair of the relevant committee; c) by requisition, signed by not less than one third of the representatives, delivered to the Chief Executive at least ten working days before the date mentioned in the requisition
## Viii) Business
a) The Summons to any such meeting shall set out the business to be transacted thereat, and no business other than that set out in the summons shall be considered at the meeting unless by reason of special circumstances, which shall be specified in the minutes, the Chair of the meeting is of the opinion that the item should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency. b) PROVIDED THAT meetings of any Sectoral joint committees shall take place, unless otherwise agreed by the Chair of the relevant Sectoral joint committee and the Chair of ALG, immediately following each meeting of ALG.
(B)
Annual Meeting Of The Association Timing and Business The ALG shall hold an annual general meeting in July of each year. The annual meeting will:
(i)
appoint from the Leaders the Chair, Deputy Chair and three Vice Chairs of ALG
(ii)
approve the minutes of the last meeting;
(iii)
receive any announcements from the chair and/or head of
the paid service; (iv)
appoint such sub committees and forums as the ALG
considers appropriate to deal with matters which are not otherwise reserved to the ALG (v)
approve a programme of ordinary meetings of the ALG for
the year; and (vi)
consider any business set out in the notice convening the
meeting. (vii)
agree the scheme of delegation
.
VIII
Selection of Councillors on Committees and Outside
Bodies At the annual meeting, the Association will: (i)
decide which committees to establish for the municipal
year;
(ii) decide the size and terms of reference for those
committees;
(iii) decide the allocation of seats [and substitutes] to political
groups in accordance with the political balance rules;
(iv) receive nominations of councillors to serve on each
committee and outside body.
( C )
ORDINARY MEETINGS Ordinary meetings of the Association will take place in accordance with a programme decided at the ALG's annual meeting. Ordinary
meetings will:
i)
elect a person to preside if the chair, deputy chair, or vice
chairs are not present.
ii)
approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the last
meeting;
iii)
receive any declarations of interest from members;
iii)
receive any announcements from the chair, or the Chief
Executive;
iv)
receive questions from, and provide answers to, the public
in relation to matters which in the opinion of the person presiding at the meeting are relevant to the business of the meeting and the submission of which have complied with
Standing order 8;
v)
deal with any business from the last meeting;
vi)
receive and consider reports/presentations from the ALG
sub-committees, forums and associated committees [and
receive questions and answers on any of those reports;]
vii
receive and consider minutes of meetings of ALG Sub
committees/forums and associated committees
viii)
consider motions; and
x)
consider any other business specified in the summons to the meeting.
xi)
The order of business of any associated committee and
Sectoral joint committee shall be as shall be determined by
such committee
xii)
The Chair may at his/her discretion alter the order in which
business is taken
## 2. Membership
2.1
Each London Local Authority, that is the 32 London boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London, shall appoint its Leader as its representative to ALG.
2.2
The Chairs of each of the Forums of ALG and of any sub-committees of any Sectoral joint committee shall also be entitled to sit ex officio (but not to
vote in such capacity) on ALG
2.3
The Chairs of each of the associated committees of ALG, shall also be entitled to sit ex officio (but not to vote in such capacity) on ALG.
2.4
The Lead Member for Equalities of ALG and any other Lead Member appointed in respect of any issue shall be entitled to sit ex officio (but not
to vote in such capacity) on ALG
2.5
ALG may admit to membership such representatives of such other bodies as it considers appropriate or is required as the result of any legislation to
admit from time to time on such terms as shall be agreed with such other bodies . Such representatives shall be entitled to sit ex officio but not to vote in such capacity.
2.6
The Chief Executive of each of the London Local Authorities or his/her nominated representative shall be entitled to attend as an observer but not to speak or vote at any meeting.
2.7
Each London Local Authority subscribing to any Sectoral joint committee
shall appoint its Leader as its representative to such Sectoral joint committee
2.8
Each Sectoral joint committee shall invite nominations from each London
Local Authority subscribing to such Sectoral joint committee for membership of any sub-committee established thereunder PROVIDED THAT no sub-committee shall consist of more than one representative from each
subscribing London Local Authority.
## Deputy Representatives
2.9
If the representative of a London Local Authority is unable to be present at
a meeting of ALG or any Sectoral joint committee, that member authority may be represented by a deputy who shall be duly appointed for the purpose. A deputy attending a meeting shall declare him/herself as such
but shall otherwise be entitled to speak and vote as if he/she were a member of ALG or that Sectoral joint committee.
## Elected Officers Of Alg And The London Housing Unit Committee
2.10
The following shall be the Elected Officers of ALG and the London Housing Unit Committee:
2.10.1 Chair
2.10.2 Deputy Chair
2.10.3 up to three Vice Chairs
the overall balance of which shall be such as to ensure proportional representation of party political groupings on the ALG.
3. TIME AND PLACE OF MEETINGS
The time and place of meetings will be determined by the Chief Executive and notified in the summons.
4. **NOTICE OF AND SUMMONS TO MEETINGS** 4.1
The Chief Executive will give notice to the public of the time and place of any meeting in accordance with the Access to Information Rules 4.2
The Chief Executive shall, not less than seven clear days
before the intended meetings of ALG and any associated and Sectoral joint committee circulate a notice thereof to each representative and deputy representative and the Town Clerk/Chief Executive or the nominated officer of every London Local Authority subscribing to ALG, the associated committees and any Sectoral
joint committee. The notice will give the date, time and place of each meeting and specify the business to be transacted, and will be accompanied by such reports as are available.
4.3
Provided that the failure of any such notice to be delivered shall not affect the validity of the meeting or of the business transacted thereat. Provided also that at times it may be necessary to circulate reports in a second despatch or to circulate them at the meeting
5. **CHAIR OF MEETING** 5.1
At every meeting the Chair if present shall preside. If the Chair is absent the Deputy Chair if present, shall preside. If both the Chair and the Deputy Chair are absent a Vice Chair if present, shall preside. If neither the Chair, Deputy Chair or a Vice Chair is present the meeting shall elect a Chair from one of its members 5.2
For the purposes of these Standing Orders references to the Chair, in the context of the conduct of business at meetings, shall mean the person presiding under this Standing Order 5.3
The person presiding at the meeting may exercise any power or duty of the chair. Where these rules apply to sub-committee or forum meetings, references to the chair also include the chair of sub-committees or forums
.
6. QUORUM 6.1
The quorum shall be one quarter, or the number nearest to one quarter, of the members of ALG, and any sub committee/forum of ALG and , in the case of any Sectoral Joint committee shall be such number as shall be determined by such Sectoral joint committee. The quorum of the associated committees is one-third
of the members entitled to be present. 6.2
If within half an hour of the time appointed for the meeting to commence, a quorum is not present, the meeting shall be dissolved. 6.3
Remaining business will be considered at a time and date fixed by the chair. If he/she does not fix a date, the remaining business will be considered at the next ordinary meeting.
7. DURATION OF MEETING
7.1
Subject to Standing Order 26 (suspension of Standing Orders) if, after two and a half hours after the time appointed for the start of the meeting, the business on the agenda has not been completed, subject to a contrary resolution the meeting of ALG or any associated committee or Sectoral joint committee shall automatically adjourn and any debate then proceeding shall be suspended and all business unfinished shall stand adjourned to the next meeting.
## . 8. Deputations
Deputations shall be entitled, upon prior notification being given to the Chief Executive and at the discretion of the Chair, to attend and address meetings of the ALG for not more than ten minutes and to answer questions from members of ALG and any Sectoral joint committee for a further ten minutes.
## 9. Motions On Notice 9.1 Notice
Except for motions which can be moved without notice under Standing Order 10 or consideration of any matters of urgency brought forward by leave of the Chair, written notice of every motion, signed by at least 5 members, must be delivered to the Chief Executive not later than 10 clear days before the date of the meeting. These will be entered in a book open to public inspection.
## 9.2 Motions Set Out In Agenda
Motions for which notice has been given will be listed on the agenda in the order in which notice was received, unless the member giving notice states, in writing, that they propose to move it to a later meeting or withdraw it.
## 9.3 Scope
Motions must be about matters for which the ALG has a responsibility.
## 10. **Motions Without Notice**
The following motions may be moved without notice:
(a)
to appoint a chair of the meeting at which the
motion is moved;
(b)
in relation to the accuracy of the minutes;
(c)
to change the order of business in the agenda;
(d)
to refer something to an appropriate body or
individual;
(e)
to appoint a sub committee or member arising from
an item on the summons for the meeting;
(f)
to receive reports or adoption of recommendations
of committees or sub committees or officers and any resolutions following from them;
(g)
to withdraw a motion;
(h)
to amend a motion;
(i)
to proceed to the next business;
(j)
that the question be now put;
(k)
to adjourn a debate;
(l)
to adjourn a meeting;
(m)
that the meeting continue beyond two and a half
hours in duration
(n)
to suspend a particular Standing Order;
(o)
to exclude the public and press in accordance with
the Access to Information Rules;
(p)
to not hear further a member named under Standing
Order 17.1 or to exclude them from the meeting
under Standing Order 17.2; and
(q)
to give the consent of the ALG where its consent is
required by this Agreement.
## 11. Rules Of Debate
11.1
Speakers to Address the Chair
All speakers shall address the Chair. All members shall preserve order whilst the speaker is speaking. A speaker shall give way if the Chair rises
11.2 **No discussion until motion seconded**
A motion or amendment shall not be discussed until it has been proposed and seconded
11.3 **Right to require motion in writing**
Unless notice of the motion has already been given, the chair may require it to be written down and handed to him/her before it is discussed.
11.4 Mover and Seconder's speech The mover and seconder of a motion shall be deemed to have spoken thereon. When seconding a motion or amendment, a member may reserve their speech until later in the debate.
11.5 **Content and length of speeches**
Speeches must be directed to the question under discussion or to a personal explanation or point of order. The mover of a motion shall be allowed 5 minutes and the seconder and succeeding speakers 3 minutes each. The time limit for speakers may be extended by an affirmative vote of the members.
11.6 **When a member may speak again**
A member who has spoken on a motion may not speak again whilst it is the subject of debate, except:
(a)
to speak once on an amendment moved by another
member; (b)
to move a further amendment if the motion has been
amended since he/she last spoke;
(c)
if his/her first speech was on an amendment moved
by another member, to speak on the main issue (whether or not the amendment on which he/she spoke was carried);
(d)
by the mover of an original motion in exercise of a
right of reply, and this shall close the discussion;
## 11.6 **Amendments To Motions**
(a)
An amendment to a motion must be relevant to the
motion and will either be: (i)
to refer the matter to an appropriate
body or individual for consideration or reconsideration;
(ii)
to leave out words;
(iii)
to leave out words and insert or add
others; or
(iv)
to insert or add words.
as long as the effect of (ii) to (iv) is not to negate the motion.
(b)
Only one amendment may be moved and discussed
at any one time. No further amendment may be moved until the amendment under discussion has
been disposed of.
(c)
If an amendment is not carried, other amendments
to the original motion may be moved.
(d)
If an amendment is carried, the motion as amended
takes the place of the original motion. This becomes the substantive motion to which any further amendments are moved.
(e)
After an amendment has been carried, the chair will
read out the amended motion before accepting any further amendments, or if there are none, put it to the vote.
11.7 **Alteration of motion**
(a)
A member may alter a motion of which he/she has
given notice with the consent of the meeting. The meeting's consent will be signified without discussion.
(b)
A member may alter a motion which he/she has
moved without notice with the consent of both the meeting and the seconder. The meeting's consent will be signified without discussion.
(c)
Only alterations which could be made as an
amendment may be made.
11.8
Withdrawal of motion
A member may withdraw a motion which he/she has moved with the consent of both the meeting and the seconder. The meeting's consent will be signified without discussion. No member may speak on the motion after the mover has asked permission to withdraw it unless permission is refused.
11.9 **Right of reply**
(a)
The mover of any original motion, but not of any
amendment, may reply to the discussion for a period of not more than 3 minutes without introducing new
material and this shall close the discussion.
(b)
If an amendment is moved, the mover of the original
motion has the right of reply at the close of the
debate on the amendment, but may not otherwise speak on it.
(c)
The mover of the amendment has no right of reply to
the debate on his or her amendment.
11.10 **Motions which may be moved during debate**
When a motion is under debate, no other motion may be moved except the following procedural motions:
(a)
to withdraw a motion;
(b)
to amend a motion;
(c)
to proceed to the next business;
(d)
that the question be now put;
(e)
to adjourn a debate;
(f)
to adjourn a meeting;
(g)
that the meeting continue beyond two and a half
hours in duration;
(h)
to exclude the public and press in accordance with
the Access to Information Rules; and
(i)
to not hear further a member named under Standing Order 17.1 or to exclude them from the meeting
under Standing Order 17.2
11.11 **Closure motions**
(a)
A member may move, without comment, the
following motions at the end of a speech of another member:
(i) to proceed to the next business; (ii) that the question be now put;
(iii) to adjourn a debate; or
(iv) to adjourn a meeting.
(b)
If a motion to proceed to next business is seconded
and the chair thinks the item has been sufficiently
discussed, he or she will give the mover of the original motion a right of reply and then put the procedural motion to the vote.
(c)
If a motion that the question be now put is seconded
and the chair thinks the item has been sufficiently discussed, he/she will put the procedural motion to the vote. If it is passed he/she will give the mover of the original motion a right of reply before putting his/her motion to the vote.
(d)
If a motion to adjourn the debate or to adjourn the
meeting is seconded and the chair thinks the item
has not been sufficiently discussed and cannot reasonably be so discussed on that occasion, he/she will put the procedural motion to the vote without giving the mover of the original motion the right of reply.
11.12 **Point of order** A member may raise a point of order at any time. The chair will hear them immediately. A point of order may only relate to an alleged breach of these Standing Orders or the law. The member must indicate the rule or law and the way in which he/she considers it has been broken. The ruling of the chair on the matter will be final. A speaker may give way to a point of information, and must give way to a point of order if it is accepted by the Chair
## 11.13 **Personal Explanation** A Member May Make A Personal Explanation At Any Time. A Personal Explanation May Only Relate To Some Material Part Of An Earlier Speech By The Member Which May Appear To Have Been Misunderstood In The Present Debate. The Ruling Of The Chair On The Admissibility Of A Personal Explanation Will Be Final. 11.14 Ruling Of Chair The Chair Shall Decide All Questions Of Order And His/Her Ruling Upon Such Questions Or Upon Matters Arising In Debate Shall Be Final And Shall Not Be Open To Discussion 12. Previous Decisions And Motions 12.1 Motion To Rescind A Previous Decision
A motion or amendment to rescind a decision made at a meeting of the Association within the past six months
cannot be moved unless the notice of motion is signed by at least 5 members.
12.2 **Motion similar to one previously rejected**
A motion or amendment in similar terms to one that has
been rejected at a meeting in the past six months cannot be moved unless the notice of motion or amendment is signed by at least 5 members. Once the motion or amendment is dealt with, no one can propose a similar motion or amendment for six months.
13. VOTING
13.1
One representative from each London Local Authority
subscribing to ALG, its associated committees and any
Sectoral joint committee shall be entitled to vote on behalf of his/her authority in each meeting of ALG, either associated committee or any Sectoral joint committee.
13.2
Subject to Clause 11.1, 12.1 of this Agreement and Standing
Order 14.1, and any provisions of this Agreement or the ALGTEC Agreement requiring unanimity, questions arising at any meeting of ALG shall be determined by a show of hands and shall be decided by a simple majority of votes.
13.3
In the case of an equality of votes, the Chair shall have a
second or casting vote.
13.4
On the requisition of any representative made before any
vote is taken on a motion or an amendment, and supported by five representatives, the voting shall be recorded so as to show how each representative present and voting voted.
The name of any representative present and not voting shall also be recorded.
13.5
Where any member requests it immediately after the vote is
taken, their vote will be so recorded in the minutes to show whether they voted for or against the motion or abstained from voting.
[mandatory standing order Local Authorities (Standing
Orders) Regulations 1993] Voting on appointments
13.6
If there are more than two people nominated for any
position to be filled and there is not a clear majority of votes
in favour of one person, then the name of the person with the least number of votes will be taken off the list and a new
vote taken. The process will continue until there is a majority of votes for one person.
## 14. **Minutes** Signing The Minutes 14.1 The Chair Will Sign The Minutes Of The Proceedings At The Next Suitable Meeting. The Chair Will Move That The Minutes Of The Previous Meeting Be Signed As A Correct Record. The Only Part Of The Minutes That Can Be Discussed Is Their Accuracy. 14.2 Where In Relation To Any Meeting, The Next Meeting For The Purpose Of Signing The Minutes Is A Meeting Called Under Paragraph 3 Of Schedule 12 To The Local Government Act 1972 (An Extraordinary Meeting), Then The Next Following Meeting (Being A Meeting Called Otherwise Than Under That Paragraph) Will Be Treated As A Suitable Meeting For The Purposes Of Paragraph 41(1) And (2) Of Schedule 12 Relating To Signing Of Minutes [Mandatory Standing Order Under The Local Authorities (Standing Orders) Regulations 1993.] Form Of Minutes 14.3 Minutes Will Contain All Motions And Amendments In The Exact Form And Order The Chair Put Them. 15. Record Of Attendance At Every Meeting, Each Representative Of A Member Authority And All Other Representatives Present In Accordance With Standing Order 2 (Membership), Shall Enter His/Her Name In An Attendance Book Provided By The Clerk To The Meeting. 16. Exclusion Of Public
Members of the public and press may only be excluded either in accordance with the Access to Information Rules or Standing Order 18 17.
MEMBERS' CONDUCT 17.1 Member not to be heard further
If a member persistently disregards the ruling of the chair by behaving improperly or offensively or deliberately obstructs business, the chair may move that the member be not heard further. If seconded, the motion will be voted on without discussion.
17.2 **Member to leave the meeting**
If the member continues to behave improperly after such a motion is carried, the chair may move that either the member leaves the meeting or that the meeting is adjourned for a specified period. If seconded, the motion will be voted on without discussion.
17.3 **General disturbance**
If there is a general disturbance making orderly business impossible, the chair may adjourn the meeting for as long as he/she thinks necessary. 18. DISTURBANCE BY PUBLIC 18.1 Removal of member of the public If a member of the public interrupts proceedings, the chair will warn the person concerned. If they continue to interrupt, the Chair will order their removal from the meeting room.
18.2 Adjournment
In the event of a general disturbance which, in the opinion of the Chair renders the due and orderly dispatch of business impossible, the Chair, in addition to any other power vested in the Chair, may without question adjourn the meeting for such period as in the Chair's discretion shall be considered expedient.
## 19. Urgency
19.1
If at any time the Chief Executive of ALG considers that
any matter is urgent and should be decided on prior to the next meeting of ALG, then he/she shall consult the Elected Officers of ALG. If at least two of the Elected Officers, of whom at least one will be from a minority
party, agree that the matter is urgent and agree on the
Chief Executive's recommendation, then the decision shall be taken by the Chief Executive in accordance with such recommendation, subject to the decision being recorded in writing and signed by the Elected Officers agreeing the recommendation and the Chief Executive.
19.2
In the event the provisions of Standing Order 19.1 are
inoperable following local government elections and there is a need for urgent action, the Chief Executive is authorised to take executive action having consulted as appropriate, such action to be reported to the next meeting of ALG
19.3
The Elected Officers of ALG and the Chief Executive may
nominate persons to act in their absence for the purposes of this Standing Order
19.4
A copy of the record of a decision taken under this
Standing Order shall be kept at the office of the Chief Executive
19.5
All decisions taken under this Standing Order shall be
reported to the next meeting of ALG.
19.6
The urgency procedures to be followed by any Sectoral
joint committee shall be as shall be adopted by such Sectoral joint committee.
19.7
The urgency procedure to be followed by ALGTEC is as in
19.1-19.5 above, with the substitution of "Director" for "Chief Executive" and "group leaders and Chair, if the Chair is not a group leader" for "Elected Officers"
## 20. Declarations Of Interests
20.1
Any member of ALG, its associated committees and any
Sectoral joint committee or sub-committee thereof and any Forums of ALG having a financial interest, direct or
indirect, otherwise than solely as a trustee, in any matter under consideration at a meeting shall: 20.1.1
forthwith declare his/her interest;
20.1.2
not speak or vote thereon;
20.1.3
forthwith withdraw from the room whilst the matter is
under consideration.
20.2
For the purposes of paragraph 20.1 above a member shall be treated as having an indirect financial interest in any matter if: 20.2.1 she/he or any nominee of her/his is a shareholding member of
profit-making company or other body (apart from any public body) which has a direct financial interest in the matter;
20.2.2. she/he is a partner, or in the employment of, a person with a direct
financial interest in the matter and a member shall be treated as
having a direct or indirect interest if the member's spouse or
partner has such an interest.
20.3
Members shall comply with the National Code of Local Government Conduct as revised, amended or substituted from time to time.
20.4
The provisions of this Standing Order shall be kept under review and
adapted as necessary following the enactment of the proposed Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Act and any such adaptations shall be treated as minor variations for the purposes of Clause 15.4.
## 21. Annual Subscriptions
21.1
ALG shall by a majority of at least two-thirds of those representatives
present at the meeting and entitled to a vote in respect of each of those functions, approve by no later than 31st January in each year the subscriptions or contributions payable by the London Local Authorities for each of the groups of functions set out in Schedule 2. If ALG fails to agree
by such date the subscriptions or contributions for the ensuing financial year, then that subscription or contribution shall be at the same amount as
the subscription for the current financial year. The annual budget (including any contingency sum) in respect of any function shall not be exceeded without the prior approval of a two-thirds majority of the representatives of those London Local Authorities who are present at the meeting to which the proposal to exceed the budget is under consideration
and authorised to vote.
21.2
Any Sectoral joint committee shall approve the subscriptions payable by
each London Local Authority subscribing thereto in such manner as shall be determined by such Sectoral joint committee.
21.3
Contributions to the London Boroughs Grants Scheme are as set out in
Schedule 5.
21.4
Contributions to ALGTEC are as set out in the ALGTEC Agreement
## 22. Delegation Of Functions
22.1
ALG, its associted committees, any Sectoral joint committee or subcommittee thereof and any Forum of ALG may delegate to officers such of their functions as are permissible under statute and may, in relation to any of those
functions, require that the exercise of those functions be subject to such
conditions as ALG deems fit to impose, including, where appropriate, prior consultation with the leading member on ALG of each political party or group before taking such action.
## 23. Supply Of Information To Members
23.1
Members of ALG, its associated committees, any Sectoral joint committee
or sub-committee thereof and any Forums of ALG, shall be entitled to receive from officers such information as they may require in order to enable them to carry out their duties as members of such committee or sub-committee.
23.2
In addition, the leading members on ALG of each political party or group
shall be entitled to receive briefings and briefing papers from officers on the same basis as the Chair.
## 24 Meetings With Outside Bodies
24. 1 A representative of each political party or group shall be entitled to be
notified of and to attend any meeting with an outside body at which a Member of ALG is present and which has been arranged on behalf of ALG.
(This Standing Order shall not apply to those meetings convened by political advisers)
## 25. Forums Of Alg
25.1
ALG shall establish Forums to discharge the functions set out in Schedule 2
and such further forums and consultative groups as it considers appropriate
25.2
All or any of the London Local Authorities wishing to delegate a function
to ALG, or to any Sectoral joint committee, may request ALG's consent to
the delegation of such function in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
25.3
The terms of reference of any Sectoral joint committee and any
consultative group of ALG shall be subject to the approval of ALG
25.4
The Chair and Deputy Chair of ALG shall be ex-officio members of every
Sectoral joint committee and sub-committee thereof and any Forum but
shall not be entitled to speak or vote at such meetings in that capacity
## 26. Access To Meetings And Documents
26.1
Admission of members of the public to meetings of ALG, any Sectoral joint
committee and sub-committee thereof and any Forum and access to documents thereof shall be in accordance with the Access to Information legislation in force from time to time
## 27. Suspension And Ammendment Of Standing Orders 27.1 **Suspension** Any Of These Standing Orders Except Standing Orders 13.5 And 14.2 May Be Suspended At Any Meeting, In Respect Of Any Business On The Agenda For Such Meeting, Provided That The Majority Of The Representatives Of Authorities In Membership Of Alg Its Associated Committees Or Any Sectoral Joint Committee Who Are Present And Entitled To Vote So Decide Provided That Any Suspension Hereunder Complies With Any Legislation In Force From Time To Time.
27.2 Variation and Revocation Any addition to, or variation or revocation of these Standing Orders shall be by majority vote of those present and entitled to vote at any meeting of ALG its associated committees or any Sectoral joint committee. Any motion to vary or revoke these Standing Orders shall require confirmation at the next ordinary meeting of ALG, associated committee or Sectoral joint committee as the case may be before the proposed variation or revocation shall have effect PROVIDED THAT any addition, variation or revocation hereunder complies with any legislation in force from time to time.
## Association Of London Government Schedule 7 Financial Regulations Key Points/Message
Every Director shall ensure that the Financial Regulations are strictly observed within their departments and shall arrange for all necessary staff training. Any employee who knowingly or by negligence breaches these regulations may be subject to disciplinary action.
CONTENTS
Subject
Page
1.
Definitions
2.
General
3.
Budgets
4.
Virements
5.
Accounting & Document Retention
6.
Imprest Accounts
7.
Banking Arrangements
8
Contracts
9.
Budgetary Control
10
Audit
11.
Information Systems
12
Income
13
Disposal of Assets
14.
Control of Assets
15.
Write Offs
16.
Orders for Work, Goods and Services
17.
Payments
18
Salaries, Wages and Pensions
19
Security
20
Stocks and Stores
21.
Motor Vehicles
22.
Travelling and Subsistence Claims
23.
Insurance
24.
Treasury Management and Investments
25.
Unofficial Funds
26.
Taxation Requirements
Appendices
1.
Request to Chief Financial Officer to Effect Virement
2.
Retention & Microfilming of Documents
3.
Suggested Format for Inventories
4.
Stocktaking Guidelines
## 1 Definitions
1.1
The Chief Executive means the officer appointed pursuant to Clause
7.4 or, wherever appropriate, his nominated representative.
1.2
The Finance Officer means the officer appointed pursuant to Clause
7.4 who shall be the "Responsible Financial Officer" as defined by
Regulation 2(2) of the Accounts and Audit Regulations 1996.
1.3
The Organisation means the ALG, any Sectoral joint committees and the
associated committees.
## 2 General
2.1
These
financial
regulations
are
designed
to
detail
the
responsibilities, procedures and working practices adopted under this Agreement and provide essential information in relation to day
to day financial administration.
2.2
The Chief Executive and the Finance Officer have a responsibility to
establish within the Organisation strong internal control procedures so that activities are conducted in an efficient, effective
and well-ordered manner. Such procedures should facilitate the detection and prevention of fraud and/or corruption at an early stage.
2.3
The Finance Officer shall maintain a register in which officers shall
enter each gift, favour, reward or hospitality offered by a person or
organisation doing, or seeking to do business with the Organisation.
2.4
It is the responsibility of the Chief Executive to ensure that all staff
are made aware of these regulations and to make suitable arrangements to ensure adherence. This does not remove the requirement for all staff to make themselves conversant with these regulations and comply with their requirements.
2.5
The Organisation shall not consider:-
2.5.1 a new policy, nor 2.5.2 a development or variation of existing policy, nor
2.5.3 a variation in the means or time-scale of implementing
existing policy which affects or may affect the Committee's finances,
unless there is before it at the same time a full statement of the financial implications by the Finance Officer.
2.6
The Chief Executive shall consult the Finance Officer with respect to
any matter within his/her purview, which is liable materially to
affect the finances of the Organisation before any commitment is incurred or before reporting thereon to any Committee.
2.7
Failure to observe these Financial Regulations may, at the
discretion of the Finance Officer, be reported to ALG.
2.8
The Finance Officer in consultation with the Chief Executive will be
responsible for submission of all claims for grant to Government
Departments and other outside bodies. All agreements for the receipt of grant by a Committee shall :-
2.8.1 be obtained in writing; 2.8.2 state the amount and conditions relating to the receipt of
grant; and
2.8.3 be referred to the Finance Officer for his observations on
legal and financial implications prior to signing.
2.9
Except in exceptional circumstances, reports to any Committee shall
be presented to the Finance Officer at least 14 days prior to the agenda circulation date in order to allow him/her to provide Members
with the appropriate financial comment. Where the Finance Officer is
of the opinion that there is no financial implication to a report then he/she may agree a period of less than 14 days at his/her discretion.
2.10
The Finance Officer, in consultation with the Chief Executive, has the
right to withdraw any Committee report where insufficient notice has been given to allow the provision of adequate financial comment.
2.11
The Finance Officer shall be consulted in any cases involving the
interpretation of the Financial Regulations and his/her decision as to their meaning, scope and application shall be final providing such
decision does not have the effect of altering the meaning of a Standing Order or other regulation or contract approved by a Committee.
2.12
The Finance Officer shall annually review the financial threshold
figures stated in the Financial Regulations, making any necessary adjustments and then notify the Chief Executive accordingly. However,
any proposed increases exceeding the appropriate rate of inflation shall first be referred to ALG and the relevant Sectoral joint or associated committee for their approval.
2.13
The Finance Officer shall review these Financial Regulations at least
every two years in consultation with the Chief Executive and report to ALG] and the relevant Sectoral joint or associated committee
recommending those changes he/she considers necessary.
2.14
A Lead Authority, in its capacity as administrator of an activity
delegated by ALG or a Sectoral joint or associated committee, shall be deemed to have complied with these Financial Regulations so long as
it is in compliance with the applicable Financial Regulations and
Standing Orders of that Lead Authority.
2.15
Any of these financial regulations may be revoked, varied or
suspended in respect of all or any of the functions referred to in this Agreement by ALG in accordance with Schedule 6.
## 3 Budgets
3.1
The Finance Officer shall prepare the Capital Programme for
submission to ALG and any Sectoral joint and the associated committees and shall lay down a timetable for achieving this result. The Chief Executive shall supply such information to the Finance Officer as may be required for the analysis of the programme and for the preparation of reports required by ALG and any Sectoral joint and the associated committees. The Finance Officer in consultation with the Chief Executive shall advise ALG and any Sectoral joint and the associated committees on the most appropriate method of funding
capital expenditure.
3.2
Where capital expenditure is to be met in whole or in part by a grant
or contribution from another party (e.g. government department) no expenditure shall be incurred until all necessary approvals have been obtained.
3.3
Capital expenditure shall not be incurred on a specific project until
approved by ALG and the relevant Sectoral joint or associated committee, following a report to that committee, which details an
estimate of the annual revenue expenditure which may arise from the
project and any other factors which affect its financing.
3.4
Estimates of revenue income and expenditure shall be prepared by the
Chief Executive in consultation with the Finance Officer who shall critically scrutinise the draft estimates before their submission to ALG and any Sectoral joint or associaed committee.
3.5
The estimates shall show the latest approved estimates for the
current year and the estimated expenditure and income for the ensuing year. The Finance Officer and Chief Executive shall provide sufficient supporting information as required by ALG, and any Sectoral joint or associated committee in order for variations between budget headings to be analysed. The detailed form of the annual budget shall be determined by the Finance Officer and Chief Executive consistent with general directions of ALG and any Sectoral
joint or associated committee.
3.6
The Finance Officer shall make appropriate detailed calculations for
each budget head. A working paper showing the basis of each calculation shall be kept for six years or until the final accounts for the year in question have been approved by the external auditor.
3.7
Estimates of income and expenditure made in respect of LHU shall be
prepared in sufficient time to allow consideration and approval by the London Housing Unit Committee no later than 31st December preceding the financial year to which the estimates will relate.
3.8
Estimates of income and expenditure made in respect of LBG, shall be
prepared in accordance with the timetable contained in the London
Boroughs Grants Scheme as emnded by Schedule 4 as follows: 3.8.1 The LBG draft budget shall be submitted to ALG and the
London Boroughs Grant Committee not later than the end of November each year.
3.8.2 ALG shall approve the draft budget and the London Boroughs
Grants Committee shall recommend to the applicable Constituent Councils an overall level of expenditure on an annual basis and this shall include the amounts to be collected from each Constituent Council as determined by the Regulations.
3.8.3 At least two-thirds of the Constituent Councils must approve
the recommended overall level of expenditure each year by not later than the third Friday in January as provided for in the Scheme.
3.8.4 If at least two thirds of the Constituent Councils have not
approved the recommended overall level of expenditure before the 1st February in the year in which that financial year begins, the Constituent Councils shall all be deemed to
have given their approval for that financial year to total
expenditure of an amount equal to the amount that was
approved or as the case may be, deemed to have been approved, for the preceding financial year. Such approval shall be subject to any order which may be made by the Secretary of State under Section 48 (5) of the Local
Government Act 1985 and will confer authority on the London Boroughs Grants Committee
to
incur
such
expenditure.
3.9
If it appears that an overspending is unavoidable, even after making
use of the virement provisions, then the approval of ALG and the relevant Sectoral joint or associated committee must be sought before application of any supplementary estimate. Any proposal affecting the funds of ALG or any Sectoral joint or associated committee shall be submitted to such committee accompanied by a report of the Chief Executive who shall consult the Finance Officer as necessary, indicating the sufficiency or otherwise of the estimate provision.
3.10
The conclusion of the Concessionary Fares contract shall be reported
to TCfL no later than the 31st of December each year.
## 4 Virements
4.1
Virement between budget heads is allowed subject to the following:-
4.1.1
Where any expenditure budget head will be overspent or
income budget head will not be attained, by the end of the financial year, it shall be possible to offset the overspending or shortfall of income in respect of any function by virement,
from other budget heads for the same function which would
have sufficient provision during the same financial year. Such virement is defined below.
4.1.2
The Finance Officer is authorised to approve virements up to a
maximum of £10,000 in any one instance, provided the total virement to any one budget head in any one financial year does not exceed £10,000 or, either 50% of the receiving budget or, £1,000 if the receiving budget is less than £2,000. This being subject to the savings utilised not arising from
Estimates of Salaries and Wages, Capital Costs or Support
Costs. In the case of a virement which impacts on budgets of Salaries and Wages, Capital Costs or Supporting Costs, authorisation must be given by ALG and any Sectoral joint or associated committee and is regardless of the amount involved.
4.1.3
For all such virements, which should be in multiples of £100,
the Chief Executive shall send the requests in accordance with the format stipulated by appendix 1, either in writing or by electronic mail identifying him/her as the sender to the Finance Officer who, provided the above conditions are met, will effect the necessary adjustments in the Financial Information Systems within seven working days.
## 5 Accounting And Document Retention
5.1
All accounts, financial records, including computerised records,
and financial administration procedures shall be kept or undertaken in a form approved by the Finance Officer who shall also be responsible for keeping the principal accounting records. It is
the responsibility of the Chief Executive to retain securely, and in an easily retrievable form, all other information relating to the Organisation's financial and operational activity in support of the accounting and final account process.
5.2
In the allocation of accounting duties, the following principles shall
be observed:-
5.2.1 The duties of providing information regarding sums due to or
from ALG and of calculating, checking and recording these
sums, shall be separated as completely as possible from the
duty of collecting or disbursing them;
5.2.2 Officers charged with the duty of examining and checking the
accounts of cash transactions shall not themselves be engaged in any such transactions.
5.3
The Chief Executive shall make returns of outstanding expenditure,
income and any other relevant information in the form and by the date specified by the Finance Officer for the reporting process detailed in Financial Regulation 9.6 and the closure of the annual accounts.
5.4
All computerised financial systems should be capable of producing
relevant accounting analysis capable of transfer in a format, level of detail and manner approved by the Finance Officer. The information
transfer should include specific types of transaction such as write offs. The Chief Executive shall consult with the Finance Officer before introducing, amending or discontinuing any record or procedure relating to financial transactions or accounting.
5.5
All accounting records shall be retained in safe custody for such a
period as shall be determined by the Finance Officer and no voucher or other document shall be destroyed before the specified period has elapsed. Details of minimum periods for which certain records are to be retained, and guidance as to microfilming, are provided at appendix 2. The ultimate disposal of financial records should be arranged by the Chief Executive as "confidential waste" and on no account should sensitive information be disposed of
through the normal waste collection process. All such confidential
waste disposal arrangements shall be subject to the prior approval of the Finance Officer.
5.6
The Finance Officer in consultation with the Chief Executive shall
be responsible for the production and publication of the organisation's final accounts in such a form and in accordance with such a timetable as to make them consistent with any relevant statute and the general directions of ALG and any Sectoral joint or associated committee.
5.7
As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year and
before the 30th September, the Finance Officer in consultation with the Chief Executive shall report provisional out-turn figures for income and expenditure to ALG and any Sectoral joint or associated committee, comparing these to the approved estimates. The Finance Officer shall present the Statement of Accounts for the year in question to ALG's External Auditors as early as possible but no
later than the 30th September.
5.8
The Finance Officer shall retain, in safe custody, copies of audited
Statements of Accounts including the External Auditor's signed certificate and opinion. All significant issues raised by the External
Auditor's annual report on the accounts together with any accompanying management letter must be reported to ALG, unless the issues relate solely to the accounts of any Sectoral joint
committee, The Finance Officer in consultation with the Chief
Executive shall be responsible for the production and publication of the organisation's final accounts in such a form and in accordance with such a timetable as to make them consistent with any relevant statute and the general directions of ALG and any Sectoral joint or
associated committee.
5.7
As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year and
before the 30th September, the Finance Officer in consultation with the Chief Executive shall report provisional out-turn figures for income and expenditure to ALG and any Sectoral joint or associated
committee, comparing these to the approved estimates. The
Finance Officer shall present the Statement of Accounts for the year in question to ALG's External Auditors as early as possible but no later than the 30th September.
5.8
The Finance Officer shall retain, in safe custody, copies of audited
Statements of Accounts including the External Auditor's signed certificate and opinion. All significant issues raised by the External Auditor's annual report on the accounts together with any
accompanying management letter must be reported to ALG, unless the issues relate solely to the accounts of any Sectoral joint committee.
## 6 Imprest Accounts
6.1
The Finance Officer shall provide such imprest accounts as he/she
considers appropriate after consultation with the the Chief Executive.
6.2
The Finance Officer may arrange for bank accounts to be opened for
use by holders of imprest accounts. Such bank accounts shall not be overdrawn, and it shall be a standing instruction to the bank concerned that any departure from this regulation is reported
immediately to the Finance Officer.
6.3
The Chief Executive shall be responsible for the control and
operation of the imprest account in accordance with instructions
issued by the Finance Officer.
6.4
No sums received on behalf of ALG may be paid into an imprest
account, but shall be banked separately or paid to ALG promptly as may be directed by the Finance Officer.
6.5
Payments from imprest accounts shall be limited to minor items,
unobtainable through Creditors or Stores and ineligible for
reimbursement through Payroll, the maximum value of which shall be £50 (inclusive of VAT), unless specific dispensation has been provided to the Chief Executive by the Finance Officer. All payments shall be
supported by vouchers and all receipts, where appropriate, relating to expenditure from an imprest must be attached to the relevant
voucher.
6.6
To satisfy the requirements of external auditors, imprest holders shall
provide the Finance Officer with certificates annually to certify the
balance held. These certificates must be sent to Finance Officer
promptly after the end of the appropriate financial year. (Blank
certificates will be provided to the imprest holders for this purpose by
the Finance Officer before the end of each financial year).
6.7
Claims for the reimbursement of imprest accounts should be made
at regular monthly intervals, following a full reconciliation of the account and, in any event, frequently enough for the relevant bank account to remain in credit until the reimbursement is received. Imprest reimbursement forms are to be provided by the Finance Officer.
6.8
It shall be the duty of the Chief Executive to notify the Finance
Officer sufficiently in advance of the impending resignation or departure of the imprest account holder. When an imprest account holder leaves the service of ALG, he or she shall account to the Finance Officer for the amount advanced.
6.9
The general principle of imprest accounting is that at any time the
cash balance, together with the aggregate value of any receipts on hand, unreimbursed claims and cheques not credited, should total the approved imprest account balance. At no stage should the cash balance be allowed to fall below zero. Income and change floats shall
be kept separately from the imprest cash at all times, and shall not be used to fund cash expenditure.
6.10
If it becomes apparent that the current level of imprest is insufficient,
the items on which the imprest is expended shall be reviewed. If it is
clear that there is no reasonable alternative to expenditure through
the imprest, a formal request in writing to have it increased shall be made to the Finance Officer. Similarly, if it becomes apparent that exceptional circumstances mean a temporary increase/decrease is required then a formal request is to be submitted to the Finance
Officer. Further, sub-floats must not be issued from an imprest without the prior approval of the Finance Officer.
6.11
No officer shall authorise his or her own claims from an imprest
account. Claims are to be authorised by the Chief Executive. Certification by or on behalf of the Chief Executive shall be taken to
mean that the certifying officer is satisfied that the expenses and allowances claimed are properly and necessarily incurred and are properly payable.
6.12
Expenditure which should form part of the payroll system, eg
clothing and car allowances, shall not be processed through imprest accounts.
6.13
All non-computerised records relating to imprest accounts should
be maintained in ink.
6.14
The encashment of personal cheques and the advancing of loans
from an imprest is strictly forbidden.
6.15
The only bank charges which should be incurred, in respect of imprests
operated via a bank account, are those in the normal course of operation of the account. As can be seen from Financial Regulation
6.2, bank charges in respect of overdrawn accounts should not be incurred. If they have been incurred, however, they should be debited to an appropriate expenditure code and reclaimed on the imprest reimbursement form.
6.16
All Departments holding petty cash should ensure that, at all times,
cash is adequately secured. As a minimum this should be in a cash box within a lockable drawer. Amounts in excess of £50 should be kept overnight in a safe or lockable cupboard with very restricted access.
6.17
Whenever any matter arises which involves or may suggest irregularities affecting a petty cash imprest system, the Chief Executive shall notify the Finance Officer forthwith. This Regulation also applies in the event of any loss from the imprest account,
identified during reconciliation.
## 7 Banking Arrangements
7.1
The Finance Officer will make arrangements with ALG's bankers for the operation of such accounts as he/she may consider necessary. No other bank accounts will be opened without the permission of the Finance Officer.
7.2
All bank accounts shall bear an official title and in no circumstances
shall an account be opened in the name of an individual.
7.3
The Finance Officer will make appropriate arrangements with ALG's
bankers concerning designated signatories of cheques, drafts, promissory notes, acceptances, negotiable instruments, orders and instructions.
7.4
The Finance Officer shall be responsible for arranging the
temporary investment of monies not immediately required, and the ordering and issue of cheques/giro-cheques, direct debit and credit card facilities.
7.5
The Finance Officer will ensure that a register is maintained to
record all stocks of cheques held by ALG.
7.6
Stocks of cheques will be held by the Finance Officer in a safe
covered by adequate insurance arrangements.
7.7
The Finance Officer is responsible for arranging the cancellation
and subsequent replacement of specific cheques with ALG's
bankers. All requests in relation to cancellations must be channelled through the Finance Officer.
7.8
Directors should ensure that all bank accounts under the control of
their Unit are reconciled on a monthly basis and that end of the
year balancing requirements are adhered to.
7.9
The Finance Officer shall arrange such safeguards as necessary and
practicable, including the separation of staff duties as far as possible in respect of:-
7.9.1 the checking of creditors accounts; 7.9.2 the control of cheque forms; 7.9.3 the preparation of cheques;
7.9.4 the signature of cheques; 7.9.5 the despatch of cheques; 7.9.6 the entry of the cash accounts; and 7.9.7 the reconciliation of bank accounts.
## 8 Contracts
8.1
Every contract shall comply with these Financial Regulations and no
exception from any of the following provisions shall be made otherwise than at the direction of ALG or any Sectoral or associated committee. Every exception made by a Committee Member or an officer to which the power of making contracts has been delegated shall be reported to the relevant committee, and the report shall
specify the emergency by which the exception shall have been justified.
8.2
Contracts may be defined as being agreements for the supply of goods
or materials, or the carrying out of works or services. Contracts are
also deemed to include the engagement of professional consultants (excluding Counsel).
8.3
It is a breach of the Financial Regulations to artificially divide
contracts where the effect is to circumvent the regulations concerning financial limits.
8.4
Each proposed contract for works or services, with an estimated
value in excess of £130,000, must be the subject of a separate design report to ALG or any Sectoral joint or associated committee as appropriate, requesting approval to seek tenders for the recommended design solution. This report must state the size of any contingency provision to be included in the tender documents or estimated costs, as well as any prevalent risks to the organisation as a result of the recommended design solution.
## 8.5 Notice Of Tender
No contract which exceeds £50,000 in value or amount for the
supply of goods or materials shall be made unless at least 10 days public notice has been given, unless the relevant committee has agreed that for a particular contract tenders can be sought from a
selected list. No contract shall be made, nor any tender invited unless provision has been made in the annual budget for the proposed expenditure
8.5.1 Public notice shall be given in one or more journals
circulating among such persons as undertaken such contracts setting out particulars of the contract into which the committee wish to enter and inviting persons interested to apply within such period not being less than 10 days, as may be specified for permission to tender. Advertising in the Official Journal of the European Communities shall be taken to comply with this requirement.
8.5.2 After the expiration of the period specified in any notice,
invitations to tender for the contract shall be sent to not less than 3 persons selected in the manner determined by the committee, or if fewer than 3 persons have applied
and/or are considered suitable, to all such persons.
## 8.6 Receipt Of Tenders
Every invitation to tender shall state that no tender will be received except in a plain sealed envelope or package which shall bear the
words TENDER - followed by the subject to which the tender relates,
but shall not bear any name or mark indicating the sender. When received, an entry shall be made upon such envelopes or packages indicating the time and date of receipt and these will then remain in the custody of the Chief Executive or the Finance Officer until the time appointed for their opening.
## 8.7 Opening Of Tenders
Tenders shall be opened at one time in the presence of :-
8.7.1
Such Member or Members of a Committee as may be
designated for the purpose by ALG or any Sectoral joint or associated committee as appropriate, to which the power of making the contract to which the tenders relate has been delegated; and/or
8.7.2 The Chief Executive or in his/her absence the Finance Officer
of the organisation.
## 8.8 Acceptance Of Tenders
8.8.1 Where the lowest tender is £50,000 or less, the Chief
Executive shall be authorised to evaluate and accept the tender.
8.8.2 Where the lowest tender is above £50,000 and below
£130,000 the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chairman, Deputy-Chairman and one other Member of the appropriate committee shall be authorised to evaluate and accept the lowest tender.
8.8.3 Where the lowest tender exceeds £130,000 a meeting of the
appropriate committee, shall consider the tenders received.
If necessary a special meeting of the appropriate committee
shall be convened for this purpose.
8.8.4 Where the recommended tender is above £50,000 and is not
the lowest tender, a report must be made to a meeting of the appropriate committee, for approval to accept the
tender. If necessary a special meeting of the appropriate committee shall be convened for this purpose.
8.8.5 Where the recommended tender is below £50,000 and is not
the lowest tender, the approval of the Chairman, Deputy-
Chairman and one other member of the appropriate committee must also be obtained to authorise the acceptance of the tender.
## 8.9 Contract Provisions
8.9.1 Every contract in writing (unless such contract is let by a
Lead Authority in accordance with Schedule 8) shall be
signed by the Chief Executive.
8.9.2 Every contract in writing shall specify:-
8.9.2.1 the work, materials, matters, or things to be
furnished, had or done;
8.9.2.2
the price to be paid. with a statement of discounts or
other deductions;
8.9.2.3
the time or time within which the contract is to be
performed; and,
8.9.2.4 insurance, employers liability and professional
indemnity.
## 8.10 Quotations
8.10.1 Contracts or orders which exceed £2,000 and not exceeding
£50,000 in value require at least 3 written quotations from suitable suppliers before the contract order is placed.
8.10.2 It shall not be obligatory to obtain 3 quotations if unable to
do so because:-
8.10.2.1
effective competition is prevented by
Government control, or
8.10.2.2
the special nature of the work to be executed
limits the number of contractors capable of
undertaking the work to less than 3, or
8.10.2.3
the goods, services or materials to be
purchased are only available from less than 3
suppliers, or
8.10.2.4
the work is a continuation of a previous
contract or order.
8.10.3 The Chief Executive shall maintain a record of those
contracts let without competitive quotations, detailing the reasons why these have not been obtained.
## 8.11 Withdrawal Of Tender
In the event of any person withdrawing a tender, or not signing the
contract after his/her tender has been accepted, or if the Chief Executive or the Committee are satisfied that a Contractor has not carried out a contract in a satisfactory manner, or for any other justified reason, then tenders will not be accepted from such contractors in future, except after specific Committee approval.
8.12
Communications with Tenderers
Accounting records for all contracts must be maintained as agreed
by the Finance Officer.
8.13
No members of the relevant Committee shall have or allow any
interview or communications with any person or representative of
any person proposing to tender or contract, except by the authority
of that Committee. Where such interview or communication does, nevertheless, take place then it is to be reported to the relevant Committee at the first available opportunity.
8.14
Subject to the provisions of the contract, every variation shall be
instructed in writing and signed by the designated officer prior to the commencement of work on the variation concerned or as soon as possible thereafter. Designated officers may authorise variations which are essential for the completion of a contract, and minor
variations of an optional nature, provided the cost remains within the approved estimate. Major variations to contracts shall require the approval of the appropriate committee.
8.15
All ex gratia and non contractual claims from contractors shall be
referred to the Finance Officer and also to the Chief Executive for
comments before settlement is reached.
8.16
Where contracts, valued in excess of £50,000, provide for payments to
be made by instalments, all payments to contractors shall be made on
a certificate issued and signed by ALG's designated officer. Those
contracts not subject to the issue of certificates, may be paid on invoices and/or any means allowed by the Finance Officer.
8.17
The Finance Officer shall, to the extent he/she considers necessary,
examine the final accounts or interim valuations for contracts and
he/she shall be entitled to make all such enquiries and receive such information and explanations as he/she may require in order to be
satisfied as to the accuracy of the accounts.
8.18
The final certificate for the payment of any contract, where the final
cost exceeds £50,000, shall not be issued until the Supervising Officer under the contract has produced to the Finance Officer a detailed statement of account with all relevant documents. Such papers shall be lodged with the Finance Officer two months prior to the due date of the final certificate or in exceptional circumstances a
previously agreed period in order to allow a thorough review of their contents prior to the issue of the final certificate. In addition, all
consultants' fee accounts that in total exceed £30,000 in value shall be forwarded to the Finance Officer for verification prior to the respective final payments being processed. A clause to this effect shall be inserted in the appropriate contract, bills of quantities, or
specification.
8.19
Wherever works or services are let on a dayworks contract then every
payment costing in excess of £100 shall be supported by daywork
sheets. Such dayworks sheets shall contain adequate descriptions of the work carried out and the names of the operatives involved, together with details of the times during which the work was performed, the hourly rates applied and any plant or materials used.
Daywork sheets shall be signed by the designated officer indicating that the amount claimed reasonably reflects the labour and materials
content of the works executed.
8.20
Any contract let by a Lead Authority, in its capacity as administrator of an
activity delegated by ALG or any Sectoral joint or either associated committee shall be deemed to comply with these Financial Regulations so long as it is in compliance with the Financial Regulations and Standing Orders of that Lead Authority.
## 9 Budgetary Control
9.1
Approval of a revenue expenditure budget by ALG and the relevant
Sectoral joint or associated committee shall confer the authority on the the Chief Executive to incur expenditure, except in the case of any item which the relevant committee wishes to have referred to it
for further consideration.
9.2
No expenditure may be incurred unless a budget for that purpose
has been approved.
9.3
Where the Chief Executive proposes to incur expenditure for which
there is no budget head in the annual budget :-
9.3.1 But the expenditure is unlikely to exceed £5,000 by the end
of the financial year, the Chief Executive may make arrangements to incur the costs, which must be financed by the virement arrangements under paragraph 4.1.2 ; and
9.3.2 If the expenditure is likely to exceed £5,000 by the end of
the financial year the Chief Executive shall report thereon to ALG or the relevant Sectoral joint or associated committee, depending on which approved the expenditure. The financing of this expenditure must be determined in accordance with Financial Regulation 4.1.2.
9.4
The Chief Executive may only pay or make provision for payment in
respect of goods received or services rendered within each financial year and for which budget provision has been made.
9.5
Where ALG or the relevant Sectoral joint or associated committee has
authorised a fund for a particular purpose, under or overspent
balances may be carried forward to the following financial year on a one-off basis. All other balances in hand at the end of the financial year shall be reported to the Committee by the Finance Officer. ALG or the Sectoral Joint Committee shall then determine the use of those balances.
9.6
In the light of actual expenditure on administrative costs during
the financial year the Finance Officer in consultation with the Chief Executive shall present to ALG or the relevant Sectoral joint or associated committee, reports showing projected out-turn figures for each budget heading approved by that Committee. This reporting process is to take place between six and nine months after the start of that financial year.
9.7
During the financial year the Chief Executive in consultation with
the Finance Officer, shall present to each meeting of the Grants Committee, reports showing current levels of grant expenditure committed to date.
9.8
It is the duty of the Chief Executive to ensure that the budgets
under his/her direct control are not overspent.
9.9
The Finance Officer shall ensure that there is a financial
information system which provides periodic statements of receipts and payments under each head of approved budget and other
relevant information, facilitating the reporting of such information to Committee.
9.10
Overall annual expenditure of the Grants Committee must be within
the level approved by one of the following :-
9.10.1 At least two-thirds of the applicable Constituent Councils
under Section 48(3) of the Local Government Act 1985; OR
9.10.2 Deemed by the Secretary of State further to Section 48 (4a)
of the Local Government Act 1985; OR
9.10.3 Any order made by the Secretary of State under Section
48(5) of the Local Government Act 1985.
## 10 Audit
10.1
Responsibility for maintaining an adequate and effective system of
internal audit rests with ALG and any Sectoral joint or associated committee, but has been delegated to the Finance Officer who makes arrangements for the examination of all financial and related systems under this Agreement . All significant issues raised by the Finance Officer following this examination, must be reported to ALG or the relevant Sectoral joint or associated committee. Similarly the External Auditor's annual report on the accounts together with any accompanying management letter must also be
reported to either ALG or the relevant Sectoral joint committee, as
per financial regulation 5.8.
10.2
The Finance Officer shall, so far as he/she considers reasonable,
arrange for the internal audit of the organisation's activities:-
10.2.1 To review the soundness, adequacy and application of internal
controls and, where necessary, make recommendations for the improvement of systems, controls and procedures that affect the finance or assets of the organisation;
10.2.2 To assist in protecting the assets and interests of the
organisation by carrying out a continuous examination of
activities
in
order
to
detect
or
prevent
fraud,
misappropriation, irregular expenditure and losses due to waste, extravagance, inefficient administration and improper practices;
10.2.3 To review resources used in pursuit of the organisation's
agreed
activities
and,
where
necessary,
make
recommendations for the improvement of value for money; To review, appraise and report upon the reliability of financial and management data;
10.2.4 To report to the Chief Executive on the result of any audit
carried out within their unit and to make the necessary recommendations which need to be implemented to eradicate the identified weakness(es).
10.3
The Finance Officer, or any accredited representative shall have
authority on production of identification to :-
10.3.1 Enter at all reasonable times on any of the organisation's
premises or land;
10.3.2 Have access to all records, documents and correspondence
relating to any financial and other transactions of the
organisation;
10.3.3 Require and receive such explanations as are necessary
concerning any matter under examination; Require any persons holding or controlling cash, stores or any other property to produce such items;
10.3.4 Verify cash and bank balances for which persons are
accountable to the organisation.
10.4
Immediately an irregularity, or suspicion of an irregularity, arises
affecting money or property or any other transaction or aspect of the organisation's business, the Chief Executive concerned shall immediately advise the Finance Officer. The Finance Officer shall
investigate and report to the Chief Executive if he/she forms the view that disciplinary or criminal proceedings should be considered. If it is thought appropriate to involve the Police, the Finance Officer will first consult with the Chief Executive. Officers should not notify the police direct except in an emergency in order to prevent further loss, or where it is necessary for the police to examine an area before it is disturbed by staff or members of the public. Except in exceptionally clear cut cases, management should not attempt to interview staff suspected of perpetrating an irregularity as this may prejudice any subsequent police investigation or legal proceedings. Any individual officer with knowledge or suspicion of any losses or irregularities involving staff, cash, assets or other financial matters has the right to approach the Finance Officer directly should circumstances dictate that this is necessary.
10.5
The Chief Executive shall be required to provide a written response to
draft audit reports, final audit reports, and management letters
within 28 calendar days of their issue. Extensions to this timescale shall be at the discretion of the Finance Officer.
10.6
Unless the Finance Officer specifically agrees otherwise, all receipt
forms, order books, tickets and other similar items shall be ordered and retained by the Finance Officer prior to their issue to the Chief Executive. Such controlled stationery items shall be supplied, on request only, to those officers who have been authorised to receive them by the Chief Executive. Every issue of any such document shall be acknowledged by the signature of the officer to whom the issue is made. The Chief Executive shall satisfy the Finance Officer as to the safe keeping and control of such documents.
## 11 Information Systems
11.1
The development of Information Technology Systems should
conform to the overall strategy as set out and agreed by ALG.
11.2
The Chief Executive shall be responsible for ensuring compliance
with any Computer Security Guidelines promulgated by the Finance
Officer.
11.3
Any development of new systems that involve a financial operation
or produce output that may influence the allocation of resources must involve consultation with the Finance Officer regarding mutually acceptable minimum standards of control. The Chief Executive, in consultation with the Finance Officer shall be
responsible for the control of the computer systems in the Organisation, and the security and privacy of data contained therein, in accordance with the Data Protection Acts of 1984 and 1998. The Chief Executive shall also be responsible for ensuring appropriate controls in accessing those systems which they maintain.
11.4
The Chief Executive in consultation with the Finance Officer shall
make sound arrangements to ensure the security and continuity of service in the event of a disaster.
## 12 Income
12.1
The systems effecting the collection of all money due to the
organisation shall be approved by the Finance Officer. The collection of all money due to the organisation is under the overall supervision of the Finance Officer.
12.2
Revenues consisting of income arising from work done, goods
supplied or services rendered and not paid for at the time, must be the subject of accounts being rendered and the Chief Executive must facilitate the prompt issue and rendering of such accounts applicable to their unit. The Chief Executive shall therefore furnish the Finance Officer with details of projects, seminars, rents recoverable, work done, goods supplied, or services rendered and of
all other amounts as may be required by him/her to record correctly all sums due to the organisation and to ensure the prompt rendering of accounts due for income.
12.3
The Chief Executive shall promptly notify the Finance Officer of all
money due to the organisation and of contracts, leases and other agreements and arrangements entered into which involve the receipt of money by ALG. The Finance Officer has the right to inspect any document or other evidence in this connection as he/she may decide is relevant.
12.4
The records kept by the Organisation with regard to items of
income shall be in such form as may be agreed from time to time by the Finance Officer. Unless the Finance Officer specifically agrees otherwise, all receipt forms, tickets and other similar items shall be obtained in accordance with financial regulation 10.6. All new types of income due are to be notified to the Finance Officer.
12.5
The Finance Officer shall prescribe the accounting arrangements
necessary to ensure that all monies due and received are banked
promptly.
12.6
All debtors shall be invoiced within seven days of full details of the
debt being ascertained.
12.7
Procedures for accepting cheques or credit card payments tendered in
respect of the sale of goods, materials or services shall be agreed by
the Finance Officer.
12.8
Every sum in cash received by an officer of the Organisation shall be
immediately acknowledged by the issue of an official receipt, ticket or voucher except in cases where other arrangements have been approved by the Finance Officer.
12.9
All income, whether cheques, notes or coins received by an officer on
behalf of the Organisation shall, without delay, be recorded and paid intact either directly to the Finance Officer, or into a designated bank account at regular intervals as directed by him, thereby ensuring the safe keeping of income. Every officer who banks money shall enter on the paying-in slip a reference to the related debt (such as the receipt number or the name of the debtor) or otherwise indicate the origin of
the cheque; on the reverse of each cheque the officer shall enter the
name of his or her unit.
12.10 Money held on behalf of the Organisation shall be kept separately from
personal funds and shall not be used to cash personal cheques.
12.11 Every transfer of official money from one member of staff to another
will be evidenced in the records of the unit concerned by the signature of the receiving officer.
12.12 The Finance Officer shall make safe and efficient arrangements for
the recording of income received by direct debiting of debtors accounts.
12.13 Scales of charges for services, with any variations, shall be reviewed
at regular intervals, together with any new charges, by the Finance
Officer after consultation with the Chief Executive, prior to submission to ALG or the relevant Sectoral joint or associated committee for approval.
## 13 Disposal Of Assets
13.1
Sales of surplus equipment, plant and stores will be at market
value.
13.2
The Chief Executive has authority to approve the disposal of all
goods or equipment under his control which by reason of damage,
wear or obsolescence, are no longer required, and the book value,
or estimated value, does not exceed £5,000. The disposal of such goods or equipment valued above £5,000 but not exceeding £10,000 shall require the prior written approval of the Finance Officer. Disposal of such goods or equipment valued above £10,000 shall require the prior approval of ALG or the relevant Sectoral joint or associated committee.
13.3
Before disposal of any leased asset, the Chief Executive shall notify
the Finance Officer in writing so that the terms of the lease may be examined and advice provided.
13.4
Salvageable items shall be sold in the best available market subject
to the following :- 13.4.1 No single item with a book value, or estimated value,
exceeding £500 shall be disposed of without quotations first being invited. (unless disposed of by public auction, if appropriate)
13.4.2 No item will be disposed of to a member of staff without the
direct approval in writing of the Finance Officer. Where
approval is given, detailed documentation of the transaction shall be retained by the applicable Unit Director.
13.5
Under the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act, capital receipts
are defined as the income from the disposal of any interest in an
asset if, at the time of disposal, expenditure on the acquisition of
an asset would be expenditure for capital purposes. Where the anticipated capital receipt is £10,000 or less, then the arrangements for disposal shall be subject to the agreement of the Chief Executive, where a value exceeds £10,000 then the arrangements for such disposal shall be subject to the prior agreement of the Finance Officer.
13.6
The Chief Executive will be responsible for maintaining all records
and documentation relating to any disposal.
13.7
All proceeds from the disposal of assets will be subject to the
addition of Value Added Tax, except in respect of the disposal of
property or certain transfers involving statutory undertakings. In
respect of these exemptions advice should be sought from the Finance Officer before the conclusion of a transaction.
13.8
The Chief Executive will notify the Finance Officer of the disposal of
any items which are specifically listed on the organisation's
Insurance Policy.
## 14 Control Of Assets
14.1
The Chief Executive is responsible for ensuring arrangements are in
place to physically control all of the Organisation's assets for which
her/his department has management responsibilities.
14.2
The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 requires adherence to
the Accounting Codes of Practice approved by the Accounting Standards Board. One such Code of Practice concerns the subject of capital accounting and suggests the creation and maintenance of registers for all assets. The asset registers form the basis by which the Organisation meets the capital accounting requirements in the raising of capital charges for the use of assets such as buildings, land and vehicles.
14.3
The asset registers are required to itemise all assets which cost in
excess of £1,000 while recording the date and cost of their acquisition.
14.4
The Chief Executive shall allocate responsibility for the
maintenance of individual registers as appropriate.
14.5
The Chief Executive shall ensure that any information requested by
the above registrars, for the purposes of maintaining the asset registers, is provided rapidly and freely. Any acquisitions or disposals
of assets should be notified to the relevant registrar at the appropriate time.
14.6
The Chief Executive shall nominate one officer to be responsible for
the safe custody of all deeds and lease agreements in respect of all
properties owned or leased by the Organisation. This responsible
officer shall :-
14.6.1 Make arrangements for such documents to be inspected when
required; and
14.6.2 Provide copies of any relevant documents on request.
14.7
Inventories of all furniture, fittings, equipment, plant, and machinery
shall be maintained by the Chief Executive. Items that are being rented or leased on a long term basis, or such that the responsibilities of stewardship lie with the Organisation, should also be included in
the inventory. Generally, items with a life-span longer than one year
should be included, unless they are already recorded on a formal stock record system
14.8
The inventory should be in the form of a permanent document. It is
important to ensure that the inventory is complete and that all parts of it are kept together. The inventory can be in any media. A suggested
format of an inventory is provided at appendix 3.
14.9
The inventory should provide the following information for each item:
14.9.1 Location, but if the item is moved between locations, note the
general area. (A separate record of location may well be necessary);
14.9.2 Full description; 14.9.3 Serial and Code numbers, if relevant; 14.9.4 Date of purchase and cost of acquisition; 14.9.5 Estimated current replacement value (for insurance purposes),
which should be reviewed annually; and
14.9.6 Date of disposal and the proceeds.
14.10 The total of all the estimated current replacement values should be
shown, so that the information is readily available for insurance purposes.
14.11 Where practical, the inventory should be updated each time there is
an acquisition or disposal. This will produce a more accurate record than if all the amendments are done at the end of the year.
14.12 The Chief Executive is responsible for ensuring that an annual check is
carried out, in December, of all items on the inventory and for taking action in relation to surpluses and deficiencies. The date of the check and the name(s) of the officer(s) carrying it out should be recorded. When carrying out this check, the current inventory should be used as a starting point. The procedure should be that each location is checked in a methodical manner.
14.13 If any discrepancies are found when checking the inventory, these
should be followed up until reasons have been found. If it is not possible to find reasons and the amount involved is significant (e.g.
more than £100 in value), the Finance Officer should be informed. If
the result of these findings is that an item has to be removed from the
inventory, then the appropriate authorisation for such write-off should be sought in accordance with Financial Regulation 15.1.
14.14 It is important that at least one copy of the inventory is held
separately from the assets that it lists, so that if a disaster occurs to the Organisation or its buildings, then all information is protected for insurance purposes, in the event that items need replacement. For inventories that are kept on computer disk, back up copies should be
kept in a fire proof cabinet in a separate location to the computer.
14.15 For the purposes of capital accounting, the Finance Officer may
require all registrars and inventory holders to provide asset registers and inventories reflecting assets held as at the 31st March of each year.
## 15 Write Offs
15.1
No debt, asset, or benefit due to ALG, including Liquidated Damages,
shall be written off without first obtaining the approval of the Finance Officer. The Chief Executive shall submit a list of such items to be written off, together with details of the reasons. The writing off of any such item valued in excess of £500 must also be subject to the prior approval of ALG or the relevant Sectoral joint or associated committee. Any report seeking such approval must detail the actions taken to recover these debts, assets or benefits.
15.2
The Chief Executive shall maintain a file for each debt to be writtenoff, containing relevant documentation to support the validity of the write-off. The file should also identify whether appropriate actions have been taken to recover or mitigate the loss.
15.3
In respect of third party damage to on-street equipment used by
the Traffic Unit, the approval of ALG is not required for losses of
£1,000 or less. In such instances separate accounting instructions, approved by the Finance Officer, shall apply.
## 16 Orders For Work, Goods And Services
16.1
No officer shall commit the organisation to expenditure in excess of
any approved estimate without first seeking the appropriate approval.
This Financial Regulation may be waived in cases of emergencies where delays in obtaining approval for excess expenditure would cause loss to ALG or endanger public health and safety. In such cases the approval for such expenditure must be sought as soon as possible after the event concerned.
16.2
Official orders, including those within a computerised ordering
system, shall be in a form approved by the Finance Officer and are only
to be authorised by the Chief Executive or his/her nominee. These authorised officers shall then be responsible for the issue of official orders.
16.3
In cases where goods, materials, works or services are required
urgently and where delay would cause either loss to the organisation or endanger public health or safety then the requisite orders may be placed verbally. However, such verbal orders must be followed by an official written order within two working days and marked "Confirmation Order".
16.4
Official orders shall be issued for all work, goods or services to be
supplied to the organisation except for public utility services, petty cash purchases or other exceptions approved by the Finance Officer and copies, or full details, of each order shall be retained in the unit where issue has taken place.
16.5
No order should be issued unpriced. In those circumstances where a
definite price cannot be ascertained at the time of issue, then the order concerned must either be endorsed "price not to exceed" and a value given, or its copy endorsed with an estimated figure.
16.6
When an order is amended or varied, a note of the amendment or
variation shall be made on the copy order, together with a reference to the authority for such amendment or variation which shall be confirmed in writing to the supplier.
16.7
Care shall be taken in the signing of goods received notes, where
parcels etc. are unable to be inspected. In such cases the signature
should be accompanied by the comment "not inspected" to safeguard the organisation against unseen breakages or shortages at the time of delivery.
16.8
The return of all goods to suppliers shall be authorised by the Chief
Executive or his or her authorised representative. In each instance officers are only to release such goods when they are certain that the return has been properly authorised, satisfied that the collection
company has been previously notified to them, and that they are in receipt of appropriate return note documentation.
## 17 Payments
17.1
Apart from petty cash and other payments from the imprest account
(see Financial Regulation 6) the normal method of payment shall be
by cheque or other instrument drawn on the bank account operated for the Organisation by the Finance Officer.
17.2
The Finance Officer has authority to pay all amounts to which the
Organisation is legally committed, after authorisation by the Chief Executive or nominated officer.
17.3
The Chief Executive having issued an order is responsible for
examining, verifying and authorising the related invoice. It shall be the duty of the Chief Executive to ensure that all goods, materials and services received are as ordered in respect of price, quantity and quality.
17.4
Before certifying an account, the authorising officer shall, save to the
extent that the Finance Officer may otherwise determine, be satisfied that:-
17.4.1 The works, goods or services to which the account relates have
been received, examined, approved, are fit for purpose and,
where appropriate, comply with pre-determined standards;
17.4.2 The expenditure is within an approved estimate, or is
covered by special financial provision authorised by ALG or
the relevant committee;
17.4.3 The proper entries have been made in the asset registers,
inventories, or store records where appropriate;
17.4.4 The price charged is correct and any trade discounts
receivable have been deducted;
17.4.5 The invoice or payment certificate is arithmetically correct
both in the extensions and the total and that the allowances, credits and tax are correct;
17.4.6 Any copy orders are duly endorsed as paid and brief details
of the payment are marked thereon;
17.4.7 The invoice or payment certificate has not previously been
passed for payment and is a proper liability of the Organisation;
17.4.8 The appropriate expenditure code numbers are entered on
the document for payment and that no payment is made on
duplicate or photocopy invoices unless the Chief Executive certifies in writing that the amounts have not been previously passed for payment; and
17.4.9 In the case of charges for utilities including gas, electricity
and water, any standing charges are correct, and that consumption is charged on the most advantageous tariff and is otherwise reasonable.
17.5
Any amendment required of a VAT invoice shall be effected through
the application of a credit note from the applicable Creditor. Any amendment to a non VAT invoice shall be made in permanent ink and initialled by the officer making it, stating briefly the reasons
where they are not self-evident.
17.6
The Finance Officer and the Chief Executive shall, between them,
arrange a suitable division of staff duties within the Organisation so that the officer who authorises the invoice as correct shall not be the person who either placed the order, or has certified the receipt of the goods or completion of the work concerned.
17.7
An invoice for goods supplied to the Organisation shall not be
prepared by an officer of ALG, but by the creditor. In certain circumstances invoices for services rendered to ALG may be prepared, but always in a form approved by the Finance Officer, and
the officer preparing the invoice must not authorise it for payment.
17.8
As soon as possible after the 31st March, all outstanding
expenditure relating to the previous financial year shall be identified by the Finance Officer.
## 18 Salaries, Wages And Pensions
18.1
The payment of all salaries, wages, pensions, compensation and other
emoluments to all employees and pensioners of the Organisation shall be made by the Finance Officer or under arrangements approved by
him.
18.2
The Chief Executive or his authorised representatives, shall notify the
Finance Officer as soon as possible, and in the prescribed form, of all
matters affecting the payment of such emoluments, and in particular;-
18.2.1 Appointments,
resignations,
dismissals,
suspensions,
secondments, transfers and deaths, and for pensions, changes
in marital status and deaths;
18.2.2 Absences from duty for sickness or other reason, apart from
approved leave;
18.2.3 Changes in remuneration, and pay awards and agreements of
general application;
18.2.4 Information necessary to maintain records of service for
superannuation, national insurance, income tax, etc.
18.3
All pay documents and time records shall be in a form approved by the
Finance Officer and shall either be certified in manuscript by or on behalf of the Chief Executive, or in such form as the Finance Officer may direct. The names of the officers authorised to sign such records shall be sent to the Finance Officer together with specimen signatures. Changes shall be notified to the Finance Officer as they occur.
18.4
All payments to individuals who are considered to be self employed, in
respect of services provided to the Organisation, shall be processed through the Payroll System unless the status of the individual has
been confirmed as self employed in accordance with the latest Inland Revenue Guidelines.
18.5
All time records and other pay documents shall be submitted to the
Finance Officer in accordance with the timetables and deadlines
determined by the Finance Officer.
## 19 Security
19.1
The Chief Executive shall be responsible for introducing and
maintaining adequate arrangements for all aspects of security throughout the Organisation including personnel, buildings, land, stores, equipment, cash, computers, records, and confidential
information. The Finance Officer's advice should be sought upon the adequacy of arrangements relating to cash, stores and valuable and attractive items of equipment as well as in those instances where security is thought to be defective. Maximum limits for cash holdings shall be agreed with the Finance Officer and shall not be exceeded without his/her express permission.
19.2
Keys to safes and similar receptacles are to be the responsibility of
designated officers and are to be kept secure at all times. Loss of any such keys must be reported to the Finance Officer forthwith. Duplicate keys to all safes are to be held in a place approved by the
Finance Officer and locked away for use in the case of emergency only.
19.3
The Finance Officer shall be responsible for ensuring that secure
arrangements are made for the preparation and holding of preprinted pre-signed cheques, stock certificates, bonds and other financial documents.
19.4
Whenever breaking and entering, burglary or criminal damage
occur the matter must be reported immediately by the Chief
Executive to the Finance Officer in accordance with Financial Regulation 10.4.
19.5
The Chief Executive shall designate one officer as having responsibility
for the co-ordination of computer data security issues. This designated officer shall agree with the Chief Executive the degree of privacy of the information put into computer systems used by the Organisation. The designated officer shall then be responsible for its intended use in the computer installation and for the ability of designed controls to comply with the Data Protection Acts 1984 and 1998 as applicable.
19.6
To comply fully with the requirements of the 1984 and 1998 Data
Protection Acts, the Chief Executive shall be responsible for maintaining proper security and the appropriate degree of privacy of
information held within the Organisation either electronically or in
other formats e.g. microfiche, paper output etc. All staff are
responsible for ensuring that their use of personal data is consistent
with the Organisation's registrations under the Act.
19.7
The Chief Executive should ensure that all staff who use
information technology adhere to any guidelines on data security issued from time to time by the designated officer. All new employees should be briefed as to the security policies and procedures applicable, including the implications of relevant legislation.
19.8
In order to comply with the requirements of the 1988 Copyright,
Design and Patents Act, the Chief Executive shall ensure that staff within their units only use software that is properly licensed.
19.9
The 1990 Computer Misuse Act introduced powers to prosecute those
who deliberately and without authorisation misuse computer systems
belonging to their employers. The Chief Executive should ensure that staff within the Organisation are aware of this legislation and ensure that their use of computers is for authorised purposes only and that no action, such as the running of unauthorised programs or games, corrupts data or introduces a virus to the system.
19.10 The Chief Executive should ensure that all members of their unit are
aware that information concerning secret and confidential matters, particularly those involving cash or cash deliveries, must not be disclosed in any way except to persons entitled to receive such information.
## 20 Stocks And Stores
20.1
The Chief Executive shall be responsible for the proper custody of
stocks and stores held by the Organisation and shall see that all
stocks and stores under his/her supervision are subject to an effective system of stock recording and control as well as stocktaking.
20.2
It is the duty of the Chief Executive to maintain a continuous stockcheck of all stocks and stores held by the Organisation.
20.3
Stocks and stores must not be held in excess of what is considered
by the Organisation to constitute normal requirements.
20.4
All goods received should be checked against quantity/ quality at
the time of delivery. Delivery notes should be retained with the original order and invoice and signed by the officer accepting
receipt of the goods.
20.5
Issues of stores must only be made in exchange for a requisition
note signed by an authorised employee of the Organisation.
20.6
The Chief Executive should ensure that a count and valuation of all
stocks and stores held in the Organisation is carried out on a date to be stipulated by the Finance Officer each year. In this respect, reference should be made to the stocktaking guidelines contained at appendix 4. The Finance Officer, however, may dispense with this requirement in cases where the total value of the items held in a store is considered to be too small to justify such activities.
## 21 Motor Vehicles
21.1
Records shall be maintained listing details of all motor vehicles
whether owned by, hired by or leased to the organisation. Such
records shall show the dates of purchase of new vehicles and their cost of acquisition as well as the details of disposals and their proceeds.
The Chief Executive shall ensure that all such information concerning
vehicles under their control is supplied to that officer who is allocated responsibility for maintaining an asset register for owned vehicles.
21.2
The Chief Executive may dispose of any vehicle in part- exchange for a
replacement. In such instances, the Chief Executive shall ensure that,
as far as is reasonably practicable, a better deal is not possible by disposing of the existing vehicle and purchasing a replacement
separately. Other disposals are to be disposed of in accordance with
the Organisation's agreed disposals procedures (see Financial
Regulation 13). In respect of vehicles valued in excess of £1,500 this
shall be subject to the prior approval of ALG or the relevant Sectoral
joint or associated committee.
21.3
The registration documents of all owned vehicles shall be recorded and
held in safekeeping in a manner approved by the Finance Officer.
21.4
Each unit hiring or leasing vehicles shall maintain adequate records
evidencing the terms of the hire or leasing agreement.
21.5
No vehicle shall be used otherwise than in accordance with the
ordinary course of the Organisation's business activities or purposes without the prior permission of the Finance Officer. Such permission only to be given in exceptional circumstances upon presentation of a written report providing justification.
21.6
All acquisitions of motor vehicles, including replacements of existing
vehicles, should be the subject of a report to ALG or the relevant Sectoral joint or associated committee seeking approval for acquisition giving details of the intended use of, and justification for the vehicle.
21.7
A vehicle trip log shall be kept for all motor vehicles which require a
road fund licence. This should show as a minimum the mileometer
readings at the beginning and end of the trip, the reasons for the trip, and the name of the driver/officer in charge of the vehicle during the trip. The Chief Executive shall be responsible for ensuring that mileometer readings are continuous.
21.8
Where a unit has its own fuel pump, comprehensive records shall be
maintained of all deliveries and issues.
## 22 Travelling And Subsistence Claims
22.1
Claims for travelling, subsistence and minor expenses other than
those reimbursed via the payroll system, are to be reimbursed by cheque through the Organisation's creditor system. Each claim shall be promptly submitted to the Finance Officer for payment and shall be presented on an approved form clearly detailing the expenditure incurred, supported by receipts where applicable, dated, coded, signed by the claimant and counter-signed by the appropriate authorising officer. Claims with a total value of less than £50 (inclusive of VAT) may be met from petty cash accounts.
22.2
Every officer who receives a car loan or car allowance, whether casual
or essential, must produce to the Chief Executive the registration document of the car, a valid and adequate certificate of insurance and
an assurance to take all reasonable steps to maintain the car in an efficient and roadworthy condition. This is to take place on a yearly basis, but the Chief Executive shall be promptly informed of any subsequent changes to the above details.
22.3
All car allowances are to be paid through the payroll system.
22.4
The Chief Executive shall supply the Finance Officer with specimen
signatures of all persons in the Organisation who are authorised to certify travelling and subsistence claims and the Finance Officer shall be notified of any changes as they occur.
22.5
The certification by or on behalf of the Chief Executive shall be taken
to mean that the certifying officer is satisfied that the journeys were authorised, the expenses properly and necessarily incurred and all the requirements of the appropriate approved scheme have been observed.
## 23 Insurance
23.1
The Finance Officer in consultation with the Chief Executive shall
ensure that adequate insurance cover is maintained for all the Organisation's assets. The Finance Officer shall also ensure that suitable cover exists to meet any losses or claims which may arise in connection with the provision of the Organisation's services, or from its legal liabilities as an employer, or to third parties.
23.2
The Finance Officer shall negotiate annually renewal terms for all
the Organisation's insurances at least every five years and the Chief Executive shall provide such information as is necessary to facilitate these negotiations.
23.3
The Finance Officer will advise the Chief Executive on all necessary
arrangements and information required in respect of insurance
cover for the acquisition of property or goods which may necessitate notice to the organisation's insurers.
23.4
The Chief Executive shall give prompt notification to the Finance
Officer of all new insurable risks and shall provide the Finance
Officer with a copy of any indemnity which the Organisation is expected to give. The Chief Executive shall not enter into any such indemnity unless the terms thereof have been approved by the Finance Officer.
23.5
The Chief Executive shall notify promptly the Finance Officer of
anything likely to give rise to a claim and shall provide such information as is necessary to negotiate claims. Where appropriate,
and not in conflict with Financial Regulation 10.4, the Unit Director should inform the Police.
23.6
The Finance Officer may establish such funds as are necessary to
meet the uninsured losses of ALG. Where such losses relate to a Sectoral joint committee then the prior agreement of the appropriate SJC must be obtained. In all other instances the prior agreement of ALG is to be obtained. Such funds will be operated in accordance with a scheme drawn up by the Finance Officer.
23.7
The Finance Officer shall maintain a register of all insurances and
the property or risks covered. The Finance Officer shall be notified immediately that any valuables belonging to a private individual are
taken into the Organisation's possession so that directions may be given as to their recording and safe keeping. For the purposes of this Financial Regulation the term "valuables" shall include watches, jewellery, cash, documents, goods, chattels or any other items of intrinsic value. This Financial Regulation does not apply to "lost property" of a low value.
23.8
Prompt notification shall be given to the Finance Officer following any
alteration to the Organisation's insurance status resulting from the award or completion of any contract.
## 24 Treasury Management And Investments
24.1
ALG has adopted the "Code of Practice for Treasury Management in
Local Authorities" as published by the Chartered Institute of Public
Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA). This will include its reporting
requirements. The CIPFA Code defines "Treasury Management" as "The management of all money and capital market transactions in connection with cash and funding resources of the local authority". Unless decided otherwise by ALG, this does not include management of Pension Fund money.
24.2
The Finance Officer shall be responsible for all borrowing and
investment of ALG, subject to the approval of ALG or the relevant
Sectoral joint committee.
24.3
In order to minimise the extent of temporarily surplus funds the
Finance Officer shall make such arrangements (including direct payment by the Participating Councils in the TCfL Agreement to the Operators) as are reasonable and practical to match the timing of
those Councils' contributions to the Concessionary Fares scheme with payments due to the various Transport Operators
24.4
All investments shall be made by the Finance Officer on behalf of
ALG and shall be noted as being for the purposes of the relevant Committee.
24.5
All executive decisions on borrowing, investment or financing shall be
delegated to the Finance Officer or through him/her to his staff, who shall be required to act in accordance with CIPFA's "Code of Practice
for Treasury Management in Local Authorities".
24.6
Income received from investments shall be reported annually to ALG
and any Sectoral joint or associated committee by the Finance Officer, as part of the close down of accounts procedure. The Finance Officer shall submit reports on policy, sales and purchases for consideration by ALG to at least four meetings each year.
24.7
The investment of funds included within Pension Funds may be
carried out by one or more firms of Fund Managers with the concurrence of ALG, which shall review the appointment of managers within a five year cycle.
## 25 Unofficial Funds
25.1
An "unofficial fund" is any fund where the income and expenditure
does not form part of the Organisation's accounts, but which is controlled wholly or in part by an officer on behalf of ALG.
25.2
The Chief Executive shall be responsible for the immediate control
of unofficial funds within or relating to the London Boroughs Grants Unit.
25.3
The Finance Officer shall be informed of the existence of all
unofficial funds, and will issue and update accounting instructions for them where necessary.
## 26 Taxation Requirements
26.1
The Finance Officer has overall responsibility for dealing with all
statutory requirements concerning the collection, payment and
accounting for Value Added Tax (VAT), Pay As You Earn (PAYE) and Construction Industry Scheme (CIS).
26.2
The Finance Officer will from time to time issue to the Chief
Executive guidance and advice on VAT, PAYE and CIS arrangements arising from such issues as changes in legislation. It is the responsibility of the Chief Executive to make arrangements in the Organisation to ensure that the advised regulations and procedures are implemented.
26.3
The Chief Executive must ensure that procedures are in place in the
Organisation to provide evidence that all VAT, PAYE and CIS transactions are supported by the correct documentation.
The Chief Executive will consult with the Finance Officer with regard to any issue on VAT, PAYE and CIS that requires advice or clarification.
## Schedule 8 Costs And Expenses 1. General:
1.1
ALG shall establish and maintain separate accounts for each of the groups
of functions set out in Parts 1 - 3 of Schedule 2, Schedule 3 and Schedule 5 (excepting the designated council function whilst it is carried out by the
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames) and any other functions
delegated to ALG or any Sectoral joint committee. ALG and the Finance Officer shall have regard at all times to the principle underlying this Agreement of separation and ring-fencing of funding streams and costs of functions.
1.2
Subject to paragraph 2 below, the costs and expenses of the groups of
functions set out in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 shall be
borne by the London Local Authorities which subscribe to each of those groups of functions on the same basis as that on which they were allocated prior to the Commencement Date i.e. in equal shares, and any change in such allocation shall require the consent of all the London Local
Authorities which subscribe to each of those groups of functions.
1.3
Subject to paragraph 2 below, the costs and expenses of the functions set
out in Part 3 of Schedule 2 shall be borne by the London Local Authorities
in such proportions as ALG shall reasonably determine relates directly to the discharge of those functions, having regard to paragraph 1.1 above.
1.4
The allocation of costs and expenses in respect of any further functions
which may be delegated to ALG by all or any of the London Local Authorities shall be as agreed between ALG and such Authorities
1.5 Subject to paragraph 2 below, the contributions of the constituent councils
to the designated council in respect of grants made to eligible voluntary
organisations under the London Boroughs Grants Scheme, the designated
council function and any Lead Borough functions carried out by the designated council shall be in accordance with Section 48(3) Local Government Act 1985, i.e. in proportion to the populations of their respective areas
1.6
Subject to paragraph 2 below, the contributions of the Participating
Councils in the ALGTEC Agreement shall be in accordance with Parts 1 - 4 of Schedule 6 of that Agreement
## 2. Increases Or Decreases In Staffing , Administration And Accommodation Costs
2.1
Any net increases in overheads including staffing, administration,
accommodation costs (including fitting-out) and all reasonably related costs which result from the formation of ALG and the delegation of the functions set out herein to ALG which in ALG's reasonable opinion and that of the Finance Officer are not directly attributable to the discharge of the functions or an improvement in the service received by a particular
function as a result of the formation of ALG shall be borne by an increase in
the subscription payable by each London Local Authority in respect of the Schedule 2 Part 1 functions, such increase to be allocated to the London Local Authorities in equal shares.
2.2
Any savings which, in the reasonable opinion of ALG, accrue from the creation of ALG and the delegation to it of the functions set out herein
shall accrue to the budget for the particular function(s) in which such savings are found | en |
3658-pdf |
## Lin Homer - Meetings With External Organisations
1st January - 31st March 2013
Purpose of Meeting
Permanent Secretary Month of Meeting
Name of External Organisation
January
Kate Nash Associates
To discuss diversity and
equality
February
PWC
To discuss increasing
productivity and motivating staff
Does not normally include meetings with Government bodies such as other Government Departments and Agencies, non-departmental public
## Edward Troup - Meetings With External Organisations
1st January 2013 to 31st March 2013
Purpose of Meeting
Tax Assurance Commissioner & Second Permanent Secretary Month of Meeting
Name of External Organisation
January
Association of British Insurers To discuss the Tax
Assurance Role and current issues for the insurance industry.
Does not normally include meetings with Government bodies such as other Government Departments and Agencies, non-departmental public
| en |
4062-pdf | PLANNING COMMITTEE:
26th September 2017
DIRECTORATE:
Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning
HEAD OF PLANNING:
Peter Baguley
APPLICATION REF:
N/2017/0998
56 St Leonards Road
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
Change of Use from Dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) for 3 occupants
| WARD: | Delapre & Briar Ward | |
|--------------|------------------------------------|-------------|
| APPLICANT: | Mr Jason Footman | |
| AGENT: | Apex Planning Consultants | |
| REFERRED BY: | Councillor V Culbard | |
| REASON: | Parking, noise and refuse concerns | |
| | | |
| DEPARTURE: | No | |
## Application For Determination: 1. Recommendation
1.1
APPROVAL subject to the conditions as set out below and for the following reason:
The proposed development is considered acceptable in principle as it would not result in an over concentration of similar uses within the vicinity of the site, would provide adequate facilities for future occupants and would not be at risk from flooding. Notwithstanding existing parking conditions in the local area, the site is in a sustainable location close to a Local Centre, bus services and amenities, and would provide adequate facilities for cycle storage and refuse storage. The proposal thereby complies with the National Planning Policy Framework; Policies H1, H5, BN7 and S10 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy; Policies E20 and H30 of the Northampton Local Plan; and the Council's Houses in Multiple Occupation Interim Planning Policy Statement (IPPS).
## 2. The Proposal
2.1
The applicant has applied for planning permission to change the use of the property from a house, to a House in Multiple Occupation (hereafter referred to as a HIMO) for up to three people.
## 3. Site Description
3.1
The application site consists of a terraced house, albeit one that is sited in a predominantly commercial area. Therefore, whilst the precise sitting of the building is within an area identified as
residential within the Northampton Local Plan, the bulk of St Leonards Road is identified as being a local centre. As a consequence, the surrounding area is characterised through a mixture of residential accommodation and various retail and commercial uses. There are a number of bus routes in operation in the surrounding area. The site is also relatively close to the town centre.
## 4. Planning History
4.1
None.
## 5. Planning Policy 5.1 Statutory Duty
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires a planning application to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan for the purposes of this application comprises the adopted West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (2014), Northampton Local Plan (1997) saved policies.
## 5.2 National Policies
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the current aims and objectives for the planning system and how these should be applied. In delivering sustainable development, decisions should have regard to the mutually dependent social, economic and environmental roles of the planning system. The NPPF should be read as one complete document. However, the following sections are of particular relevance to this application:
5.3
Paragraph 17 - Core Principles seeks to secure high quality design and a good standard of
amenity for existing and proposed occupiers.
5.4
Paragraph 49 - Housing applications should be considered with a presumption in favour or
sustainable development.
5.5
Paragraph 50 - states that planning should deliver a wide choice of high quality homes; widen
opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive, and mixed communities; should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends,
and the needs of different groups in the community.
## 5.6 West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (2014)
The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) provides an up to date evidence base and considers the current Government requirements for plan making as it has been prepared in full conformity with the NPPF. Policies of particular relevance are:
5.7
Policy H1 - Housing Density & Mix & Type of Dwellings - states that development should provide for a mix of house types, sizes and tenures to cater for different accommodation needs. Housing developments will be expected to make the most efficient use of land having regard to the location and setting of the site, the existing character and density of the local area, accessibility to services and facilities, proximity to public transport routes, the implications of density for affordability and viability, the living conditions provided for future residents, and the impact on the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties.
5.8
Policy H5 - Managing the existing housing stock - seeks to manage and safeguard existing housing stock, including through HIMOs, where they would not adversely impact upon the character and amenity of residential areas.
5.9
Policy S10 - Sustainable Development Principles - requires development to satisfy a range of
sustainable development principles including through achieving the highest standards of sustainable design; maximising opportunities for reuse and recycling; and promoting walking and cycling and protecting, conserving and enhancing the natural and built environment and heritage assets and their settings.
5.10
Policy BN7 - Flood Risk - relates to flood risk as a consideration in the determination of this planning application.
## 5.11 Northampton Local Plan 1997 (Saved Policies)
Due to the age of the plan, the amount of weight that can be attributed to the aims and objectives of this document are diminished, however, the following policies are material to this application:
5.12
Policy E20 - new development should adequately reflect the character of surroundings and
ensure adequate standards of privacy, daylight and sunlight.
5.13
Policy H30 - requires HIMOs to be of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use and not
result in an over concentration to the detriment of the character and amenity of the area or result
in a substantial demand for on street parking in areas judged to be experiencing difficulties.
## 5.14 Supplementary Planning Documents
Northamptonshire Parking Standards (September 2016) Planning out Crime in Northamptonshire SPG 2004
## 5.15 Other Material Considerations
Houses in Multiple Occupation (HIMO) Interim Planning Policy Statement (IPPS) (November 2014) Proposals for HIMOs should:
Result in a balanced and mixed community and protect the physical character of the
street and neighbourhood as a whole, by not resulting in a concentration of similar uses, a material change or adverse impact on the character of the area, or more than 15% of HIMOs within a 50 metre radius;
Secure the provision of adequate facilities, amenities and minimise flood risk;
Promote use of public transport, cycling and walking and secure provision of adequate
parking;
Ensure provision of adequate storage for refuse and materials for recycling.
## 6. Consultations/ Representations
Comments received are summarised as follows:
6.1
Environment Agency - No objections.
6.2
Highway Authority (NCC) - No objections.
6.3
Cllr. V. Culbard - Requesting that the application be determined by the Planning Committee on the grounds that residents experience problems both with parking, noise and rubbish disposal.
6.4
Cllr. G Walker - Object to the application; there is no parking on St Leonards Road and will result in the loss of another family home.
6.5
Two letters of objection received. Comments can be summarised:
There is an over concentration of HIMOs in the vicinity
Car parking is already limited in the area
## 7. Appraisal Principle Of The Development And Size Of The Property/Facilities For Future Occupiers
7.1
It is considered that the conversion of the existing dwelling to a HIMO is considered to be in line with national policy requirements to deliver a wide choice of homes to create sustainable and mixed communities. Policy H5 of the JCS allows for HIMOs where the proposal would not adversely impact on the character of the area and amenity of residential areas.
7.2
Policy H30 of the Local Plan, although dated, is in line with the aims of NPPF in respect of the provision of adequate amenity for proposed occupiers and requires HIMOs to be of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use. The property is considered to be of sufficient size with appropriate room sizes that would be in accordance with the Council's HIMO Facilities and Amenities Guidance and appropriate kitchen/dining, toilet and washing facilities. A condition restricting the use of the property to a maximum of three people would ensure over-development does not occur. All bedrooms would be served by adequate outlook and light.
7.3
No details have been submitted for cycle storage, but there is suitable space to the rear of the property that can be used for the storage of bins and cycles, the details of which, and their retention, would be required by conditions.
## Concentration
7.4
The Interim Planning Policy Statement states that, in order to create a good mixture of house types, there should be a maximum of 15% of buildings within a 50m radius being used as HIMOs. The number of HIMOs is calculated from a number of data sources, including previous planning permissions, licences granted under the Housing Act, other data held by the Council and survey work, including one carried out in September 2017. Within the 50m radius, there is currently 4 other HIMOs. Therefore, should this development proceed, the resultant number of HIMOs within the 50m radius would be 8.75%. It is appreciated that there are currently 3 other undetermined applications for HIMOs within the 50m radius, but even if these were to be approved, the figure would rise to 10%. In either scenario, the level of HIMOs falls significantly below the maximum threshold enshrined in policy.
## Flood Risk
7.5
Whilst the site is located within a flood zone, no objections have been received from the Environment Agency. As a consequence, it is considered that there would be no significant adverse impact upon flood risk arising from the proposed development.
## Highways
7.6
The Northamptonshire Parking Standards state that Houses in Multiple Occupation shall provide
on plot parking at the ratio of one parking space per bedroom. The proposed development will
produce a demand for 3 parking spaces, which is an increase of 1 compared to the existing use, as parking requirement for a 3-bed dwelling is 2 spaces.
7.7
Given that the number of residents would be limited (by condition) to 3, it is considered that the
number of residents would be comparable to those that could occupy the property as a conventional family dwelling. As a consequence, it is considered that the proposal would not
result in significantly more vehicle movements to and from the site. Furthermore, no objections
have been received from the Highway Authority. For these reasons, it is concluded that the
proposal would not result in greater pressure upon on street parking provision or a greater
number of vehicle movements.
7.8
Furthermore, regard must be paid to previous appeal decisions over the past few months where Planning Inspectors have consistently taken the view that in instances where a site that is close to local amenities and public transport links, and no parking is provided, considerable weight has been given to the sustainable location of the site, and the appeals concerned have been allowed. Indeed, some Inspectors have taken the view that proposed occupiers in recognising the lack of parking provision and proximity to amenities, may choose the location for this purpose and not wish to have cars.
7.9
In this particular instance, the site is located directly adjacent to a local centre, which contains an array of retail units (including a supermarket) and other commercial outlets. Furthermore, the site is well served by public transport.
7.10
Notwithstanding the fact that there are outstanding applications for HIMOs within the vicinity of the site which may have the potential for cumulative impacts on parking within the locality, in view of the recent appeal decisions, and the weight the Inspectors have given to the sustainability of locations, and having regard to the sustainable location of the application site, the number of occupants proposed, and that there is sufficient room within the site to provide secure bicycle storage, in accordance with the requirements of the IPPS, it is not considered that a refusal on highway grounds could be upheld.
## Refuse Storage
7.11
No details have been submitted for the location storage. There is sufficient space to the rear of
the property for bin storage and a condition is recommended to agree the details of refuse storage for the property to ensure it is of an appropriate size and its retention.
## Amenity
7.12
The proposed use falls within Use Class C4, which in effect categorises this as a residential use.
There is no evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would generate adverse amenity impacts such as noise or anti-social behaviour over and above those created by a more conventional C3
dwelling. Consequently, it is not considered that a refusal of planning permission, or the imposition of conditions in relation to amenity issues would be reasonable or sustainable at appeal.
## 8. Conclusion
8.1
The proposed development would not lead to an unacceptable concentration of HIMOs within the locality that would adversely affect upon the character of the local area, street scene, nor would the development have significant adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity or parking provision and the property is of sufficient size to accommodate the level of accommodation as proposed.
## 9. Conditions
9.1
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 001; and 002. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to accord with the terms of the planning application.
3. The development hereby permitted shall be occupied by a maximum of three residents at any one time.
Reason: In the interests of amenity of the proposed occupiers and the surrounding area in accordance with Policies H1 and H5 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 4. Notwithstanding the details submitted, full details of refuse and cycle storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, be fully implemented prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of amenity and to secure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with Policies H1 and H5 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.
## 10. Background Papers 10.1 None. 11. Legal Implications
11.1
The development is not CIL liable.
## 12. Summary And Links To Corporate Plan
12.1
In reaching the attached recommendations regard has been given to securing the objectives, visions and priorities outlined in the Corporate Plan together with those of associated Frameworks and Strategies. | en |
0391-pdf |
## Withholding Information Section 21 States Information Accessible To Applicant By Other Means. (1) Information Which Is Reasonably Accessible To The Applicant Otherwise Than Under Section 1 Is Exempt Information.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)— (a) information may be reasonably accessible to the applicant even though it is accessible only on payment, and (b) information is to be taken to be reasonably accessible to the applicant if it is information which the public authority or any other person is obliged by or under any enactment to communicate (otherwise than by making the information available for inspection) to members of the public on request, whether free of charge or on payment. (3) For the purposes of subsection (1), information which is held by a public authority and does not fall within subsection (2)(b) is not to be regarded as reasonably accessible to the applicant merely because the information is available from the public authority itself on request, unless the information is made available in accordance with the authority's publication scheme and any payment required is specified in, or determined in accordance with, the scheme. | en |
4428-pdf |
## Notice In Accordance With Section 57C Of The Railways Act 1993 14 March 2019
1. This is a notice, given in accordance with section 57C of the Railways Act 1993,
(the Act), stating that the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) proposes to impose a
penalty of £5m on Govia Thameslink Railway Limited (GTR) for contravention of condition 4 of its Passenger Statement of National Regulatory Provisions (SNRP).
2. The contravention is in respect of GTR's provision of appropriate, accurate and
timely information to passengers following the implementation of the 20 May 2018 timetable and during the subsequent disruption.
3. The acts and omissions which, in the opinion of ORR, constitute the
contravention and justify the imposition of the penalty are more fully set out in paragraphs 11 to 35 of this notice.
4. In accordance with the Act, the penalty should be paid to the Secretary of State.
ORR will specify the date by which the penalty must be paid in any final penalty notice given under Section 57C(6) of the Act.
5. Representations or objections with respect to the proposed penalty should be
made by close of business on 5 April 2019 by post to:
Stephanie Tobyn Deputy Director, Railway Markets and Economics Office of Rail and Road One Kemble Street London WC2B 4AN Or by e-mail to: stephanie.tobyn@orr.gov.uk
6. ORR will take into consideration any representations or objections made and not
withdrawn and will make a final decision on whether a penalty is appropriate, and if so how much it should be, as soon as practicable following the end of the consultation period.
7. ORR will publish any representations or objections made in response to this
consultation on its website and may quote from them. Anyone making representations or objections should indicate clearly if they wish all, or any part, of their submission to remain confidential to ORR. If such persons make a
representation or objection in confidence, they should also send a statement, excluding the confidential information, which they are content for ORR to publish.
## Relevant Legal Provisions
8. Under Section 57A of the Act, ORR may levy a penalty of such amount as is
reasonable, if it is satisfied that the licence holder is contravening or has, within the last two years, contravened a licence condition. The amount may not exceed
10 per cent of the licence holder's turnover, defined in accordance with the
Railways Act 1993 (Determination of Turnover) Order 2005 (SI 2005 No 2185.)
9. Section 57B(3) of the Act provides that, in deciding whether to impose a penalty,
and in determining its amount, ORR must have regard to its statement of policy
published at the time when the contravention occurred. For the purposes of this notice our Economic Enforcement Policy and Penalties Statement, published in November 20171, applies.
10.
Under Section 57A(6) of the Act, ORR shall not impose a penalty if it is satisfied that the most appropriate way of proceeding is under the Competition Act 1998. In this case, ORR does not consider that the Competition Act 1998 is applicable.
## The Contravention
11.
Condition 4 of GTR's SNRP sets out a purpose and general duty as follows2:
## Purpose
1. The purpose is to secure the provision of appropriate, accurate and timely information to enable railway passengers and prospective passengers to plan and make their journeys with a reasonable degree of assurance, including when there is disruption.
General duty
2. The SNRP holder shall achieve the purpose to the greatest extent reasonably practicable having regard to all relevant circumstances, including the funding available.
12.
To assist licence holders with compliance, ORR published guidance3 to support condition 4 by giving more information about what is expected and how it will be enforced. Our guidance recognises that timetabling services and providing good information is a complex task and states:
'The licence obligations are not intended to undermine the primary objective of providing best available service for passengers. Making justified changes to the train plan to meet passengers' needs should not be conditional on providing perfect advance information about these. However, we would expect licence holders to use reasonable endeavours to get such information out as widely as possible and as quickly as possible. We will take circumstances into account during any assessment of compliance'
13.
ORR considers the provision of passenger information to be a fundamental objective of delivering effective service recovery following disruption and if information is available that could be used by passengers to better plan and make their journeys, this should be shared in a timely manner.
14.
This is reflected in the additional principles that ORR set out for train operators in February 2018 where ORR wrote that they 'should be open about the impact on
all passengers of the challenges they face, and take responsibility for ensuring that their passengers can get the information they need to plan and make their
journey as that information comes available'4.
ORR inquiry and the initiation of its investigation into GTR's provision of passenger information
15.
In June 2018, ORR was asked by the Secretary of State to set up an independent Inquiry into the disruption that followed the introduction of the new timetable on 20 May 2018.
16.
In September 2018, the findings of the Phase 1 Report of the timetable Inquiry found that information provided to passengers was inadequate which meant that passengers were unable to plan and make their journeys with any certainty.
17.
Arising from these findings, on 3 October 2018 ORR launched a formal investigation into GTR - whose passengers were particularly impacted - to assess whether GTR is in contravention of, or contravened its obligation under condition 4 of its SNRP in relation to the provision of appropriate, accurate and
timely information:
a. to passengers and prospective passengers **prior** to the implementation
of 20 May 2018 timetable; and
b. to passengers during the subsequent disruption i.e. **following** the
implementation of the 20 May 2018 timetable.
18.
As part of the investigation, ORR considered a range of information, evidence, and direct communication with GTR. ORR has analysed both source evidence provided to the timetable Inquiry and significant volumes of further information
provided by GTR, including internal documents and staff communications. ORR has also undertaken a detailed analysis of the GTR passenger experience pertaining to the timetable change to better understand the nature and impacts of the primary information failures.
19.
In assessing these issues, ORR considered whether GTR did, and is doing, everything reasonable practicable to comply with its obligations in condition 4.
20.
Full details about the investigation may be found in ORR Investigation Report5, which has been published alongside this notice.
21.
A summary of the investigation findings is provided below.
## Investigation Findings
22.
In relation to the provision of appropriate, accurate and timely information to
passengers and prospective passengers **prior** to the implementation of 20 May
2018 timetable, ORR considers that GTR took reasonably practicable steps to provide appropriate, accurate and timely information to passengers.6 This part of the investigation is therefore not discussed any further in this notice.
23.
In relation to its investigation into the provision of appropriate, accurate and
timely information to passengers **following** the implementation of the 20 May
2018 timetable, ORR considers that GTR contravened condition 4 of its SNRP by not achieving the purpose in condition 4.1 to the greatest extent reasonably practicable having regard to all relevant circumstances, including the funding available.
24.
ORR's investigation is set out in full in its Investigation Report. Our findings from this part of the investigation are set out from paragraph 4.64 and are summarised below.
25.
ORR considers that the exceptional circumstances that followed the introduction of the 20 May timetable meant that providing perfect advance information for all
services was, from the outset, an impossible task. Evidence demonstrates that
GTR's overriding focus throughout the period that followed 20 May was on
providing as much capacity as it could to meet customer demand.
26.
ORR's guidance to support compliance with condition 4 recognises that
timetabling services and providing information to passengers are difficult, complex tasks. There is a balance to be struck between service delivery and the ability to provide appropriate, accurate and timely information for passengers during sustained periods of disruption. The licence condition is not intended to undermine the primary objective of providing the best available services for passengers.
27.
ORR consider the immediate response to the timetable change on 20 May required a period of reactivity as both the scale and severity of the disruption emerged. However, ORR consider that better passenger information should be a core element of the service recovery process and as time progressed an
increasingly improving picture should have emerged. Against this context, ORR considers that GTR failed to appropriately balance service recovery with the need for passenger information to an unacceptable extent and duration throughout the implementation of their service recovery plan.
28.
In particular ORR has identified failings in the following areas:
a. **Aligning service recovery with passenger information obligations.**7 ORR
considers that too often there was a failure in operational decision-making to give adequate regard to the fact that running a train service (or rail
replacement bus) is only helpful to passengers if they know when and where the service will arrive, where it is going and how long the journey will take. Further ORR considers that as information failures persisted over such a sustained period of time, without any timely or proportionate response to these issues, there was a fundamental problem at both a strategic and functional level in aligning operation recovery with passenger information obligations.
b. Provision of 'Alpha list8**' and other journey information**9. ORR considers
that GTR's failure to clearly communicate known cancellations in a timely
manner undermined the ability of prospective passengers to plan ahead and make informed journey decisions. The Alpha list information could have been published sooner than 25 June, which would have provided greater certainty to passengers about services which were not planned to run.
c. **Day to day amendments**10. ORR considers that operational decisions taken
and implemented to support the recovery process were in many cases to the detriment of providing passengers with appropriate, accurate and timely information to an unacceptable extent and duration. Passengers were therefore left uncertain of what services would run each day as travelling on a
particular train one day was no guarantee that it would run or be shown on station screens the next day. ORR considers that the cumulative effect of the factors described here manifested in the unacceptable passenger outcomes described in our Investigation Report and in the numerous examples of passenger information failures.
29.
ORR wrote a case to answer letter11 to GTR on 29 January 2019 to state that we considered there was evidence that GTR did not do, and is not doing everything reasonably practicable to deliver its passenger information obligations following the 20 May timetable change.
30.
GTR requested a meeting with ORR and provided a written response to our letter on 13 February 2019. GTR raised a number of inaccuracies with our Investigation Report and stated that it considered that it did do everything reasonably practicable to deliver its passenger information obligations in light of exceptional circumstances, which were a direct result of industry failings.
31.
In response to the representations ORR made some revisions to its Investigation Report.
32.
In accordance with ORR's rules of procedure, the decision whether to find GTR
in contravention of condition 4 and if so what regulatory action to take, was made by ORR's Board. ORR's Board took into account all relevant material including the Investigation Report and GTR's representations and is satisfied that:
(i)
GTR's operational decision making was not supported by passenger information that was sufficiently aligned to the steps that it was taking to recover the service;
(ii)
GTR's failure to clearly communicate known cancellations in a timely
manner undermined the ability of prospective passengers to plan ahead and make informed journey decisions; and
(iii)
Operational decisions taken and implemented to support the recovery process did not take account of the need to provide passengers with appropriate, accurate and timely information to an acceptable extent and within an acceptable time period.
33.
ORR is therefore satisfied that, taking account of all evidence, including our findings and GTR's representations, there is evidence that GTR contravened Condition 4 of its SNRP in that it failed to deliver to the greatest extent reasonably practicable, having regard to all relevant circumstances, its obligation to provide appropriate, accurate and timely information to passengers to enable
them to plan and make their journeys with a reasonable degree of assurance.
34.
ORR is not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence that this contravention is a current breach because GTR has taken some steps to ensure that the same situation would not happen again, in particular:
a. The steps GTR took to provide appropriate, accurate and timely
passenger information during the implementation of the interim timetable on 15 July 2018, the phasing of additional services through September 2018 and the further timetable change in December 2018;
b. The information from Transport Focus regarding a Customer Awareness
Report based on research carried out through October and November
2018 showing that 88% of passengers overall and 92% of commuters were aware of the planned February blockade on the Brighton Mainline;
c. The utilisation of a dedicated project website by Network Rail and GTR to
communicate to passengers about The Brighton Mainline Improvement
Project;
d. GTR advise it has service recovery frameworks (SRF) to respond to
disruptive events across GTR's routes, which are supported by customer
plans;
e. Since May 2018, GTR advise it has rolled out new smart phones to its
entire front line staff pre-loaded with industry information applications to enable staff to have improved access to passenger information. Further,
as it became apparent during the May Timetable disruption that GTR's
messaging system "Tyrell" was not able to keep up the level of changes being inputted into the system, GTR has since converted to a cloud based scaleable environment to allow the system to respond to user demand more effectively; and
f. Improvement in performance and reduction in compensation claims
following the introduction of the July 2018 timetable.
35.
The penalty that ORR proposes to impose on GTR therefore relates to a past breach of condition 4 as specified above.
## Factors That Justify The Imposition Of A Penalty
36.
ORR's penalties statement states that, in deciding whether to impose a penalty, we will take full account of the particular facts and circumstances of the contravention, including any representations and objections made to us. ORR will also act in accordance with our Section 4 duties under the Act, and take into account the six penalty principles set out in the Macrory report12 and the related
five principles of good regulation (proportionality, targeting, consistency, transparency and accountability).
37.
ORR's primary objective in setting a penalty is to change the future behaviour of
a licence holder and to incentivise it and others to comply with their obligations both specifically and in general.
38.
ORR considers that a penalty is appropriate in relation to GTR's failure to provide appropriate, accurate and timely information to passengers because:
a. a penalty would incentivise GTR to ensure that the provision of information
to passengers is managed more effectively in the future; and
b. a penalty could also act as a future deterrent to other licence holders.
39.
In deciding whether or not a penalty is appropriate, ORR also considered the following factors to be relevant:
a. The reputational damage GTR have already suffered and additional costs
incurred due to their wider failings in relation to the 20 May timetable change;
b. GTR have taken some steps to compensate passengers through delay
compensation schemes and have paid a passenger benefits fund to the
Department for Transport. However, these sums were paid in response to its wider failings in relation to the 20 May timetable change and do not address the harm caused by its additional failings to provide adequate information to passengers;
c. GTR have learnt some lessons from the 20 May timetable change and
made some changes prior to the December timetable change. However, there is a lack of evidence that GTR undertook a significant lessons learnt exercise relating to passenger information and have focused instead on the wider industry failings;
d. GTR have not acknowledged responsibility for its failure to provide
adequate information to passengers.
## Factors That Justify The Amount Of The Penalty
40.
In line with our penalties statement ORR has considered factors falling into two categories:
a. Proportionality; and
b. Mitigating and aggravating factors.
## Proportionality
41.
The penalty should be proportionate to the seriousness of the contravention, and this is our starting point in calculating the amount. In considering the seriousness, in line with paragraph 129 of ORR's economic enforcement policy and penalties statement, ORR has looked at:
a. the actual and potential harm caused to third parties including passengers
and other railway users and to the public interest purpose of the obligation (including the effectiveness of the regulatory regime);
b. the culpability of the licence holder, including whether it has acted
negligently, recklessly, knowingly or intentionally; and
c. the extent to which the licence holder has co-operated with ORR during
the investigation.
42.
ORR sets out in its penalties statement, five levels of seriousness ranging from a technical or de minimis contravention to a very serious contravention, with
corresponding financial ranges. Our policy states that these levels of seriousness are based on previous actions taken by us and judgements of seriousness and recognises that when we consider the particular facts and circumstances of each individual case, we may consider it appropriate to deviate from the scales. Actual and potential harm:
43.
To assist in determining the starting point for the penalty, ORR have assessed the level of harm/potential harm, particularly the harm caused to passengers of
GTR's Thameslink and Great Northern services caused by the failure to provide
appropriate, accurate and timely information.
44.
In relation to passenger information, it is difficult to quantify the actual and potential harm caused, although we have some evidence relating to key industry data, GTR social media engagement and passenger research carried out at the time of the issues.
45.
In this particular case, issues with the provision of information, while serious, do not appear to be 'systemic' nature and affected passengers relying on GTR services primarily during an 8-week disruption period.
46.
ORR further recognises that ineffective passenger information was not the only cause of harm as passengers were already suffering disruption to services because of the timetabling problems. In effect, even if passenger information had been 'perfect' passengers would still have suffered harm due to the wider disruption to services. ORR considers that GTR's passenger information failings exacerbated the level of harm felt by passengers during this period as inaccurate or late changes to timetables further undermined their ability to plan and make journeys.
47.
The impact of the passenger information issues predominantly affected GTR's
Thameslink and Great Northern service routes and GTR stated in its letter of 13 February 2019 to ORR that:
a) at the time of the May 2018 timetable implementation, it carried on
average 1.06m passengers per weekday including in excess of 474,000 passengers per weekday on its Thameslink and Great Northern services and there were 982 front line staff on the Thameslink and Great Northern services;
b) Southern and Gatwick Express services did not suffer to the same extent
from the late validation of the timetable issues and the operational and passenger information systems were therefore fully uploaded and correct for the implementation of the May 2018 timetable. As a result, passengers travelling on those services, which at the time made up over 63% of the GTR operation, were not as significantly affected as the passenger
information was held and displayed correctly within the industry information systems.
48.
ORR also considered the following impacts felt by passengers from the overall disruption: financial; stress and inconvenience; employment; social; personal
safety; trust in the railway (and changing travel behaviour); and the impact of the disruption on disabled passengers13. It is not possible to assess the extent to which these impacts can be directly attributed to the failure to provide adequate information, however it is clear that inadequate information will have exacerbated the impacts of the service issues. Culpability:
49.
ORR's policy is to consider culpability including whether GTR acted negligently,
recklessly, knowingly or intentionally.
50.
ORR consider that GTR has some culpability in relation to the provision of passenger information post 20 May timetable until its interim timetable was introduced on 15 July.
51.
We do not think that GTR benefited financially from the breach and we have no evidence that it cut corners to save money. In fact, ORR are aware GTR increased its staffing to manage the problems and the cost to GTR could be significant both reputationally, as well as financially.
52.
Overall, ORR considers that GTR's behaviour was not knowing or intentional but was instead towards the negligent end of the spectrum. Its focus on capacity of services during disruption was, we consider, made with the best intentions, but we take the view that much of its positive work to stabilise service levels and manage these issues post 20 May 2018 did not flow effectively through to adequate passenger information outcomes.
53.
However, as time progressed and the extent of the information failures impacting passengers was repeatedly communicated to senior management, we have no evidence to demonstrate a timely or proportionate level of reaction or enhanced response to recognise and then improve the situation. In this respect, we
consider that there was initially negligence but then latterly a level of knowing acceptance of the problem until the interim timetable was introduced on 15 July
(Phase 3 of the Service Recovery Plan). Co-operation with ORR during the investigation:
54.
ORR considers that GTR's co-operation with the investigation is what we would expect and therefore it does not alter our perception of the level of seriousness.
## Level Of Seriousness:
55.
ORR considered that the relevant levels of seriousness drawn from ORR's
penalties statement were:
a. Less serious - this level would be appropriate in circumstances where a
relatively small amount of harm was caused or was caused only to a small geographical area.
b. Moderately serious - this level is more appropriate in circumstances
where there were more serious implications and more serious actual or potential harm to third parties.
c. Serious - this level is appropriate where there is evidence of systemic
failings that results in serious harm or potential harm to third parties.
56.
ORR does not consider that the contravention should be regarded as less serious because of the wide areas covered by the Thameslink and Great Northern routes, the large number of passengers affected over an 8 week period and the fact that, whilst the provision of information was not the only cause of
harm, it exacerbated it to a significant degree. ORR also does not consider the contravention should be regarded as serious since ORR does not consider the failings to be systemic in nature.
57.
Having considered the factors above, ORR has decided that this contravention therefore falls into the moderately serious level in our penalties statement, which suggests a starting point in the range up to £10m.
58.
Taking all potentially relevant factors into account, we have decided that the significant actual (and potential) harm caused to passengers from the failure to provide adequate information, taken together with GTR's culpability, puts the starting point in the middle of this range. ORR has therefore decided that the starting point should be £5m.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
59.
ORR's penalties statement also states that we will adjust the starting penalty up or down to take account of relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, according to the particular facts and circumstances of each case.
60.
ORR's penalties statement sets out a number of mitigating and aggravating
factors which it may consider. From this list, ORR has identified the following mitigating factors that apply to GTR:
a. *Steps taken to minimise the risk of the breach recurring:-* GTR has taken
some steps to improve communications and passenger information for future timetable introductions and more generally (see paragraph 34);
b. *Repeated or continuing infringement of this or other obligations:- n*o
formal licence action has previously been taken against GTR to date; and
c.
Co-operation with ORR's investigation:- we consider that GTR has cooperated with our investigation and have been generally open and forthcoming with their responses.
61.
ORR has also identified the following aggravating factors that apply to GTR:
a. Steps taken to rectify the breach, including whether these were initiated
proactively by the licence holder or in response to ORR's actions & the extent of involvement of directors of senior management in the action or
inaction which caused the breach or their lack of appropriate involvement
in action to remedy the breach:– during the 8 weeks of disruption, the scale of information failures became more apparent to senior management. However, despite this awareness we have not seen sufficient evidence that GTR took subsequent steps to address the level of inadequate information to passengers;
62.
ORR has noted that to date we have also not received any separate offers of reparations for consideration under our economic enforcement policy.
63.
ORR considers that the mitigating and aggravating factors balance each other out and therefore proposes that the penalty should be set at £5m.
## Conclusion
64.
Having had regard to ORR's duties in Section 4 of the Act, the factors listed in
ORR's penalties statement and for the reasons set out above, ORR has decided
that it should propose a penalty of £5m in respect of GTR's contravention of condition 4 as described in this notice.
John Larkinson Chief Executive Office of Rail and Road
## Condition 4: Information For Passengers Purpose
1. The purpose is to secure the provision of appropriate, accurate and timely information to enable railway passengers and prospective passengers to plan and make their journeys with a reasonable degree of assurance, including when there is disruption.
## General Duty
2. The SNRP holder shall achieve the purpose to the greatest extent reasonably practicable having regard to all relevant circumstances, including the funding available.
## Specific Obligations
3. The following obligations in this condition are without prejudice to the generality of the general duty in paragraph 2 and compliance with these obligations shall not be regarded as exhausting that general duty. In fulfilling these obligations the SNRP holder shall at all times comply with the general duty in paragraph 2.
## Planning Services
4. The SNRP holder shall cooperate, as necessary, with Network Rail and other train operators to enable Network Rail to undertake appropriate planning of train services and to establish or change appropriate timetables, including when there is disruption.
5. In particular, the SNRP holder shall:
(a) provide Network Rail with such information about the SNRP holder's
licensed activities as may be reasonably necessary for Network Rail to fulfil its obligations relating to timetabling in its network licence; (b) participate constructively in any timetabling consultation carried out by Network Rail; (c) use reasonable endeavours to resolve promptly any timetabling disputes; and
(d) respond expeditiously to any timetabling matter which Network Rail reasonably considers to be urgent.
## Code(S) Of Practice And Improvement Plan(S)
6. The SNRP holder shall, unless ORR otherwise consents, publish one or more code(s) of practice or other documents setting out the principles and processes by which it will comply with the general duty in paragraph 2. 7. Where the SNRP holder considers, or is directed by ORR, that improvements to its arrangements for the provision of information to railway passengers and prospective passengers are necessary or desirable to enable it better to fulfil the general duty in paragraph 2, it shall develop, publish and deliver a plan, which sets out the improvements it intends to make and the dates by which such improvements will be made. 8. The SNRP holder shall, from time to time and when so directed by ORR, review and, if necessary, revise, following consultation, anything published under paragraph 6 and any plan under paragraph 7 so that they may better fulfil the general duty in paragraph 2. 9. ORR shall not make any direction under paragraphs 7 or 8 without first consulting the SNRP holder.
## Provision Of Information To Intermediaries
10. The SNRP holder shall as soon as reasonably practicable:
(a) provide to the holders of passenger and station licences; and (b) provide to all timetable information providers on request reasonable access to appropriate, accurate and timely information to enable each on request to provide passengers with all relevant information to plan their journeys including, so far as reasonably practicable, the fare or fares and any restrictions applicable.
11. In this condition:
"Network Rail" means Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (a company registered in England and Wales under number 02904587), and its successors and assigns. | en |
0299-pdf |
## The Office Of Rail And Road 152Nd Board Meeting 09:00-15:30 Tuesday 25 September 2018
ONE KEMBLE STREET, LONDON WC2B 4AN
Non-executive members: Stephen Glaister (Chair), Tracey Barlow, Anne Heal, Justin
McCracken, Michael Luger, Graham Mather, Bob Holland
Executive members: Joanna Whittington (Chief Executive), John Larkinson (Director Railway Markets
and Economics), Graham Richards (Director Railway Planning and Performance); Ian Prosser (Director Railway Safety).
In attendance: Dan Brown (Director Strategy and Policy), Freya Guinness (Director Corporate
Operations and Organisational Development) - to item 4, Juliet Lazarus (Director Legal Services and Competition), Tess Sanford (Board Secretary)
Observer: Declan Collier (chair designate)
Other ORR staff in attendance are shown in the text.
Item 1 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
1.
The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. Russell Grossman had sent
apologies.
2.
Item 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3.
No new external interests were declared.
4.
The board agreed that following the publication of the timetable inquiry interim report, Graham Richards no longer had a perceived conflict of
interest on that item.
## Item 3 Approval Of Previous Minutes And Matters Arising 5. A Correction To The Circulated Minutes Was Noted. The Chair Would Sign Updated Minutes. Item 4: Headlines And Regular Reports
6.
Ian Prosser updated the Board on: the Sandilands investigations and funding for
the light rail standards body; safety interventions on GTR at St Albans and Harpenden; the level of TOC engagement on cross-industry safety issues; issues with the control of vegetation on the network, and with new rolling stock; update on driver licencing.
7.
The board welcomed the update on crowding research and discussed the quality of SMIS+ data from RSSB.
Paragraph 8 has been redacted as relating to potential enforcement action.
9.
Graham Richards reported on assurance on HE's programme of work to
inspect big structures following the Genoa bridge collapse; DfT's scheduled
review of ORR's effectiveness as Highways Monitor (after 3 years of operation);
publication of the Holden report; performance problems on LNER and TPE; and an unexpected drop in the CRI which was being investigated. The board
discussed the regulatory escalator with reference to the Timetabling Inquiry findings.
10.
John Larkinson reported on preparations for timetable changes in May 2019
and TOC concerns around the potential disruption risk of planned increases to some passenger services: ORR had a function in this if access rights were
contested. He also gave an update on 3rd party investment where a report was
expected from DfT.
11.
Joanna Whittington noted the measured and broadly accurate coverage of the
Inquiry report and thanked Dan Brown and the inquiry team for their hard work against a short timetable. This had been a significant effort across the organisation - and some business plan reprogramming had resulted. She also gave an update on London accommodation, performance management changes, implementation of the 2018 pay settlement; publication of the market
study and progress on Siemens Alstom
12.
Stephen Glaister noted that Joanna Whittington would be leaving ORR to take
up a DG role in BEIS; after an internal competition, John Larkinson would be appointed as interim chief executive. Staff and others would be told as soon as
the necessary agreements had been secured (DfT and HMT).
## Item 5 Roads Investment Strategy
Richard Coates and David Hunt joined the meeting for this item.
13.
The paper set out key messages and supporting evidence for ORR's assessment
of the challenge and deliverability of the draft Road Investment Strategy (RIS2) for the second road period. While the package looked challenging it was not yet clear that it was deliverable and more analysis was in hand. The board discussed the work which still needed to be done, the importance of HE developing and owning a high quality SBP, the likely level of efficiency to be included, ORR's role as advisor to the DfT (different to its rail role), risks around
the level of available funds. The board noted that ORR's analysis and advice
would be made public once the funding envelope was public.
14.
The board noted the report and agreed that Joanna Whittington and Graham
Richards should sign off the final submission in the next few days.
## Item 6 Timetabling Inquiry
15.
Dan Brown updated the board on the government's announced Rail Review and
its likely timetable (reporting in mid 2019). ORR's report with recommendations following the timetabling inquiry would therefore need to work with existing structures. While it could also reflect on possible future structures - this would need to be clearly flagged as not evidence based.
16.
The board noted the importance of making recommendations to address
immediate problems and the risk that a new review could distract from a good start to CP6 because of the pressure on senior resource that the new rail review would bring across the sector. It noted that thinking about CP7 would depend on the effectiveness of NR's new structure during the first two years of CP6. The November Monitor report would focus on preparedness for CP6.
17.
The approach to and structure of Phase 2 of the timetabling inquiry was
discussed: passenger interests should be considered in each workstream. Publication should be before the timetable change on 8 December. The board
welcomed the stress on engagement and consultation with the industry and considered other sources of scrutiny of the sector including recent NAO reports. It noted the work in hand to investigate potential licence breaches on passenger information during disruption (PIDD) by TOCs as a result of the timetable problems.
## Item 7 Network Rail: Update On T-12 Licence Breach Catherine Williams And Stephanie Tobyn Joined The Meeting For The Next Two
items.
18.
Network Rail had responded positively to the licence breach decision, but their response had only addressed the immediate issues and not the structural ones. Implementation of the December and May 2019 timetable changes still carried
significant risks. The board discussed the continuing delay to passenger benefits which had already been paid for and the balance of risk between realising those benefits and further deterioration of performance: it would not always be right to take the lowest risk options. Public commentary on the gap between plans and delivery might be helpful - although it was recognised that contractual penalties between franchisees and DfT were not transparent. The
board discussed the importance of NR's PMO having and using sufficient
authority to make go/no-go decisions on the implementation of system wide change: a statement from DfT giving that authority would be helpful.
19.
The board also received an update on the improved accuracy of train availability information being supplied through the websites operated by Trainline and work
continuing to improve other web suppliers information.
20.
The board would receive a further update in October on recommendations for
next steps on this. [forward programme]
## Item 8 Disabled People'S Protection Policy (Dppp)
David Kimball and Scott Hamilton joined the meeting for this item
21.
Stephanie Tobyn explained the work in hand to develop our approach in advance of a consultation on renaming and updating the Disabled Peoples'
Protection Policy (DPPP) which had last been issued by DfT in 2009.
22.
The board discussed the various changes which might be considered including improvements to journey planning (notice periods), booking, staff training, effective processes and what happens when things go wrong for passengers (stranding). The board discussed the particular challenges for unmanned stations and the importance of local ownership and flexibility of response. Public expectations had risen considerably since 2009 and proposals that required significant improvements from TOCs could generate resistance and were still likely not to meet all travellers' expectations. The draft consultation would be shared with the board in October [forward programme]
23.
The board supported a significant raising of minimum standards and argued that as much flexibility as possible should be allowed for how those standards were met - space for innovation and a tailored response was vital. Cost implications for operators would need to be considered by DfT, but reputational benefits for operators who respond well could be considerable.
24.
The board saw a short video illustrating an app which helped passengers who needed assistance to travel more easily on rail.
## Item 9 Pr18
Chris Hemsley and Siobhan Carty joined the meeting for this item
25.
Chris Hemsley reported on successful meetings with NR's route managing directors to discuss their final strategic business plans. He also discussed the Transport Scotland response to the draft determination, public discussion of a possible Schedule 8 reopener and the degree to which anything in CP6 would
drive change. He set out plans for the final determination session on 1 October.
26.
The board noted the plans and the importance of understanding how the whole
package fitted together - and how it worked alongside other spending by NR.
27.
NR had considered all the concerns set out in the draft determination and had
addressed all of them in some way. There was no time now to analyse further
options: the choice on 1 October would be whether to accept NR's worked up
plans, to revert to the draft determination or to agree changes that were unsupported by full evidence. The risk of disengaging NR's management through such a choice was very high. The board noted the ongoing issues
reported on Scotland.
## Lunch Item 10 Joint Reporting
28.
The board received a briefing on work to consider how pooling information from ORR on network performance, some from RDG and some from DfT on franchise performance might result in better and more transparent reporting for passengers. ORR published all its data, but other bodies were more selective. The board discussed the benefits of better public understanding and the restoration of public trust, possible confidentiality issues around contract performance of TOCs, other bodies (route supervisory boards) who might have an interest in more transparency. Overall it was agreed that this was clearly part of protecting the interests of passengers and should be pursued. A round table with DfT was scheduled. Dan Brown would report back to the board on next
steps. [action]
## Item 11 Feedback From Committees
29.
Justin McCracken reported on HSRC which had heard from Andy Thomas of NR about the industry work on occupational health; progress on level crossing orders, lessons learned from the Grenfell Tower tragedy and work to revise our
RM3 tool.
All directors left the meeting: David Chapman joined the meeting for this item
30.
Michael Luger reported on proposals to implement the SCS pay award for 2018- 19 and the recommended distribution of the bonus pot - including a sum for inyear awards.
## Item 17 Any Other Business
31.
The board noted the board forward programme for the rest of 2018.
| en |
2465-pdf | # Employment Tribunals And Eat Statistics, 2011-12 1 April 2011 To 31 March 2012
20 September 2012
Alternative format versions of this report are available on request from Ministry of Justice by emailing statistics.enquiries@justice.gsi.gov.uk
Contents
Introduction
4
Key Findings
5
Tables
8
Explanatory Notes
16
Data quality and sources
17
Definitions
18
Table conventions
20
## Tables
Table 1 Claims Accepted by Employment Tribunals, 2008-09 to 2011-12. Table 2 Employment Tribunals Disposals and Outcomes by Jurisdiction, 2008-09 to 2011-12. Table 3 Details of Unfair Dismissal Claims Disposed of at a Hearing, 2011-12. Table 4 Representation of Claimants at Employment Tribunals, 2008-09 to 2011-12. Table 5 Compensation Awarded by Tribunals, cases with Unfair Dismissal jurisdiction, 2011-12. Table 6 Compensation Awarded by Tribunals, cases with Race Discrimination jurisdiction, 2011-12. Table 7 Compensation Awarded by Tribunals, cases with Sex Discrimination jurisdiction, 2011-12. Table 8 Compensation Awarded by Tribunals, cases with Disability Discrimination jurisdiction, 2011-12. Table 9 Compensation Awarded by Tribunals, cases with Religious Discrimination jurisdiction, 2011-12.
Table 10 Compensation Awarded by Tribunals, cases with Sexual Orientation Discrimination jurisdiction, 2011-12.
Table 11 Compensation Awarded by Tribunals, cases with Age Discrimination jurisdiction, 2011-12. Table 12 Costs Awarded in Employment Tribunals Cases, 2011-12. Table 13 Summary of Receipts and Disposals at EAT, 2011-12. Table 14 Cases Dealt with at Preliminary Hearings at EAT, 2011-12. Table 15 Appeals Disposed of by EAT at a full hearing, 2011-12. Table 16 EAT Appeals Withdrawn, 2011-12.
## Introduction
This report presents information on Employment Tribunals (ET) and Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) activity for the period 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. It is the third time that this information has been published as Official Statistics. Key Findings are on page 4 with definitions and background information on page 11. Historic copies of this report are available on the Ministry of Justice website at www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/tribunals/employment-tribunal-and-eat-statistics-gb Annual Tribunal Statistics for 2011-12 and Quarterly Tribunal Statistics for all four quarters of 2010-11 and 2011-12 are available at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/tribunals/annual-stats and www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/tribunals/quarterly
## Key Findings
The employment tribunals are independent judicial bodies which determine disputes between employers and employees over employment rights.
## Claims Received
There were 186,300 claims accepted by employment tribunals (ETs) during 2011-12 (1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012), a 15% fall on the number received in the previous year, and 21% lower than the number in 2009-10. Single claims are those brought by an individual against an employer (the respondent). Each single claim is processed administratively, and managed and heard judicially on its own. Multiple claims are those where two or more people bring claims usually against a single employer (but not necessarily so) arising from the same or similar circumstances. Importantly, multiple claims are processed, managed and heard together in their multiple grouping. In 2011-12 there were 59,200 single claims accepted (down by 2% on the previous year) and 127,100 multiple claims accepted (a fall of 19% on the number in 2010-11).
The multiple claims were grouped into 5,200 actions, or 'multiple claim cases1'. This is a reduction on the 5,900 in 2010-11 and continues a recent downward trend.
Note: Figures for 2007-08 are estimated Source: ET Reports Figure 1 shows the variation in single and multiple accepted claims (receipts) since 2000-01. It shows that the trend for multiple claims is erratic in nature and is affected by the large number of claims for specific jurisdictions. There has been a general upward trend, but since 2009-10 there has been a year-on-year decline. The number of single claims has been more steady and has been showing a downward trend over recent years.
## Claims Disposed Of
Employment tribunals disposed of 110,800 claims during 2011-12, a fall of 10% when compared with the previous year, but in-line with the number of claims disposed of in 2009-10. The recent fall in disposals was seen in both single and multiple claims, with decreases of 6% and 14% respectively.
## Jurisdictional Complaints Received
A claim to an employment tribunal can contain a number of different types of complaint, known as jurisdictional complaints. When deciding any claim, the tribunal has to make determinations under each jurisdiction. The total number of jurisdictional complaints accepted in 2011-12 was 321,800, 16% fewer than in 2010-11. Between
1 April 2011 and 31 March 2012, there were, on average, 1.73 jurisdictional complaints per claim. The ratio has varied since 2006-7, but generally increased. Of the 321,800 jurisdictional claims received in 2011-12, 31% were for Unfair dismissal, breach of contract and redundancy; 29% were concerning Working Time Regulations (largely airline cases that are resubmitted every three months), and 16% were for unauthorised deductions (Wages Act).
## Jurisdictional Complaints Disposed Of
In 2011-12, employment tribunals disposed of 230,000 jurisdictional complaints, 6% fewer than in 2010-11. This fall was reflected in all jurisdictions except Disability Discrimination, Age Discrimination and Breach of Contract which had increases of 7%, 5% and 1% respectively. Of the 230,000 jurisdictional complaints disposed of in 2011-12:
33% were Acas conciliated (an increase of 4 percentage points on the
proportion, when compared with last year);
27% were withdrawn (5 percentage points lower than in 2010-11);
13% were struck out;
and 27% were disposed of at hearing (with 12% successful at a tribunal, 7%
unsuccessful, 2% dismissed at a preliminary hearing and 6% disposed of via a Default judgment).
## Workload Outstanding
At 31 March 2012, the workload outstanding for employment tribunals (i.e. claims awaiting resolution) was 540,800, as compared with 484,300 at 31 March 2011. The vast majority of those were multiple claims - 514,300 in all. Multiple claims are often legally and factually complex and it is common for action on such claims to be deferred (or 'stayed'), for example pending the outcome of proceedings in appellate courts/tribunals on case management or other interim matters. This means that such claims are not yet ready to have a final Hearing in the employment tribunal, and so the claim cannot be progressed to disposal. The outstanding workload at 31 March 2012 includes more than 200,000 resubmitted airline Working Time Regulations claims with approximately 15% of these claims also having a Wages Act component. It also includes a number of Equal Pay claims (brought primarily against Local Authorities and the NHS). Between 2010-11 and 2011-12, there was a decrease in the number of single claims outstanding of 7%, continuing a downward trend seen since 2009-10.
## Employment Appeal Tribunal
The main function of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) is to hear appeals from decisions made by employment tribunals. An appeal must be on a point of law, i.e. it must identify flaws in the legal reasoning of the original decision.
In 2011-12, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) received 2,170 appeals
and disposed of 2,220 appeals. This compares with 2,050 receipts and 2,000
disposals in 2010-11.
In EAT, 510 appeals were disposed of at a full hearing, as compared with 360
in 2010-11.
April to March
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Total Claims Accepted2
236,100
218,100
186,3003
Total Claims Initially Rejected
4,100
1,400
1,300
1,300
210
230
Of the total, those that were resubmitted and
subsequently accepted
2,800
1,100
1,100
Of the total, those that were resubmitted and not
accepted or never resubmitted
Jurisdiction Mix of claims accepted2
NATURE OF CLAIM
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Unfair dismissal4
57,400
47,900
46,300
Unauthorised deductions (Formerly Wages Act)
75,500
71,300
51,200
Breach of contract
42,400
34,600
32,100
Sex discrimination
18,200
18,300
10,800
Working Time Directive5
95,200
114,100
94,700
Redundancy pay
19,000
16,000
14,700
Disability discrimination
7,500
7,200
7,700
Redundancy - failure to inform and consult
7,500
7,400
8,000
Equal pay
37,400
34,600
28,800
Race discrimination
5,700
5,000
4,800
Written statement of terms and conditions
4,700
4,000
3,600
Written statement of reasons for dismissal
1,100
930
960
Written pay statement
1,400
1,300
1,300
Transfer of an undertaking - failure to inform and consult
1,800
1,900
2,600
Suffer a detriment / unfair dismissal - pregnancy6
1,900
1,900
1,900
Part Time Workers Regulations
530
1600
770
National minimum wage
500
520
510
Discrimination on grounds of Religion or Belief
1,000
880
940
Discrimination on grounds of Sexual Orientation
710
640
610
Age Discrimination
5,200
6,800
3,700
Others
8,100
5,500
5,900
Total
392,800
382,400
321,800
2 A claim may be brought under more than one jurisdiction or subsequently amended or clarified in the course of proceedings but will be counted only once.
3 Includes details of claims /jurisdictional complaints that were not entered onto the IT system (see Explanatory Notes).
4 This now includes the jurisdiction for unfair dismissal as a result of a transfer of an undertaking, which was previously shown separately.
5 Since 2007/8 the figure includes around 10,000 claims from airline employees that have been resubmitted a number of times.
6 This now includes 3 jurisdictions relating to pregnancy that were previously recorded under "Other".
| | | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|-----------|------------|-----------|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Total Claims Disposed | | | | |
| 112,400 | 122,800 | 110,800 | | |
| | | | | |
| JURISDICTIONAL MIX OF TOTAL CLAIMS DISPOSED April 2011 to March 2012 | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| NATURE OF CLAIM | | | | |
| JURISDICTIONS | | | | |
| DISPOSED | | | | |
| WITHDRAWN | ACAS CONCILIATED | | | |
| SETTLEMENTS | | | | |
| STRUCK OUT(NOT AT A | | | | |
| HEARING) | | | | |
| 8 | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | No. | No. | % | No. |
| Unfair dismissal | 46,100 | 11,300 | 24 | 19,500 |
| Wages Act | 36,200 | 9,500 | 26 | 9,900 |
| Breach of contract | 32,200 | 6,600 | 20 | 10,100 |
| Redundancy pay | 13,200 | 2,700 | 21 | 2,300 |
| Sex discrimination | 14,700 | 4,900 | 33 | 4,500 |
| Race discrimination | 4,700 | 1,400 | 30 | 1,700 |
| Disability discrimination | 7,300 | 2,300 | 31 | 3,300 |
| Religious belief discrimination | 850 | 260 | 31 | 290 |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | 590 | 170 | 29 | 250 |
| Age discrimination | 3,800 | 1,600 | 43 | 1,200 |
| Working time | 23,600 | 5,400 | 23 | 7,500 |
| Equal pay | 23,800 | 10,300 | 44 | 8,800 |
| National minimum wage | 520 | 140 | 28 | 170 |
| Others | 22,300 | 5,400 | 24 | 6,500 |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| All | 230,000 | 62,000 | 27 | 76,200 |
| | | | | |
| DEFAULT JUDGEMENT | | | | |
| NATURE OF CLAIM | | | | |
| UNSUCCESSFUL AT | | | | |
| HEARING | | | | |
| 10 | | | | |
| | | | | |
| SUCCESSFUL AT | | | | |
| HEARING | | | | |
| | | | | |
| DISMISSED AT A | | | | |
| PRELIMINARY | | | | |
| HEARING | | | | |
| 9 | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | % | No. | % | No. |
| Unfair dismissal | 3,900 | 8 | 1,300 | 3 |
| Wages Act | 5,100 | 14 | 960 | 3 |
| Breach of contract | 5,000 | 16 | 730 | 2 |
| Redundancy pay | 2,900 | 22 | 300 | 2 |
| Sex discrimination | 290 | 2 | 190 | 1 |
| Race discrimination | 140 | 3 | 240 | 5 |
| Disability discrimination | 220 | 3 | 250 | 3 |
| Religious belief discrimination | 24 | 3 | 45 | 5 |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | 20 | 3 | 29 | 5 |
| Age discrimination | 48 | 1 | 100 | 3 |
| Working time | 4,100 | 17 | 470 | 2 |
| Equal pay | 32 | 0 | 41 | 0 |
| National minimum wage | 77 | 13 | 12 | 2 |
| Others | 5,000 | 23 | 520 | 2 |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| All | 26,900 | 12 | 5,200 | 2 |
| | | | | |
7 Percentages may not add to 100, due to rounding.
8 Previously described as "Disposed of Otherwise".
9 Previously described as "Dismissed at Hearing (Out of Scope)".
10 Previously described as "Dismissed at Hearing (Other Reasons)".
Percentage of all unfair
dismissal cases disposed
of 12
Number
Percentage of
unfair dismissal
cases proceeding
to a hearing
Cases dismissed
At a Preliminary Hearing
1,300
12
3
Unsuccessful at hearing
4,800
43
10
All cases dismissed
6,200
55
13
Cases upheld
5
0
0
Reinstatement or
reengagement Remedy left to parties
120
1
0
Compensation
2,300
21
5
No award made
2,600
23
6
All cases upheld
5,100
45
11
All cases proceeding to a hearing
11,200
100
27
| | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 |
|-----------------|-----------|--------------------|-----------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| Represented by: | | | |
| | | | |
| Trade Union | | | |
| 12,500 | | | |
| 10,000 | 5,500 | | |
| Lawyers | | | |
| 14 | | | |
| | | | |
| 161,900 | | | |
| 142,700 | 72,600 | | |
| 44,900 | | | |
| 40,400 | 34,900 | No rep information | |
| provided | | | |
| 15 | | | |
| | | | |
| Other | | | |
| 16,700 | | | |
| 25,000 | 46,100 | | |
| Total Claims | | | |
| 236,100 | | | |
| 218,100 | 159,000 | | |
| 16 | | | |
| | | | |
| | No. | % | | No. | % |
|---------------|--------|----------|-----------------|--------|------|
| <£500 | 227 | 10% | £10,000-£12,499 | 130 | 6% |
| £500-£999 | 178 | 8% | £12,500-£14,999 | 100 | 4% |
| | | | £15,000-£19,999 | 125 | 5% |
| £1,000-£1,999 | 292 | 13% | | | |
| £2,000-£2,999 | 199 | 9% | £20,000-£29,999 | 140 | 6% |
| £3,000-£3,999 | 177 | 8% | £30,000-£39,999 | 65 | 3% |
| £4,000-£4,999 | 132 | 6% | £40,000-£49,999 | 34 | 1% |
| | | | £50,000+ | 49 | 2% |
| £5,000-£5,999 | 103 | 4% | All | 2,309 | 100% |
| £6,000-£6,999 | 108 | 5% | | | |
| £7,000-£7,999 | 93 | 4% | | | |
| Maximum | | | | | |
| award | | | | | |
| 18 | | | | | |
| | | £173,408 | | | |
| £8,000-£8,999 | 75 | 3% | | | |
| Median award | | £4,560 | | | |
| £9,000-£9,999 | 82 | 4% | | | |
| Average award | | £9,133 | | | |
| | No. | % | | No. | % |
|---------------|--------|------------|-----------------|-------|------|
| <£500 | 1 | 2% | £10,000-£12,499 | 5 | 9% |
| £500-£999 | 2 | 3% | £12,500-£14,999 | 5 | 9% |
| | | | £15,000-£19,999 | 1 | 2% |
| £1,000-£1,999 | 6 | 10% | | | |
| £2,000-£2,999 | 8 | 14% | £20,000-£29,999 | 0 | 0% |
| £3,000-£3,999 | 5 | 9% | £30,000-£39,999 | 1 | 2% |
| £4,000-£4,999 | 5 | 9% | £40,000-£49,999 | 0 | 0% |
| | | | £50,000+ | 5 | 9% |
| £5,000-£5,999 | 3 | 5% | | | |
| All | 58 | 100% | | | |
| £6,000-£6,999 | 6 | 10% | | | |
| £7,000-£7,999 | 2 | 3% | | | |
| Maximum | | | | | |
| award | | £4,445,023 | | | |
| £8,000-£8,999 | 3 | 5% | | | |
| Median award | | £5,256 | | | |
| £9,000-£9,999 | 0 | 0% | | | |
| Average award | | £102,259 | | | |
No.
%
No.
%
<£500
0
0%
£10,000-£12,499
18
11%
£500-£999
6
4%
£12,500-£14,999
9
5%
£15,000-£19,999
11
7%
£1,000-£1,999
15
9%
£2,000-£2,999
11
7%
£20,000-£29,999
15
9%
£3,000-£3,999
12
7%
£30,000-£39,999
0
0%
£4,000-£4,999
6
4%
£40,000-£49,999
0
0%
£50,000+
4
2%
£5,000-£5,999
15
9%
All
166
100%
£6,000-£6,999
21
13%
£7,000-£7,999
11
7%
Maximum award
£89,700
£8,000-£8,999
7
4%
Median award
£6,746
£9,000-£9,999
5
3%
Average award
£9,940
No.
%
No.
%
<£500
1
1% £10,000-£12,499
5
6%
£500-£999
2
3% £12,500-£14,999
5
6%
£15,000-£19,999
10
13%
£1,000-£1,999
5
6%
£2,000-£2,999
5
6% £20,000-£29,999
0
0%
£3,000-£3,999
7
9% £30,000-£39,999
5
6%
£4,000-£4,999
4
5% £40,000-£49,999
2
3%
£50,000+
8
10%
£5,000-£5,999
4
5% All
78
100%
£6,000-£6,999
2
3%
£7000-£7999
5
6%
Maximum award
£390,871
£8000-£8999
4
5% Median award
£8,928
£9000-£9999
4
5% Average award
£22,183
## Jurisdictions19
No.
%
No.
%
<£500
0
0%
£10,000-£12,499
0
0%
£500-£999
1
10%
£12,500-£14,999
0
0%
£15,000-£19,999
0
0%
£1,000-£1,999
2
20%
£2,000-£2,999
1
10%
£20,000-£29,999
0
0%
£3,000-£3,999
1
10%
£30,000-£39,999
1
10%
£4,000-£4,999
0
0%
£40,000-£49,999
0
0%
£50,000+
2
20%
£5,000-£5,999
2
20%
All
10
100%
£6,000-£6,999
0
0%
£7,000-£7,999
0
0%
Maximum award
£59,522
£8,000-£8,999
0
0%
Median award
£4,267
£9,000-£9,999
0
0%
Average award
£16,725
## Discrimination Jurisdictions19
No.
%
No.
%
<£500
0
0%
£10,000-£12,499
2
20%
£500-£999
0
0%
£12,500-£14,999
1
10%
£15,000-£19,999
0
0%
£1,000-£1,999
0
0%
£2,000-£2,999
0
0%
£20,000-£29,999
4
40%
£3,000-£3,999
0
0%
£30,000-£39,999
0
0%
£4,000-£4,999
0
0%
£40,000-£49,999
0
0%
£50,000+
0
0%
£5,000-£5,999
1
10%
All
10
100%
£6,000-£6,999
1
10%
£7,000-£7,999
0
0%
Maximum award
£27,473
£8,000-£8,999
1
10%
Median award
£13,505
£9,000-£9,999
0
0%
Average award
£14,623
No.
%
No.
%
<£500
1
4%
£10,000-£12,499
1
4%
£500-£999
1
4%
£12,500-£14,999
1
4%
£15,000-£19,999
1
4%
£1,000-£1,999
2
9%
£2,000-£2,999
0
0%
£20,000-£29,999
1
4%
£3,000-£3,999
3
13%
£30,000-£39,999
1
4%
£4,000-£4,999
1
4%
£40,000-£49,999
1
4%
£50,000+
3
13%
£5,000-£5,999
1
4%
All
23
100%
£6,000-£6,999
3
13%
£7,000-£7,999
1
4%
Maximum award
£144,100
£8,000-£8,999
1
4%
Median award
£6,065
£9,000-£9,999
0
0%
Average award
£19,327
| COSTS TO | No. OF CASES | COSTS TO | NO. OF CASES |
|----------------|-----------------|-------------|-----------------|
| | Awarded | | |
| to | | | |
| Claimant | | | |
| Awarded | | | |
| to | | | |
| Respondent | | | |
| | Awarded | | |
| to | | | |
| Claimant | | | |
| Awarded | | | |
| to | | | |
| Respondent | | | |
| | | | |
| < £200 | | | |
| 21 | | | |
| | | | |
| 9 | 829 | | |
| £6,001-£8,000 | | | |
| 6 | 23 | | |
| £201-£400 | | | |
| 6 | 40 | | |
| £8,001-£10,000 | | | |
| 3 | 3 | | |
| £401-£600 | | | |
| 8 | 77 | | |
| £10,000+ | | | |
| 10 | 38 | | |
| £601-£800 | | | |
| 8 | 21 | | |
| All | | | |
| 116 | | | |
| | | | |
| 1,295 | | | |
| £801-£1000 | | | |
| 10 | 39 | | |
| | | | |
| £1,001-£2,000 | | | |
| £36,466 | | | |
| 24 | 72 | | |
| Maximum | | | |
| award | | | |
| 22 | | | |
| | | | |
| £2,001-£4,000 | | | |
| 22 | 98 | | |
| Median award | | | |
| 23 | | | |
| | £5 | | |
| £4,001-£6,000 | | | |
| £1,292 | | | |
| 10 | 54 | | |
| Average | | | |
| award | | | |
| 24 | | | |
| | | | |
Appeals Received
2,172
Appeals Disposed
Rejected - out of time
283
Rejected - no reasonable prospect of success
1,040
Withdrawn prior to registration
179
Withdrawn after registration25
128
Struck out
26
Dismissed at preliminary hearing26
55
Disposed at full hearing27
506
Total disposed
2,217
Brought by employers
Brought by employees
All
Dismissed at hearing
8
47
55
Allowed to full hearing
29
71
100
All
37
118
155
Table 15: Appeals disposed of by EAT at a full hearing
Brought by employers
Brought by employees
All
Dismissed at hearing
85
154
239
Allowed
59
49
108
Allowed & remitted
58
101
159
All
202
304
506
## Table 16: Appeals Withdrawn
| | Brought by employers | Brought by employees | All |
|--------------------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Withdrawn before Preliminary hearing | 11 | 11 | 22 |
| Withdrawn before Full hearing | 54 | 52 | 106 |
| All | 65 | 63 | 128 |
| | | | |
## Explanatory Notes Cases Not On Employment Tribunals It System
Multiple Airline cases are resubmitted every three months and are included in the counts of receipts and caseload outstanding. These cases include the jurisdictions Working Time Directive (Annual Leave) and Unauthorised Deductions (Formerly Wages Act). During 2011-12, 27,300 claims (12,900 for Quarter 3 and 14,400 for Quarter 4) for this jurisdiction were not input to the Employment Tribunals IT system at the time of receipt. They have however been recorded within the overall number of receipts, received jurisdictional complaints and caseload outstanding figures for 2011-12.
## Data Quality And Sources
Information presented in this report is management information drawn from a number of administrative sources. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale recording system and it is the best data that is available at the time of publication. HMCTS is examining the quality of management information. Thus, it is possible that some revisions may be issued.
## Revisions
Some statistics were correct at the time of publication but have been revised following data quality checks or reconciliation. These values have been marked as 'r'.
## Definitions
Receipt - Volumetric term covering the acceptance of a case by a HMCTS Tribunal.
Disposal - A disposal is the closure of a case when work has ceased to be done.
This can be through a claim being withdrawn, settled, dismissed or being decided at a hearing.
Workload outstanding - The number of claims outstanding at the end of the period and still waiting to be dealt with to completion.
Employment Appeal Tribunal - The main function of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) is to hear appeals from decisions made by employment tribunals. An appeal must be on a point of law, i.e. it must identify flaws in the legal reasoning of the original decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal will not normally re-examine issues of fact. It also hears appeals from (and applications relating to) decisions made by the Certification Officer or by the Central Arbitration Committee, however these are infrequent. The EAT may allow an appeal and substitute its own decision for that of the Employment Tribunal, or may remit it back to an employment tribunal for reconsideration. Appeals from EAT decisions may be made to the Court of Appeal (in England & Wales) or Court of Session (in Scotland).
ET Claim - A claim presented to an employment tribunal by a claimant. It may be brought under one or more jurisdictions or subsequently amended or clarified in the course of proceedings, but will be counted only once.
ET Single and Multiple Claims - Claims to an employment tribunal may be classified into two broad categories - singles and multiples. Multiples are where two or more people bring claims, involving one or more jurisdiction(s) usually against a single employer but not necessarily so, for instance in TUPE cases, and always arising out of the same or very similar circumstances. As a multiple, the component claims are processed administratively, and managed and heard judicially together.
ET Multiple Claim Cases - the number of combined groupings or actions
formed by component multiple claims. This will essentially equate to the
number of grouped collective actions being litigated before the employment
tribunals.
ET Jurisdiction - The employment tribunal powers to hear complaints are
determined by legislation, with statutory provisions defining the ambit of the
jurisdiction that can be covered by a claim to an employment tribunal.
ET Jurisdictional mix - A claim may contain a number of grounds, known as
jurisdictional complaints. When deciding any claim, the tribunal has to make
determinations under each jurisdiction, e.g. unfair dismissal and sex discrimination.
The number of jurisdictional complaints within a claim can affect the true workload
represented by that claim: the higher the ratio of complaints to a claim, the more
complicated the work will generally be. The jurisdictions covered by ET are wide
ranging, from discrimination and unfair dismissals to issues around salary and
working conditions.
Hearing - The hearing is a meeting at which the tribunal panel considers evidence
(either orally or paper based) and reaches a decision (where the decision may be to
adjourn or to agree a final outcome). If the hearing is adjourned and restarted, it counts as one hearing. Examples of hearings include:
Paper hearings;
Oral hearings;
Case Management Discussions;
Decision on Eligibility.
Oral Hearing - A hearing where the party (ies) and/or their representative(s) attend
(this can be by telephone or by video conference).
Withdrawal - The applicant/claimant/appellant ceases action either before or at the hearing.
Settlement - Cases settled by Acas without the need for a hearing. A third party may have been involved in the process.
## Table Conventions Rounding
Figures in the tables are rounded independently and thus may not add to totals because of rounding. The following conventions have been used throughout:
Values less than 100 remain as unit values.
Values from 100 to 999 are rounded to the nearest 10.
Values of 1,000 and over are rounded to the nearest hundred.
## Notation
The following symbols have been used throughout the tables in this bulletin:
.
= Not applicable
..
= Not available
-
= Small Value 0
= Nil
(r)
= Revised data
(p)
= Provisional data
## Contact Points For Further Information
Spreadsheet files of the tables and graphs contained in this document are also available for download from this address.
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Email: press.office@justice.gsi.gov.uk
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to:
Ministry of Justice
Judicial Statistics Analytical Services
7th Floor
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ
Email: statistics.enquiries@justice.gsi.gov.uk.
General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be emailed to: statistics.enquiries@justice.gsi.gov.uk General information about the official statistics system of the UK is available from www.statistics.gov.uk
| en |
2613-pdf |
## Forestry.Gov.Uk/Statistics
Based on data in Wild Bird Populations in the UK statistical release (Defra, October 2014).
A summary of statistics about woodland and forestry in the UK
## Forestry Facts & Figures 2015
| Forest cover: international comparisons 2015 | Forest area changes: international comparisons (annual change) |
|------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region | |
| 2000–2010 | 2010–2015 |
| Country | |
| Forest area | |
| (million ha) | |
| Total land | |
| area | |
| (million ha) | |
| Forest as | |
| % of land area | |
| (000 ha) | (%) |
| United Kingdom | 3 |
| UK | 11 |
| Finland | 22 |
| EU-28 | 450 |
| France | 17 |
| Total Europe | 1 127 |
| Africa | -3 209 |
| Germany | 11 |
| Asia | 2 349 |
| Italy | 9 |
| Spain | 18 |
| North & Central | |
| America | |
| 172 | 0.0 |
| Sweden | 28 |
| Oceania | -564 |
| Other EU | 52 |
| South America | -3 868 |
| Total EU-28 | 161 |
| World | -3 993 |
| Russian Federation | 815 |
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. These figures are not National Statistics. Cyprus is included in EU-28 total but is part of FAO's Asia region.
| Total Europe | 1 015 | 2 214 | 46 |
|-----------------|---------|---------|------|
| Africa | 624 | 2 987 | 21 |
| Asia | 593 | 3 118 | 19 |
| North & Central | | | |
| America | | | |
| 751 | 2 134 | 35 | |
| Oceania | 174 | 850 | 20 |
| South America | 842 | 1 747 | 48 |
| World | 3 999 | 13 049 | 31 |
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. These figures are not National Statistics. Cyprus is included in EU-28 total but is part of FAO's Asia region.
Softwood deliveries (thousands of green tonnes)
Year
Sawmills
Pulpmills
Woodbased
panels
Fencing
Woodfuel
Other
Roundwood
exports
Total
Year
Sawmills
Pulpmills
Woodbased
panels
Woodfuel
Other
Total
2010
5 616
428
1 375
349
900
135
467
9 269
2010
75
0
1
400
59
535
2011
5 859
453
1 417
363
900
145
585
9 722
2011
81
0
1
400
59
541
2012
6 073
461
1 269
338
1 000
154
535
9 831
2012
75
0
2
400
55
532
2013
6 407
465
1 263
332
1 250
191
640
10 547
2013
74
0
0
400
55
529
2014
6 725
465
1 283
317
1 500
188
437
10 915
2014
77
0
0
400
55
532
Figures are based on processing industries' purchases of softwood grown in the UK and estimates for woodfuel. Woodfuel reported here is derived from stemwood and includes estimated roundwood use for biomass energy. Other includes shavings and poles.
Figures are based on processing industries' purchases of hardwood grown in the UK and
estimates for woodfuel and other uses. Woodfuel reported here is derived from stemwood
and includes estimated roundwood use for biomass energy. Other includes round fencing
and roundwood exports.
| Area of woodland 2015 (thousands of hectares) | Area of certified woodland 2015 (thousands of hectares) |
|-------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
| Total woodland | |
| FC/NRW/FS | |
| Private | |
| sector | |
| Total woodland | |
| area certified | |
| England | 215 |
| 356 | |
| FC/NRW/FS | |
| Wales | 117 |
| 141 | |
| England | 151 |
| 215 | |
| Scotland | 478 |
| 813 | |
| Wales | 98 |
| 117 | |
| Northern Ireland | 62 |
| 65 | |
| Scotland | 438 |
| 478 | |
| UK | 871 |
| 1 | |
| | |
| 376 | |
| Northern Ireland | 56 |
| 62 | |
| UK | 743 |
All certified woodland in 2015 is under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme. Some woodland is also certified under the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) Scheme.
Private sector
England
188
901
1 090
Private sector
FC/NRW/FS
Wales
53
136
189
600
Scotland
619
335
954
Northern Ireland
11
39
50
500
UK
871
1 412
2 283
400
All woodland
300
England
339
965
1 304
Wales
150
156
306
200
thousands of hectares
Scotland
1 057
375
1 432
100
Northern Ireland
67
45
112
## © Crown Copyright
If you need this publication in an alternative format, for example in large print or another language, please telephone us on 0300 067 5197
or send an email to: diversity@forestry.gsi.gov.uk Statistician: Sheila Ward. Enquiries relating to this publication should be addressed to: statistics@forestry.gsi.gov.uk FCFS215/FC-GB(JW)/MLG-4K/SEP15
-
One green tonne is equivalent to approximately 0.98 m3 underbark softwood or 0.88 m3 underbark hardwood, and to approximately 1.22 m3
overbark standing softwood or 1.11 m3 overbark standing hardwood.
-
Figures in the tables are individually rounded, so the constituent items may not sum to the total given.
= Conifers
= Broadleaves
-
FC/NRW/FS = Forestry Commission/Natural Resources Wales/
Forest Service. Private sector = all other woodland, including some other publicly-owned woodland.
Notes on Forestry Facts & Figures:
This booklet includes data provided by Natural Resources Wales
(www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk) and by the Northern Ireland Forest Service (www.dardni.gov.uk/forestservice)
The UK Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. For more information visit: www.statistics.gov.uk Forestry Facts & Figures is an annual summary of Forestry Statistics compiled by the Forestry Commission. The full 2015 publication, including full details of the sources used and downloadable spreadsheets of data, can be found online at: www.forestry.gov.uk/statistics
Wood removals: international comparisons 2013
Wood products: international comparisons 2013
| UK | 9 | 2 | 11 |
|------|-----|-----|------|
| EU-27 | 330 | 97 | 427 |
|---------|-------|------|-------|
| Total Europe | 550 | 145 | 694 |
|----------------|-------|-------|-------|
| | | | Africa | 69 | 630 | 700 |
|-----------------|-------|-------|----------|------|-------|-------|
| UK | 4 | 9 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 9 |
| Asia | 382 | 743 | 1 | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| 126 | | | | | | |
| EU-27 | 99 | 83 | 57 | 53 | 92 | 81 |
| Total Europe | 142 | 103 | 75 | 71 | 105 | 92 |
| North & Central | | | | | | |
| America | | | | | | |
| 450 | 128 | 578 | | | | |
| Africa | 9 | 18 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Oceania | 60 | 11 | 70 | | | |
| Asia | 114 | 158 | 213 | 209 | 180 | 188 |
| South America | 226 | 178 | 403 | | | |
| World | 1 736 | 1 835 | 3 571 | | | |
| North & Central | | | | | | |
| America | | | | | | |
| 116 | 106 | 47 | 52 | 91 | 87 | |
Source: FAO These figures are not National Statistics. Cyprus is included in EU-27 total but is part of FAO's Asia region.
| Oceania | 9 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---------------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|
| South America | 31 | 27 | 17 | 15 | 15 | 17 |
| World | 421 | 418 | 358 | 356 | 398 | 395 |
|---------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
Source: FAO. These figures are not National Statistics. Cyprus is included in EU-27 total but is part of FAO's Asia region.
| Import and export volumes | Employment in forestry and primary wood processing (thousands) |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Imports | Exports |
| Year | Forestry |
| Saw- | |
| milling | |
| Panels | |
| Pulp & | |
| paper | |
| Total | |
| Year | |
| 2009 | 14 |
| 40 | |
| Sawn- | |
| wood | |
| Other | |
| wood | |
| Wood- | |
| based | |
| panels | |
| Pulp & | |
| paper | |
| Wood | |
| (sawn | |
| & other) | |
| Wood- | |
| based | |
| panels | |
| Pulp & | |
| paper | |
| 2010 | 14 |
| 41 | |
| (000 m | |
| 3 | |
| ) | (000 t) |
| 3 | |
| ) | (000 t) |
| 2011 | 14 |
| 39 | |
| 2010 | 5 699 |
| 2012 | 15 |
| 41 | |
| 2011 | 4 936 |
| 2013 | 14 |
| 40 | |
| 2012 | 5 179 |
Excludes secondary wood processing and other wood-using industries. Source: Annual Business Survey (Office for National Statistics).
| 2013 | 5 488 | 6 283 | 2 964 | 7 213 | 1 543 | 432 | 5 390 |
|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|-------|---------|
| 2014 | 6 425 | 8 391 | 3 260 | 7 319 | 1 304 | 404 | 5 472 |
| Import and export values (£ million) | Gross value added in forestry and primary wood processing (£ million) | | | | | | |
| Imports | Exports | | | | | | |
| Year | Forestry | | | | | | |
| Saw- | | | | | | | |
| milling | | | | | | | |
| Panels | | | | | | | |
| Pulp & | | | | | | | |
| paper | | | | | | | |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| Year | | | | | | | |
| 2009 | 382 | 299 | 169 | 658 | | | |
| 1 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 508 | | | | | | | |
| Sawn- | | | | | | | |
| wood | | | | | | | |
| Other | | | | | | | |
| wood | | | | | | | |
| Wood- | | | | | | | |
| based | | | | | | | |
| panels | | | | | | | |
| Pulp & | | | | | | | |
| paper | | | | | | | |
| Wood | | | | | | | |
| (sawn | | | | | | | |
| & other) | | | | | | | |
| Wood- | | | | | | | |
| based | | | | | | | |
| panels | | | | | | | |
| Pulp & | | | | | | | |
| paper | | | | | | | |
| 2010 | 329 | 415 | 327 | 628 | | | |
| 1 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 699 | | | | | | | |
| 2010 | 1 199 | 179 | 781 | 4 607 | 89 | 113 | 1 610 |
| 2011 | 416 | 435 | 197 | 888 | | | |
| 1 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 936 | | | | | | | |
| 2011 | 1 080 | 208 | 838 | 4 696 | 95 | 128 | 1 650 |
| 2012 | 307 | 586 | 226 | 776 | | | |
| 1 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 895 | | | | | | | |
| 2012 | 1 084 | 260 | 791 | 4 266 | 89 | 130 | 1 589 |
| 2013 | 504 | 545 | 280 | 578 | | | |
| 1 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 907 | | | | | | | |
| 2013 | 1 180 | 499 | 882 | 4 165 | 89 | 109 | 1 519 |
| 2014 | 1 420 | 627 | 936 | 4 196 | 85 | 107 | 1 480 |
|--------|---------|-------|-------|---------|------|-------|---------|
'Other wood' includes roundwood, wood charcoal, chips, particles, residues and wood pellets. 'Pulp & paper' includes paperboard and recovered waste paper.
| New planting (thousands of hectares) | Wood production (thousands of green tonnes) |
|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
| Softwood | Hardwood |
| Year | England |
| Year | |
| FC/NRW | |
| /FS | |
| Private | |
| sector | |
| Total | |
| FC/NRW | |
| /FS | |
| Private | |
| sector | |
| Total | |
| (to | |
| 31/3) | |
| | |
| | |
| Total | |
| 2011 | 0.0 |
| 9.1 | |
| 2010 | 4 625 |
| 9 258 | |
| 70 | 465 |
| 535 | |
| 2012 | 0.0 |
| 12.8 | |
| 2011 | 4 870 |
| 10 056 | |
| 75 | 465 |
| 541 | |
| 2013 | 0.0 |
| 10.8 | |
| 2012 | 4 836 |
| 10 095 | |
| 55 | 478 |
| 532 | |
| 2014 | 0.0 |
| 12.9 | |
| 2013 | 5 084 |
| 10 936 | |
| 78 | 451 |
| 529 | |
| 2015 | 0.1 |
| 10.3 | |
| 2014 | 4 900 |
| 11 431 | |
| 71 | 461 |
| 532 | |
| Restocking (thousands of hectares) | Production of wood products |
| Year | England |
| Year | |
| Sawnwood | |
| Woodbased | |
| panels | |
| Paper & | |
| paperboard | |
| (000 m | |
| 3 | |
| ) | (000 m |
| 3 | |
| ) | (000 tonnes) |
| (to | |
| 31/3) | |
| | |
| | |
| Total | |
| 2010 | 3 101 |
| 2011 | 2.3 |
| 14.0 | |
| 2011 | 3 279 |
| 2012 | 2.0 |
| 12.3 | |
| 2012 | 3 409 |
| 2013 | 2.2 |
| 13.1 | |
| 2014 | 2.6 |
| 15.8 | |
4.4
1.3
0.6
6.6
1.9
0.8
0.0
## Distribution Of Woodland In The Uk Woodland Cover In The Uk Is Now Around 3 Million Hectares, Equivalent To 13% Of The Total Land Area.
The public forest estate makes up almost 30% of total forest area. This map shows the distribution of woodland over 2 hectares in the UK.
The information on woodland area presented here uses data from the GB National Forest Inventory, adjusted for new planting, and data supplied by Forest Service in Northern Ireland.
Find out more about the National Forest Inventory at: www.forestry.gov.uk/inventory
## Uk Imports And Exports
wrme = wood raw material equivalent | en |
3537-pdf | Adroddiad ar Gynllun Lwfansau Tirlenwi (CLT) Cymru 2016/17
Canlyniadau terfynol Hydref 2017
Cyhoeddwyd gan: Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru Tŷ Cambria 29 Heol Casnewydd Caerdydd CF24 0TP 0300 065 3000 (Llun - Gwener, 8am - 6pm) ymholiadau@cyfoethnaturiolcymru.gov.uk www.cyfoethnaturiol.cymru Ystadegau swyddogol Ystyrir bod y wybodaeth a geir yn yr adroddiad hwn yn Ystadegau Swyddogol, ac fe'i cynhyrchwyd a'i chyhoeddi yn unol â threfniadau a gymeradwywyd gan Awdurdod Ystadegau'r DU. Am ragor o wybodaeth am Ystadegau Swyddogol ac Awdurdod Ystadegau'r DU, ewch i www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk
Am faterion ystadegol sydd a wnelo â'r cyhoeddiad hwn, cysylltwch ag John Fry: john.fry@cyfoethnaturiolcymru.gov.uk
© Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru Cedwir pob hawl. Cewch atgynhyrchu'r ddogfen hon trwy ganiatâd o flaen llaw gan Gyfoeth Naturiol Cymru.
Crynodeb Gweithredol Mae'r adroddiad hwn yn cwmpasu Ddeuddeg flwyddyn lawn Cynllun Lwfansau Tirlenwi (CLT) Cymru, o 1 Ebrill 2016 i 31 Mawrth 2017.1 Mae'r canlyniadau a gyflwynir yn yr adroddiad hwn yn derfynol. Pwrpas y cynllun yw sicrhau nad yw gwastraff trefol pydradwy yn cael ei anfon i safleoedd tirlenwi. Mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn gosod cyfyngiadau ar faint o wastraff trefol pydradwy gaiff awdurdodau lleol yng Nghymru ei dirlenwi.
Penawdau cydymffurfiaeth Roedd awdurdodau lleol Cymru wedi tirlenwi 90,8272 o dunelli o wastraff trefol pydradwy yn 2016/17, o gymharu â lwfans o 390,000 o dunelli ar gyfer Cymru gyfan. Roedd hyn 77% yn llai (299,173 o dunelli) na'r lwfans. Llwyddodd y 22 awdurdod lleol i gynhyrchu o fewn y lwfans unigol a bennwyd iddynt. Mae Cymru wedi lleihau faint o wastraff trefol pydradwy a dirlenwyd gan 89% (760,662 o dunelli3) ers blwyddyn lawn gyntaf y cynllun yn 2005/06. Mae lleihau faint o wastraff trefol pydradwy sy'n cael ei anfon i safleoedd tirlenwi yn helpu i leihau allyriadau nwyon tŷ gwydr, gan atal nwy methan rhag cael ei gynhyrchu a'i ryddhau i'r aer o safleoedd tirlenwi. Mae hyn yn bwysig am fod methan ddau ddeg pum gwaith yn gryfach na charbon deuocsid fel nwy tŷ gwydr. O edrych ar berfformiadau unigol awdurdodau lleol ar gyfer 2016/17, defnyddiodd Blaenau Gwent, Caerdydd, Sir Ddinbych, Sir Fflint, Merthyr Tudful, Sir Fynwy, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Thorfaen, Bro Morgannwg a Wrecsam lai na 10% o'u lwfansau, tra bod Gwynedd a Abertawe wedi defnyddio dros 70% o'u lwfansau. At ei gilydd, mae awdurdodau lleol wedi parhau i wneud cynnydd da wrth ddargyfeirio gwastraff trefol pydradwy rhag cael ei dirlenwi. Fodd bynnag, bydd cyflawni'r targedau sydd i ddod, hyd at 2020, yn arbennig o anodd i'r awdurdodau lleol hynny a oedd yn agos at fynd y tu hwnt i'w lwfansau unigol ar gyfer 2016/17.
Cynnwys
1 Cefndir
4
2 Dilysu - Awdurdod Monitro
5 3 Cydymffurfiaeth gan awdurdodau lleol
6 Atodiad 1 - Cydymffurfiad Awdurdod Lleol o gymharu â thargedau
8 Atodiad 2 - Gwaith cyflwyno adroddiadau gan awdurdodau lleol
10 Atodiad 3 - Map sy'n crynhoi lefelau cydymffurfio awdurdodau lleol
13 Gwybodaeth Ansawdd Allweddol
14 Geirfa
15 Ffigurau a Thablau
Ffigur 1. Maint y gwastraff trefol pydradwy a dirlenwyd o gymharu â lwfansau
awdurdodau lleol Cymru 2015/16
9
Ffigur 2. Cyfran yr awdurdodau lleol a adroddodd yn brydlon yn 2015/16 o
gymharu â 2014/15
11
Tabl 1.
Cymharu data WasteDataFlow (WDF) a chofnodion safleoedd tirlenwi sy'n dangos faint o wastraff trefol a dirlenwyd yng Nghymru yn 2015/16 a'r gwahaniaeth rhwng y ddwy gyfres o ddata cyn ac ar ôl y broses ddilysu
6
Tabl 2.
Perfformiad CLT ar gyfer 2016/17
8
Tabl 3.
Canllawiau adrodd statudol y CLT
10
Tabl 4.
Cydymffurfiaeth â therfynau amser ar gyfer adrodd data WasteDataFlow, fesul awdurdod lleol
12
## 1 Cefndir
Sefydlwyd Cynllun Lwfansau Tirlenwi Cymru4 drwy Reoliadau Cynllun Lwfansau Tirlenwi (Cymru) 2004. Pwrpas y cynllun yw sicrhau nad yw gwastraff trefol pydradwy yn cael ei anfon i safleoedd tirlenwi. Mae lleihau faint o wastraff trefol pydradwy sy'n cael ei anfon i safleoedd tirlenwi yn helpu i leihau allyriadau nwyon tŷ gwydr, gan atal nwy methan rhag cael ei gynhyrchu a'i ryddhau i'r aer o safleoedd tirlenwi. Mae methan ddau ddeg pum gwaith yn gryfach na charbon deuocsid fel nwy tŷ gwydr. Mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn gosod cyfyngiadau ar faint o wastraff trefol pydradwy gaiff awdurdodau lleol yng Nghymru ei dirlenwi. Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yw awdurdod monitro'r cynllun, ac mae'n ddyletswydd arno i adrodd ar berfformiad mewn perthynas â lwfansau blynyddol pob awdurdod lleol a'r cyfanswm ar gyfer Cymru gyfan. Mae Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn gyfrifol am gysoni'r lwfansau sydd ar gael i bob awdurdod lleol i gyd-fynd â faint o wastraff trefol pydradwy a dirlenwyd ganddynt. Mae Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn amcangyfrifo faint o wastraff trefol pydradwy a anfonir i'w dirlenwi, a hynny gan ddefnyddio dull o gydbwyso màs.5 Dywed rheoliadau'r Cynllun Lwfansau Tirlenwi y dylai'r gwastraff pydradwy a gesglir fod yn 61% o gyfanswm y gwastraff trefol a gesglir. Ers hynny, mae Llywodraeth Cymru wedi adolygu pydradwyedd gwastraff trefol ac wedi dod i'r casgliad bod y ffigur hwn dal yn briodol. Ymhen pum mis i ddiwedd y flwyddyn gynllun, rhaid i Gyfoeth Naturiol Cymru bennu faint o wastraff trefol pydradwy a dirlenwyd gan bob awdurdod lleol. Mae Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn darparu data blynyddol a gysonwyd i Lywodraeth Cymru ar 1
Medi bob blwyddyn. Ymgynghorir â Chymdeithas Llywodraeth Leol Cymru ac awdurdodau lleol ynghylch y data, a chyhoeddir yr adroddiad terfynol ar wefan Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru, sy'n gweithredu fel cofrestr y lwfansau tirlenwi. Hysbysir Llywodraeth Cymru os yw unrhyw awdurdod lleol yn mynd y tu hwnt i'r lwfans a ganiateir iddo, a bydd yr awdurdod lleol yn agored i gael ei gosbi'n ariannol. Rhaid i Lywodraeth Cymru sefydlu a chynnal cofrestr cosbau sy'n cynnwys manylion gorchmynion o'r fath. Cymru 'Cynllun Lwfansau Tirlenwi: Dyrannu Lwfansau 2009-2020'6.
2 Dilysu - Awdurdod Monitro Mae blwyddyn y Cynllun Lwfansau Tirlenwi yn para o 1 Ebrill hyd 31 Mawrth. Mae Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn defnyddio proses dau gymal, bob chwarter, er mwyn archwilio'r data ar ôl iddo gael ei gyflwyno i WasteDataFlow.7 Archwiliad desg o'r holl ddata a gyflwynwyd gan awdurdodau lleol yw cymal un. Yng nghymal dau, caiff WasteDataFlow ei ddilysu gan ddefnyddio cofnodion safleoedd tirlenwi. Yn 2012, dechreuodd Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru ar broses chwarterol o ddilysu data safleoedd pen y daith ar gyfer targedau adfer statudol yr awdurdodau lleol. Mae hyn yn cynnwys archwiliad desg ar sail y swmp o ddeunydd yr adroddwyd ei fod wedi'i adfer bob blwyddyn gynllun.
2.1 Cymharu WasteDataFlow a chofnodion safleoedd tirlenwi Mae Tabl 1 yn dangos y ffigurau ar gyfer faint o wastraff tirlenwi a ddilyswyd gan Gyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn 2016/17. Mae'r canlyniadau'n dangos canran y gwahaniaethau gwreiddiol a therfynol rhwng y ddwy gyfres o ddata, cyn ac ar ôl dilysu. Yn 2016/17, roedd gwahaniaeth o 0.9% (neu 1,384 o dunelli) rhwng y ffigurau ar ôl eu dilysu. Mae hyn yn llai na'r gwahaniaeth o 1.6% yn 2015/16. Mae cyfanswm y gwahaniaeth terfynol yn gyfforddus o fewn y targed o 10% a osodwyd gan Lywodraeth Cymru. Mae hyn yn welliant mawr o gymharu â'r gwahaniaethau gwreiddiol, cyn dilysu, ym mhob chwarter o'r flwyddyn. O'r 148,477 o dunelli a ddilyswyd gan Gyfoeth Naturiol Cymru, anfonwyd 137,012 o dunelli i safleoedd tirlenwi yng Nghymru a 9,920 o dunelli i safleoedd tirlenwi yn Lloegr. Tirlenwyd y gweddill ar ôl ynni gan driniaethau gwastraff y tu allan i'r DU. Mae gan y gwastraff hwn bydradwyedd o 0%. Ar ôl cynnal 88 archwiliad ar gyfer yr awdurdodau lleol drwy gydol blwyddyn y cynllun, mae 4 yn parhau i ddangos anghysondeb o fwy na 10% neu 100 tunnell. Achoswyd y gwahaniaethau rhwng y ddwy gyfres o ddata am sawl rheswm, yn eu plith:
safle tirlenwi'n cofnodi gan ddefnyddio Rhestr Wastraff (neu Gatalog
Gwastraff Ewrop), tra bod awdurdodau lleol yn adrodd yn WasteDataFlow yn ôl y math o ddeunydd. Mae'r systemau adrodd hyn yn creu trafferthion wrth gymharu a hefyd wrth wahaniaethu gwastraff trefol, yn ôl ei ddiffiniad dan reoliadau'r Cynllun Lwfansau Tirlenwi;
mae'n bosibl bod contractwyr preifat yn cymryd gwastraff trefol nad yw'n
fater i'r awdurdod lleol a gwastraff nad yw'n drefol yn yr un cerbyd a ddefnyddir i gasglu gwastraff trefol yr awdurdod lleol. Felly, mae'n anodd
cyfrifo'n gywir swm y gwastraff trefol a gasglwyd gan awdurdod lleol ac a dderbyniwyd ar y safle tirlenwi;
anawsterau gyda phentyrru a/neu ddosrannu gwastraff trefol o safle tirlenwi
a ddefnyddir gan sawl awdurdod lleol.
| 2016-17 | 2016-17 | 2016-17 |
|-------------------------|--------------------|--------------------|
| Gwybodaeth safleoedd | | |
| WasteDataFlow - | | |
| - gwastraff soled | | |
| gwastraff soled dinesig | | |
| % Gwahaniaeth: | | |
| dinesig | | |
| Chwarter | | |
| a anfonwyd i safleoedd | a anfonwyd i | rhwng y ddwy set o |
| tirlenwi | safleoedd tirlenwi | ddata |
| (tunelli) | (tunelli)* | |
| Gwreiddiol | Terfynol | Gwreiddiol |
| 1 | | |
| 36,948 | 39,844 | 39,751 |
| 2 | | |
| 35,436 | 38,900 | 38,995 |
| 3 | | |
| 24,959 | 33,327 | 33,439 |
| 4 | | |
| 31,579 | 35,239 | 34,061 |
| Cyfanswm | 128,922 | 147,311 |
* Dyma gyfanswm y Gwastraff Trefol Solet (GTS) a adroddwyd ei fod wedi'i dirlenwi yn WasteDataFlow, ac sydd wedi'i wirio mewn perthynas â chofnodion safle. Bydd y ffigur hwn ychydig yn is na'r cyfanswm a anfonwyd i safleoedd tirlenwi am nad yw peth gwastraff tirlenwi yn cael ei ddilysu oherwydd dosrennir gwastraff gwrthodedig a gwastraff a wrthodwyd ar ôl sawl proses drin, lle na ellir nodi'r safle tirlenwi neu gyfran yr awdurdod lleol.
3 Cydymffurfiaeth gan Awdurdodau Lleol Ceir y canlyniadau cyfan ar gyfer blwyddyn fonitro 2016/17 yn Atodiad 1 ar y tudalennau canlynol.
Mae'r canlyniadau blynyddol yn dangos bod yr holl awdurdodau lleol wedi cyflawni eu rhwymedigaethau parthed y lwfansau tirlenwi yn ystod 2016/17. Anfonwyd 90,827 o dunelli o wastraff trefol pydradwy o Gymru i gael eu tirlenwi o gymharu â lwfans o 390,000 o dunnelli ar gyfer Cymru gyfan. Golyga hyn fod awdurdodau lleol Cymru gyda'i gilydd wedi tirlenwi 77% (299,173 o dunelli) o wastraff trefol pydradwy yn llai na'r lwfans ar gyfer 2016/17. Dengys y canlyniadau fod gan 20 o awdurdodau lleol ddigon o ofod wrth gefn ar gyfer bodloni eu rhwymedigaethau yn y dyfodol oherwydd iddynt ddefnyddio llai na 70% o'u lwfansau. Defnyddiodd Blaenau Gwent, Caerdydd, Sir Ddinbych, Sir Fflint, Merthyr Tudful, Sir Fynwy, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Thorfaen, Bro Morgannwg a Wrecsam lai nag 10% o'u lwfans dynodedig. Defnyddiodd Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr, Caerffili, Sir Gaerfyrddin, Ceredigion, Ynys Môn, Castell-nedd Port Talbot, Casnewydd, Sir Benfro a Powys lai na 50% o'u lwfans dynodedig. Defnyddiodd Conwy lai na 70% o'u lwfans dynodedig. Defnyddiodd Gwynedd ac Abertawe fwy na 70% o'u lwfans. Mae Atodiad 3 yn dangos adlewyrchiad daearyddol o berfformiad yn erbyn y Cynllun Lwfansau Tirlenwi yng Nghymru.
Mae'r rhesymau dros newidiadau wrth ddefnyddio lwfansau'n amrywio yn ôl blynyddoedd a fesul awdurdod lleol. Yn gyffredinol, gellir priodoli newidiadau i'r canlynol:
newidiadau i wasanaethau casglu gwastraff; newidiadau i arferion rheoli gwastraff a thechnolegau newydd/amgen; lefelau cyfranogiad y cyhoedd mewn cynlluniau ailgylchu; amgylchiadau na ragwelwyd (e.e. tywydd eithafol)
| Lwfans | Gwastraff |
|--------------------|--------------|
| Cynllun | dinesig |
| Lwfansau | |
| Awdurdod Lleol | |
| Tirlenwi | |
| bioddiradda | |
| dwy a aeth I | |
| (tunnell) | safleoedd |
| 2016/17 | tirlenwi |
| Blaenau Gwent | 8,821 |
| Pen y Bont ar Ogwr | 19,025 |
| Caerffili | 23,119 |
| Caerdydd | 39,660 |
| Carmarthenshire | 20,997 |
| Caerfyrddin | 9,655 |
| Conwy | 17,513 |
| Sir Ddinbych | 11,094 |
| Sir y Fflint | 20,621 |
| Gwynedd | 17,896 |
| Ynys Mon | 9,867 |
| Merthyr Tudful | 7,621 |
| Sir Fynwy | 11,378 |
| Castell-nedd Port | |
| Talbot | 18,910 |
| Casnewydd | 15,925 |
| Sir Benfro | 16,178 |
| Powys | 19,282 |
| Rhondda Cynon Taf | 27,071 |
| Abertawe | 30,391 |
| Torfaen | 11,659 |
| Bro Morganwg | 14,579 |
| Wrecsam | 18,738 |
| CYMRU | 390,000 |
Mae Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn cadw cofrestr o berfformiadau awdurdodau lleol yn erbyn y Cynllun Lwfansau Tirlenwi ers i'r cynllun gychwyn yn 2004. Gellir dod o hyd iddi yn: https://naturalresources.wales/guidance-and-advice/environmental-topics/wastemanagement/landfill-allowance-scheme/?lang=cy
% o'r Lwfans
Cynllun Lwfansau
Tirlenwi a
ddefnyddiw yd yn
2016/17
Atodiad 2 - Gwaith cyflwyno adroddiadau gan awdurdodau lleol
Caiff terfyniadau adrodd ar gyfer awdurdodau lleol a gweithredwyr safleoedd tirlenwi
(gweler Tabl 3) eu hamlinellu yn rheoliadau'r Cynllun Lwfansau Tirlenwi. Rhaid i awdurdodau lleol a gweithredwyr safleoedd tirlenwi gyflwyno cofnodion gwastraff trefol i Gyfoeth Naturiol Cymru8 o fewn mis i ddiwedd y cyfnod yna.
Tabl 3. Canllawiau adrodd statudol y CLT
| Chwart | Cyfnod | Canllawiau adrodd |
|----------|-------------------------------|----------------------|
| er | | |
| 1 | Data o 1 Ebrill i 30 Mehefin | 31 Gorffennaf |
| 2 | Data o 1 Gorffennaf i 30 Medi | 31 Hydref |
| 3 | Data o 1 Hydref i 31 Rhagfyr | 31 Ionawr |
| 4 | Data o 1 Ionawr i 31 Mawrth | 30 Ebrill |
Yn 2008-09, cynhyrchodd Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru ganllawiau'r CLT ar adrodd a hysbysu, sy'n gosod amserlen fanylach ar gyfer awdurdodau lleol a gweithredwyr safleoedd tirlenwi er mwyn bodloni eu rhwymedigaeth dan reoliadau'r Cynllun Lwfansau Tirlenwi i ddarparu data cywir ac amserol.
Awdurdodau Lleol Mae rheoliadau'r CLT yn ei gwneud hi'n ofynnol ar awdurdodau lleol i gyflwyno eu data gwastraff trefol i Gyfoeth Naturiol Cymru i gael eu dilysu, o fewn mis i ddiwedd y chwarter. Mae Ffigur 2 yn dangos graddfa cydymffurfiaeth adroddiadau data awdurdodau lleol yng Nghymru yn ystod 2016/17.
Mae lefel yr adroddiadau prydlon yng Nghymru yn 2016/17 ychydig yn waeth nag yn y flwyddyn flaenorol. Roedd 15 awdurdod lleol yn parhau i adrodd yn brydlon ac yn gyson drwy gydol y flwyddyn (Gostyngiad o un o 2015/16). Y prif resymau dros fod awdurdodau lleol yn adrodd ar ôl y dyddiad terfyn oedd:
materion technegol; materion staffio ac adnoddau mewn awdurdodau lleol; oedi cyn i awdurdodau lleol dderbyn data gan gontractwyr; yr amser ychwanegol a dreuliwyd yn cyrchu data ar gyfer gofynion adrodd eraill.
(Swyddogaethau) 2013, cafodd swyddogaethau datganoledig Asiantaeth yr Amgylchedd eu trosglwyddo i Gyfoeth Naturiol Cymru.
## Gymharu  2015/16
Mae Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn adrodd i Lywodraeth Cymru ar gydymffurfiaeth awdurdodau lleol â'r terfyniadau adrodd. Mae Tabl 4 ar y dudalen nesaf yn rhoi rhagor o wybodaeth ar brydlondeb adrodd awdurdodau lleol yn 2016/17. Gweithredwyr safleoedd tirlenwi
Mae'n ofynnol ar weithredwyr safleoedd tirlenwi i adrodd faint o wastraff trefol a dderbynnir yn eu safleoedd, a hynny o fewn mis i ddiwedd y chwarter. Adroddwyd ar WasteDataFlow bod 46 safle tirlenwi yng Nghymru a Lloegr wedi'u nodi fel rhai sy'n derbyn gwastraff trefol gan awdurdodau lleol sy'n deillio o Gymru yn 2016/17 - 13 yng Nghymru a 33 yn Lloegr. Hefyd, adroddwyd ar wastraff a dirlenwyd dramor ar ôl iddo gael ei losgi yn WasteDataFlow. Mae cyfanswm y safleoedd tirlenwi a adroddwyd wedi gostwng o 48 i 46 yng Nghymru a Lloegr.
| Awdurdod Lleol | Ebr-Meh 2016 |
|--------------------|------------------|
| Gorff- Medi | |
| 2016 | |
| Blaenau Gwent | Ar amser |
| Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr | Ar amser |
| Caerffili | Ar amser |
| Caerdydd | O fewn 7 diwrnod |
| Sir Gaerfyrddin | Ar amser |
| Ceredigion | Ar amser |
| Conwy | Ar amser |
| Sir Ddinbych | O fewn 7 diwrnod |
| Sir y Fflint | Ar amser |
| Gwynedd | O fewn 7 diwrnod |
| Ynys Môn | Ar amser |
| Merthyr Tudful | Ar amser |
| Sir Fynwy | Ar amser |
| Castell-nedd Port | |
| Talbot | Ar amser |
| Casnewydd | Ar amser |
| Sir Benfro | Ar amser |
| Powys | Ar amser |
| Rhondda Cynon Taf | Ar amser |
| Abertawe | Ar amser |
| Torfaen | Ar amser |
| Bro Morgannwg | Ar amser |
| Wrecsam | Ar amser |
## Noder.Gellir Ymestyn Terfynau Amser Yn Sgil Penwythnosau/Gwyliau Banc, Materion Technegol, Neu Os Y Cytunwyd Gydag Awdurdod Am Resymau Esgusodol. Rhoddwyd Estyniad O 1 Wythnos Hefyd I'R Holl Awdurdodau Ar Gyfer Datganiadau Chwarter 3 (Hydref- Rhagfyr) I Ganiatáu Diweddaru Data Cwestiynau'R Gwasanaeth. Allwedd
ar amser
o fewn 7 diwrnod
dros 7 diwrnod
Hyd- Rhagfyr
2016
Ion- Maw 2017
# Atodiad 3 - Map Sy'N Crynhoi Lefelau Cydymffurfio Awdurdodau Lleol
## Gwybodaeth Ansawdd Allweddol
1. Mae gan Gyfoeth Naturiol Cymru chwe wythnos i ddilysu'r data. Ynghlwm wrth
ddilysu, mae'r drefn o wirio bod yr holl gwestiynau perthnasol ynglŷn â
WasteDataFlow wedi cael eu cwblhau gan yr awdurdodau lleol, a bod unrhyw wahaniaeth o ran cyfrifiadau rhwng y mewnbwn a'r allbwn a gofnodwyd yn cael ei nodi. Hysbysir yr awdurdod lleol perthnasol o unrhyw anghysonderau, a chymerir camau i'w cywiro. Ar ôl dilysu, mae Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru hefyd yn gofyn i awdurdodau lleol ddarparu tystiolaeth ynglŷn â'u data gwastraff, sy'n broses barhaus drwy gydol y flwyddyn gynllun.
2. Gall fod rhai anghysonderau o ran mesur cyfanswm y gwastraff gan fod y
gwastraff yn cael ei bwyso wrth iddo gael ei gasglu, ac yna eto pan gaiff ei anfon i'w drin. Yn ogystal, gall fod pwysau'n cael ei golli drwy brosesau trin amrywiol. Mae Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn dilysu cofnodion yr awdurdodau lleol ac yn ei gwneud hi'n ofynnol nad yw'r gwahaniaeth rhwng y swm a gesglir a'r swm a anfonir i gael ei drin yn fwy na 10% mewn unrhyw chwarter, oni bai bod esboniad dilys yn gallu cael ei roi. Mae Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru hefyd wedi rhoi rhagor o bwyslais ar awdurdodau i ddarparu mwy o dystiolaeth mewn perthynas â'u hystadegau gwastraff ers 2012-13.
3. Mae WasteDataFlow yn parhau i wella a datblygu, a gall hyn gael effaith ar y
modd caiff data eu cofnodi. Mae hefyd yn cyflwyno adroddiadau data newydd ar sail anghenion data newydd. Gall rhai newidiadau fod yn gymhleth, gan greu effeithiau wrth adrodd na sylweddolwyd yn wreiddiol. Caiff yr holl newidiadau i'r system eu monitro'n ofalus ar gyfer gwahaniaethau rhwng y data a gofnodir a'r hyn a adroddir. Â bod gwahaniaethau'n digwydd, caiff system WasteDataFlow ei diwygio, a bydd unrhyw ddata a gyhoeddwyd yn flaenorol yn cael eu hadolygu a'u
hamlygu yn unol â hynny.
4. Mae cywirdeb y data a adroddir i WasteDataFlow yn llwyr ddibynnol ar fesuriadau,
rheolaeth data, ac adroddiadau awdurdodau lleol a gweithredwyr gwastraff. Er bod Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn dilysu yn unol â'r rheoliadau, mae dilysu WasteDataFlow a gwirio mewn perthynas â data gwastraff eraill yn gyfyngedig yn sgil cywirdeb yr adroddiadau hyn.
Geirfa Pydradwy Yn gallu cael ei ddadelfennu gan blanhigion ac anifeiliaid. Gwastraff Trefol Pydradwy (GTP)
Y rhan o wastraff trefol solet sy'n gallu cael ei ddadelfennu gan blanhigion ac anifeiliaid. Mae gwastraff trefol pydradwy yn cynnwys papur a charden, gwastraff bwyd a gardd, a chyfran o fathau eraill o wastraff, megis tecstilau. Dargyfeirio (rhag cael ei dirlenwi)
Term sy'n cyfeirio at osgoi anfon gwastraff i safleoedd tirlenwi pan fydd modd ei anfon i gael ei drin yn amgen mewn ffordd sy'n well i'r amgylchedd. Rhoddir amlinelliad o'r hierarchaeth gwastraff yn Erthygl 4 o'r Fframwaith Gwastraff diwygiedig (Cyfarwyddeb 2008/98/EC). Rhydd hyn flaenoriaeth uchel i atal gwastraff yn y lle cyntaf. Pan grëir gwastraff, mae'n rhoi blaenoriaeth i'w baratoi ar gyfer ei ailddefnyddio, yna ailgylchu, yna adfer, ac yn olaf un, gwaredu (e.e. tirlenwi). Nwy tŷ gwydr Term a roddir i nwyon cyfansawdd yn yr atmosffer sy'n adlewyrchu gwres yn ôl i'r ddaear yn hytrach na'i adael i ddianc i'r gofod. Mae sawl nwy ynghlwm wrth y broses, gan gynnwys carbon deuocsid (CO2), methan (CH4), ocsid nitraidd (N2O), osôn (O3), anwedd dŵr (H2O), a rhai o'r clorofflorocarbonau (CFCs). Llosgi Trin gwastraff â gwres mewn dull a reolir, naill ai er mwyn lleihau ei faint neu ei natur wenwynig. Gellir adfer ynni o losgi drwy ddefnyddio gwerth cynhesol y gwastraff i gynhyrchu gwres a/neu bŵer. Cynllun Lwfansau Tirlenwi (CLT)
Pwrpas y Cynllun Lwfansau Tirlenwi yw sicrhau nad yw gwastraff trefol pydradwy yn cael ei anfon i safleoedd tirlenwi. Mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn gosod terfynau statudol ar faint o wastraff trefol pydradwy y gall awdurdodau lleol yng Nghymru ei anfon i safleoedd tirlenwi. Gall Llywodraeth Cymru roi cosb ariannol i awdurdodau lleol Cymru am fynd y tu hwnt i'w lwfansau ac am fethu â chydymffurfio â gofynion adrodd. Yn rhinwedd ei swyddogaeth fel awdurdod monitro'r cynllun, mae Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn dilysu cofnodion gwastraff a gyflwynwyd gan awdurdodau lleol Cymru ac yn pennu faint o wastraff trefol pydradwy gaiff ei anfon gan bob awdurdod lleol i'w dirlenwi.
Safleoedd tirlenwi Unrhyw safle lle caiff gwastraff ei osod. Mae safleoedd tirlenwi wedi'u gosod yn aml mewn hen byllau mwyngloddio neu chwareli. Mewn ardaloedd lle nad oes fawr ohonynt neu lle nad oes gwagle parod, weithiau fe godir y tir a gosodir gwastraff uwchben y ddaear, a chaiff y tirwedd ei ailffurfio.
Rhestr Wastraff (Catalog Gwastraff Ewrop)
Mae'n ddull cyffredin o ddosbarthu nodweddion gwastraff at amrywiaeth eang o ddibenion, megis dosbarthu gwastraff peryglus. Mae pennu codau gwastraff yn cael effaith fawr ar gludo gwastraff, ar drwyddedau gosod (sy'n cael eu rhoi fel arfer at ddiben prosesu codau gwastraff penodol), ar benderfyniadau ynghylch potensial gwastraff i gael ei ailgylchu, neu ar ystadegau gwastraff.
Gwastraff trefol awdurdodau lleol Mae'n cynnwys gwastraff cartrefi a gwastraff nad yw'n ymwneud â chartrefi sy'n cael ei gasglu a'i waredu gan awdurdodau lleol. Mae'n cynnwys casgliadau arferol o gartrefi, casgliadau ailgylchu penodol, casgliadau arbennig ar gyfer eitemau mawr, gwastraff a dderbynnir yn safleoedd amwynder dinesig, a gwastraff a gesglir o ffynonellau nad ydynt yn ymwneud â chartrefi. Targedau adfer awdurdodau lleol Gosodwyd targedau adfer awdurdodau lleol gan Lywodraeth Cymru dan Fesur Gwastraff (Cymru) 2010, a'u bwriad yw hybu rhagor o ailgylchu ac i wireddu manteision ehangach cysylltiedig mewn perthynas â chynaliadwyedd.
Dull o gydbwyso màs Caiff y fformiwla cydbwyso màs ei weithredu'n chwarterol er mwyn cyfrifo faint o gynnwys pydradwy sydd yng ngwastraff trefol pob awdurdod lleol. Mae Llywodraeth Cymru wedi dynodi bod 61% o wastraff trefol awdurdodau lleol Cymru yn bydradwy. Mae'r fformiwla'n defnyddio'r data a adroddwyd i WasteDataFlow i addasu'r ganran hon ar sail
pydradwyedd y gwastraff a ddargyfeiriwyd i gael ei ailgylchu, ei ailddefnyddio, a'i gompostio. Defnyddir y ganran ddiwygiedig i gyfrifo faint o gynnwys pydradwy sydd mewn gwastraff a dirlenwir. WasteDataFlow (WDF)
Ers 2004-05, defnyddir system adrodd ar-lein o'r enw WasteDataFlow er mwyn casglu cofnodion gwastraff awdurdodau lleol o ran symiau a mathau o wastraff, a sut y gwaredir â nhw (www.wastedataflow.org). Yng Nghymru, caiff hon ei rheoli gan Gyfoeth Naturiol Cymru.
| cy |
4318-pdf |
NATION..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1
Base : All respondents
REGION .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2
Base : All respondents
URBANITY .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4
Base : All respondents
CABLE AREA.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5
Base : All respondents
DEPRIVATION LEVEL...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6
Base : All respondents
SE. GENDER .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7
Base : All respondents
SF. AGE OF RESPONDENT.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8
Base : All respondents
QSEG (QZ8). What is the occupation of the main wage earner in your household. CODE SOCIAL GRADE. (SINGLE CODE) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................10
Base : All respondents
QZ6 (SG). WORKING STATUS...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12
Base : All respondents
QZ7 (SH). HOUSEHOLD STATUS..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14
Base : All respondents
SH (SI). Total number in household (including respondent and any children)............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................16
Base : All respondents
SI (SK). Household size...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................17
Base : All respondents
SJ. Total number of children in household (under 18), including respondent (if respondent is under 18) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................18
Base : All respondents
SK (SM). Can you speak or write in Welsh at all?.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................19
Base : All respondents in Wales
QB1. SHOWCARD Which of the following do you, or does anyone in your household, have in your home at the moment? (MULTI CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................................................20
Base : All respondents
QB2. SHOWCARD And do you personally use...? (MULTI CODE)............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................22
Base : Those who have access to any of listed devices at home
QB3 (QB4). SHOWCARD Which games console/s do you or does anyone in your household have at the moment? (MULTI CODE) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................24
Base : Those who have access to a games console at home
QB4 (QB5). SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these do you use your games console for? (MULTI CODE) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................26
Base : Those who have access to a games console at home
QB5 (QB6) Does your household's e-reader (digital book reader) have built-in 3G access to a mobile network? This means that books can be purchased online and downloaded from anywhere with a signal, without the need for a Wi-Fi connection? ........................28
Base : Those who personally use an e-reader/ digital book reader
QC1. Is there a landline phone in your home that can be used to make and receive calls? (SINGLE CODE) PROMPTED....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................29
Base : All respondents
QC2 (QC2A). Do you ever use this landline phone at home yourself to make and/or receive calls, for internet access or both? (MULTI CODE) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................31
Base : Those with a landline phone at home
QC3 (QC28). SHOWCARD Which of these do you consider to be your MAIN method of making and receiving telephone calls? (SINGLE CODE)..............................................................................................................................................................................................32
Base : All respondents
QC4 (QC28A). SHOWCARD And thinking about when you are at home, which is your MAIN method of making and receiving telephone calls? (SINGLE CODE).....................................................................................................................................................................33
Base : All respondents
QC5 (QC21B). SHOWCARD Which of these do you consider is your main supplier? (SINGLE CODE) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................34
Base : Those with a landline phone at home
QC6A (QC13A). SHOWCARD Thinking about your home phone service only, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with the overall service provided by (MAIN SUPPLIER). (SINGLE CODE)...................................................................................................36
Base : Those with a landline phone at home
QD1. How many mobile phones IN TOTAL do you AND members of your household use? (SINGLE CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................38
Base : All respondents
QD2. Do you personally use a mobile phone? How many mobile phones with different telephone numbers do you use at least once a month? Please include any phones used for work or other purposes. (SINGLE CODE)....................................................................41
Base : All respondents
QD3 (QD10). Which mobile network do you use most often? (SINGLE CODE) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................43
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
QD4 (QD24B). Do you personally use a smartphone? IF UNSURE - A smartphone is a phone on which you can easily access emails, download files and applications, as well as view websites and generally surf the internet. Popular brands of smartphone include BlackBerry, iPhone and Android phones such as the HTC Desire. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................45
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
QD5 (QD39). SHOWCARD Which brand or type of smartphone do you have? IF MORE THAN ONE - Which one do you use most often? (SINGLE CODE).............................................................................................................................................................................46
Base : Those with a smartphone
QD6 (QD40). SHOWCARD And which operating system is on your smartphone? This means the software which runs on your phone and determines the phone's appearance, interaction and functions. (SINGLE CODE) .......................................................................48
Base : Those with a smartphone
QD7 (QD11). SHOWCARD Which of these best describes the mobile package you personally use most often? (SINGLE CODE) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................49
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
QD8 (QD11A). When you signed up for your current mobile contract did you get a handset with the contract or did you only get a SIM card? (SINGLE CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................50
Base : Those who use a postpay/ contract mobile phone
QD9A (QD4A). SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you use your mobile phone to send or receive text messages? (SINGLE CODE).................................................................................................................................................................................................................51
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
QD9B (QD4B). SHOWCARD And how often, it at all, do you use your mobile phone to make calls? (SINGLE CODE) ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................53
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
QD9C (QD4C). SHOWCARD How often, it at all, do you use your mobile phone to access email or internet services? (SINGLE CODE).............................................................................................................................................................................................................55
Base : Those with a smartphone
QD9D (QD4D). SHOWCARD How often, it at all, do you use your mobile phone to use apps or applications? (SINGLE CODE)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................57
Base : Those with a smartphone
QD10 (QD28A). SHOWCARD Which if any, of the following activities, other than making and receiving voice calls, do you use your mobile for? (MULTI CODE)......................................................................................................................................................................59
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
QD10 (QD28A). SHOWCARD Which if any, of the following activities, other than making and receiving voice calls, do you use your mobile for? (MULTI CODE)......................................................................................................................................................................65
Base : All respondents
QD11 (QD28B) SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................71
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
QD11 (QD28B) SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................77
Base : All respondents
QD12 (QD28C). SHOWCARD You said that you use your mobile phone to access the internet. Which one of these best describes where you use your mobile phone to access the internet? (SINGLE CODE)...........................................................................................83
Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet
QD13 (QD28E) SHOWCARD Which of these ways do you use your mobile phone to access the internet? (MULTI CODE)..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................85
Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet
QD14 (QD28F) SHOWCARD In which of these places do you use your mobile phone to access the internet outside of the home? (MULTI CODE)............................................................................................................................................................................................86
Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet outside the home
QD15 (QD28G) SHOWCARD Do you use any of the following types of apps or applications on your smartphone? (MULTI CODE) .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................88
Base : Those with a smartphone
QD16 (QD28H) SHOWCARD And which of these types of apps or applications have you PAID FOR to download on your smartphone? (MULTI CODE)...................................................................................................................................................................................91
Base : Those with a smartphone
QD17A (QD21A). SHOWCARD Thinking about your mobile phone service only, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with (MAIN SUPPLIER) for each of the following... The overall service provided by MAIN SUPPLIER. (SINGLE CODE) ......................93
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
QD17J (QD21J). SHOWCARD Thinking about your mobile phone service only, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with (MAIN SUPPLIER) for each of the following... Reception/ accessing network. (SINGLE CODE).......................................................95
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
QD17K (QD21K). SHOWCARD Thinking about your mobile phone service only, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with (MAIN SUPPLIER) for each of the following... Ability to connect to the internet using the mobile network (3G). (SINGLE CODE)..97
Base : Those with a smartphone
QE1. Does your household have a PC, laptop, netbook or tablet computer? (MULTI CODE OPTIONS 1-4 ONLY)................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................99
Base : All respondents
QE2 (QE1A). SHOWCARD How likely is it that your household will get a tablet computer - such as an iPad - in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE)....................................................................................................................................................................................100
Base : Those without a tablet computer in the household
QE3 (QE2). Do you or does anyone in your household have access to the internet/ Worldwide Web at HOME (via any device, e.g. PC, mobile phone etc)? (SINGLE CODE)...............................................................................................................................................102
Base : All respondents
QE4 (IN6). SHOWCARD Do you ever access the internet anywhere other than in your home at all? IF YES: Where is that? (MULTI CODE)....................................................................................................................................................................................................103
Base : All respondents
QE5 (QE23). SHOWCARD And how often do you personally use the internet nowadays either at home or elsewhere? (SINGLE CODE)..........................................................................................................................................................................................................105
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
QE6 (QE9). SHOWCARD Which of these methods does your household use to connect to the internet at home? (MULTI CODE).....................................................................................................................................................................................................................107
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
QE6 (QE9). SHOWCARD Which of these methods does your household use to connect to the internet at home? (MULTI CODE).....................................................................................................................................................................................................................110
Base : All respondents
QE7 (QE22B). You mentioned that your household has a mobile broadband connection (connecting via a USB stick or dongle, or built-in 3G connectivity in a laptop or another device). Do you personally access the internet in this way, using mobile broadband? ..113
Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband
QE7 (QE22B). You mentioned that your household has a mobile broadband connection (connecting via a USB stick or dongle, or built-in 3G connectivity in a laptop or another device). Do you personally access the internet in this way, using mobile broadband? ..114
Base : All respondents
QE8 (QE22C). Which one of these best describes where you use mobile broadband to access the internet? (SINGLE CODE) ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................115
Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet
QE9 (QE32). SHOWCARD In which of these places do you use mobile broadband to access the internet outside of the home? (MULTI CODE) ..............................................................................................................................................................................................117
Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet outside the home
QE10 (QE7). Which Internet Service Provider (ISP) does your household currently use as its MAIN supplier at home? (SINGLE CODE) ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................118
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
QE11 (QE3B). How many people aged 16 or over in your household (including yourself) could access the fixed Broadband connection in your home if they wanted to?........................................................................................................................................................121
Base : Those with fixed broadband at home where there is more than one person in household
QE12 (QE3A). How many people aged 16 or over in your household (including yourself) could access the mobile Broadband connection in your home if they wanted to?.....................................................................................................................................................122
Base : Those with mobile broadband at home where there is more than one person in household
QE13 (QE5A). SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these do you or members of your household use the internet for whilst at home? (MULTI CODE)...............................................................................................................................................................................................123
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
QE13 (QE5A). SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these do you or members of your household use the internet for whilst at home? (MULTI CODE)...............................................................................................................................................................................................130
Base : All respondents
QE14 (QE5B) SHOWCARD And, which, if any, of these activities have you or members of your household used the internet for in the LAST WEEK? (MULTI CODE)............................................................................................................................................................137
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
QE14 (QE5B) SHOWCARD And, which, if any, of these activities have you or members of your household used the internet for in the LAST WEEK? (MULTI CODE)............................................................................................................................................................144
Base : All respondents
QE15 (QENEW11) SHOWCARD What was the advertised speed of your main home internet connection when you took up your service? (SINGLE CODE)...........................................................................................................................................................................151
Base : Those who use broadband to connect to the internet at home
QE16 (QE11A). SHOWCARD What is the actual speed of your main home internet connection? (SINGLE CODE).............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................153
Base : Those who use broadband to connect to the internet at home
QE17 (QE11C). Do you know how to find out what speeds you are getting on your computer at home? (SINGLE CODE)...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................157
Base : Those who use broadband to connect to the internet at home
## Qe18 (Qe12X). Showcard You Said You Use A Mobile Usb Stick Or Dongle To Access The Internet, Thinking About The Speed Of Your Mobile Broadband, Is This Faster, Slower Or About The Same As You Expected It To Be When You First Got It? (Single Code)........158
Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband
## Qe19A (Qe8Aa). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider? (Single Code).........................................159
Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband
## Qe19B (Qe8Ab). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code) ...................161
Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband
QE19C (QE8AC). SHOWCARD Thinking about your mobile broadband internet service, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with your main supplier for... The reliability of the service from MAIN PROVIDER? (SINGLE CODE)......................................163
Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband
QE20 (QE12). SHOWCARD Thinking about the speed of your household's fixed broadband internet, is this faster, slower or about the same as you expected it to be when you first got it? (SINGLE CODE) ............................................................................................165
Base : Those with fixed broadband at home
QE21A (QE8A). SHOWCARD Thinking about your fixed broadband internet service, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with your main supplier for... The overall service provided by MAIN PROVIDER. (SINGLE CODE)...............................................167
Base : Those with fixed broadband at home
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Nation
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
England
291
175
159
334
716
1692
187
267
33
40
91
1624
334
-
-
**
147
187
160
174
84%
86%
84%
85%
82%
82%
96%
80%
77%
75%
80%
84%
100%
-%
-%
**
100%
100%
100%
100%
f
hj
nop
15%
9%
8%
18%
38%
90%
10%
14%
2%
2%
5%
86%
18%
-%
-%
**
8%
10%
9%
9%
Scotland
31
16
16
32
77
194
3
31
4
7
9
162
-
32
-
**
-
-
-
-
9%
8%
8%
8%
9%
9%
2%
9%
9%
13%
8%
8%
-%
100%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
g
mop
16%
8%
8%
16%
39%
99%
2%
16%
2%
3%
5%
83%
-%
16%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Wales
17
9
10
19
51
108
4
25
4
5
10
85
-
-
19
**
-
-
-
-
5%
4%
5%
5%
6%
5%
2%
7%
8%
9%
9%
4%
-%
-%
100%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
l
l
mnp
15%
8%
9%
17%
46%
97%
4%
22%
3%
4%
9%
76%
-%
-%
17%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Northern Ireland
8
5
5
9
24
61
1
10
2
2
3
51
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
1%
3%
6%
3%
3%
3%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
mno
12%
7%
7%
15%
39%
99%
2%
17%
4%
3%
5%
82%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Region
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
North East
15
10
12
22
44
91
4
18
2
3
6
77
22
-
-
**
9
14
12
10
4%
5%
6%
6%
5%
4%
2%
5%
4%
6%
5%
4%
7%
-%
-%
**
6%
7%
7%
6%
nop
15%
11%
13%
24%
47%
96%
4%
19%
2%
3%
6%
82%
24%
-%
-%
**
9%
14%
13%
11%
North West
32
21
14
35
105
231
20
52
7
10
19
200
35
-
-
**
20
14
14
21
9%
10%
7%
9%
12%
11%
10%
16%
15%
19%
17%
10%
10%
-%
-%
**
14%
8%
9%
12%
l
l
l
nop
r
13%
8%
6%
14%
42%
92%
8%
21%
3%
4%
8%
80%
14%
-%
-%
**
8%
6%
6%
8%
Yorkshire
35
19
17
36
77
176
13
21
-
3
8
168
36
-
-
**
14
22
14
22
10%
9%
9%
9%
9%
9%
7%
6%
-%
7%
7%
9%
11%
-%
-%
**
10%
12%
9%
13%
i
i
i
i
nop
18%
10%
9%
19%
41%
93%
7%
11%
-%
2%
4%
89%
19%
-%
-%
**
8%
11%
7%
12%
East Midlands
25
11
18
29
66
155
6
22
6
3
7
139
29
-
-
**
12
16
15
14
7%
5%
10%
7%
8%
8%
3%
7%
15%
6%
6%
7%
9%
-%
-%
**
8%
9%
9%
8%
g
hkl
nop
16%
7%
11%
18%
41%
97%
4%
14%
4%
2%
4%
87%
18%
-%
-%
**
8%
10%
9%
9%
West Midlands
33
19
15
35
81
177
24
30
3
3
8
169
35
-
-
**
14
20
16
18
10%
9%
8%
9%
9%
9%
12%
9%
7%
6%
7%
9%
10%
-%
-%
**
10%
11%
10%
11%
nop
17%
10%
8%
17%
41%
89%
12%
15%
2%
2%
4%
85%
17%
-%
-%
**
7%
10%
8%
9%
East of England
35
21
17
38
76
196
8
21
6
2
5
184
38
-
-
**
16
22
16
22
10%
10%
9%
10%
9%
10%
4%
6%
13%
4%
5%
10%
11%
-%
-%
**
11%
12%
10%
12%
g
hk
hk
nop
17%
10%
8%
19%
37%
96%
4%
10%
3%
1%
3%
90%
19%
-%
-%
**
8%
11%
8%
11%
London
40
18
19
38
86
190
87
29
2
1
11
258
38
-
-
**
16
21
20
18
12%
9%
10%
10%
10%
9%
44%
9%
4%
3%
10%
13%
11%
-%
-%
**
11%
11%
12%
10%
f
j
hij
nop
14%
6%
7%
13%
30%
66%
30%
10%
1%
*%
4%
90%
13%
-%
-%
**
6%
7%
7%
6%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Region
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
South East
50
34
27
62
107
290
16
43
3
8
15
265
62
-
-
**
26
36
32
30
14%
17%
14%
16%
12%
14%
8%
13%
7%
14%
14%
14%
18%
-%
-%
**
17%
19%
20%
17%
g
nop
16%
11%
9%
20%
35%
94%
5%
14%
1%
2%
5%
86%
20%
-%
-%
**
8%
12%
10%
10%
South West
27
22
18
40
73
185
9
31
5
5
10
163
40
-
-
**
19
21
21
20
8%
11%
10%
10%
8%
9%
4%
9%
12%
10%
9%
9%
12%
-%
-%
**
13%
11%
13%
11%
g
nop
14%
11%
9%
21%
38%
96%
4%
16%
3%
3%
5%
84%
21%
-%
-%
**
10%
11%
11%
10%
Wales
17
9
10
19
51
108
4
25
4
5
10
85
-
-
19
**
-
-
-
-
5%
4%
5%
5%
6%
5%
2%
7%
8%
9%
9%
4%
-%
-%
100%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
l
l
mnp
15%
8%
9%
17%
46%
97%
4%
22%
3%
4%
9%
76%
-%
-%
17%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Scotland
31
16
16
32
77
194
3
31
4
7
9
162
-
32
-
**
-
-
-
-
9%
8%
8%
8%
9%
9%
2%
9%
9%
13%
8%
8%
-%
100%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
g
mop
16%
8%
8%
16%
39%
99%
2%
16%
2%
3%
5%
83%
-%
16%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Northern Ireland
8
5
5
9
24
61
1
10
2
2
3
51
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
1%
3%
6%
3%
3%
3%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
mno
12%
7%
7%
15%
39%
99%
2%
17%
4%
3%
5%
82%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Urbanity
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Urban
302
171
162
332
762
1755
193
287
34
43
98
1666
287
26
14
**
123
165
136
152
87%
84%
85%
84%
88%
85%
99%
86%
79%
81%
87%
87%
86%
82%
75%
**
83%
88%
85%
87%
f
op
p
p
15%
9%
8%
17%
39%
90%
10%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
6%
8%
7%
8%
Rural
44
34
27
61
106
300
3
47
9
10
14
256
47
6
5
**
24
22
25
22
13%
16%
15%
16%
12%
15%
1%
14%
21%
19%
13%
13%
14%
18%
25%
**
17%
12%
15%
13%
g
m
mno
15%
11%
9%
20%
35%
99%
1%
16%
3%
3%
5%
84%
15%
2%
2%
**
8%
7%
8%
7%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Cable Area
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
TELEWEST
59
34
28
62
165
376
68
69
6
10
20
378
54
8
-
**
24
31
22
33
17%
17%
15%
16%
19%
18%
35%
21%
14%
19%
17%
20%
16%
24%
-%
**
16%
16%
14%
19%
f
op
op
13%
8%
6%
14%
37%
84%
15%
15%
1%
2%
4%
85%
12%
2%
-%
**
5%
7%
5%
7%
NTL
119
56
57
113
254
634
74
98
14
13
36
613
102
2
6
**
43
59
53
50
34%
27%
30%
29%
29%
31%
38%
29%
33%
25%
32%
32%
31%
6%
30%
**
29%
32%
33%
29%
f
n
n
n
17%
8%
8%
16%
36%
89%
10%
14%
2%
2%
5%
86%
14%
*%
1%
**
6%
8%
7%
7%
NEITHER
168
114
104
218
449
1046
52
167
23
30
57
930
177
22
13
**
80
97
86
91
49%
56%
55%
55%
52%
51%
27%
50%
53%
56%
50%
48%
53%
70%
70%
**
55%
52%
54%
52%
a
g
m
m
15%
10%
9%
20%
41%
95%
5%
15%
2%
3%
5%
85%
16%
2%
1%
**
7%
9%
8%
8%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Deprivation Level
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Low
235
131
118
249
459
1288
54
195
31
34
63
1150
221
16
13
**
98
123
124
96
68%
64%
63%
63%
53%
63%
27%
59%
71%
64%
56%
60%
66%
51%
68%
**
66%
66%
78%
55%
g
k
np
p
p
t
t
qrt
17%
10%
9%
19%
34%
96%
4%
15%
2%
3%
5%
86%
16%
1%
1%
**
7%
9%
9%
7%
Medium
100
66
63
129
359
679
122
122
10
16
45
682
108
15
6
**
47
62
35
73
29%
32%
33%
33%
41%
33%
63%
37%
23%
30%
40%
35%
32%
47%
32%
**
32%
33%
22%
42%
f
i
i
i
p
mp
p
s
s
qs
12%
8%
8%
16%
45%
84%
15%
15%
1%
2%
6%
85%
13%
2%
1%
**
6%
8%
4%
9%
High
4
3
3
6
26
27
18
6
-
1
2
38
5
1
-
**
3
2
1
4
1%
1%
2%
1%
3%
1%
9%
2%
-%
3%
2%
2%
1%
2%
-%
**
2%
1%
1%
2%
f
9%
6%
7%
13%
59%
62%
41%
14%
-%
3%
4%
87%
11%
2%
-%
**
6%
5%
2%
9%
Undefined
8
5
5
9
24
61
1
10
2
2
3
51
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
1%
3%
6%
3%
3%
3%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
mno
12%
7%
7%
15%
39%
99%
2%
17%
4%
3%
5%
82%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Se. Gender
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Male
168
97
77
174
373
991
98
170
25
34
61
914
147
15
7
**
147
-
75
72
49%
48%
41%
44%
43%
48%
50%
51%
57%
64%
54%
48%
44%
46%
39%
**
100%
-%
47%
42%
hl
mo
rst
r
r
16%
9%
7%
16%
34%
92%
9%
16%
2%
3%
6%
84%
14%
1%
1%
**
14%
-%
7%
7%
Female
178
107
112
219
495
1065
98
164
19
19
52
1008
187
17
11
**
-
187
85
101
51%
52%
59%
56%
57%
52%
50%
49%
43%
36%
46%
52%
56%
54%
61%
**
-%
100%
53%
58%
j
j
p
p
qst
q
q
15%
9%
10%
19%
42%
91%
8%
14%
2%
2%
4%
86%
16%
1%
1%
**
-%
16%
7%
9%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Sf. Age Of Respondent
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
16 - 17
-
-
-
-
14
52
5
2
1
-
-
55
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
2%
3%
3%
*%
2%
-%
-%
3%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
hk
-%
-%
-%
-%
26%
92%
10%
3%
2%
-%
-%
98%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
18 - 24
-
-
-
-
79
230
28
16
*
-
-
241
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
9%
11%
15%
5%
*%
-%
-%
13%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
k
hijk
-%
-%
-%
-%
31%
89%
11%
6%
*%
-%
-%
94%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
25 - 34
-
-
-
-
110
359
62
29
2
*
2
395
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
13%
17%
32%
9%
4%
1%
1%
21%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
jk
hijk
-%
-%
-%
-%
26%
85%
15%
7%
*%
*%
*%
94%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
35 - 44
-
-
-
-
99
388
44
28
4
4
5
407
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
11%
19%
22%
9%
9%
7%
4%
21%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
hijk
-%
-%
-%
-%
23%
89%
10%
7%
1%
1%
1%
93%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
45 - 54
-
-
-
-
91
311
32
54
5
7
9
294
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
10%
15%
16%
16%
13%
12%
8%
15%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
k
k
-%
-%
-%
-%
26%
90%
9%
16%
2%
2%
3%
85%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
55 - 64
346
-
-
-
81
333
12
59
3
9
22
283
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
100%
-%
-%
-%
9%
16%
6%
18%
8%
17%
19%
15%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
g
i
100%
-%
-%
-%
23%
96%
4%
17%
1%
3%
6%
82%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
65 - 74
-
204
-
204
204
227
7
61
6
9
28
172
175
16
9
**
82
93
87
88
-%
100%
-%
52%
24%
11%
3%
18%
15%
18%
25%
9%
52%
51%
46%
**
56%
50%
54%
51%
acd
ac
g
l
l
l
-%
87%
-%
87%
87%
97%
3%
26%
3%
4%
12%
74%
75%
7%
4%
**
35%
40%
37%
38%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Sf. Age Of Respondent
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
75+
-
-
189
189
189
155
5
85
21
24
47
75
159
16
10
**
65
94
73
86
-%
-%
100%
48%
22%
8%
3%
25%
48%
46%
42%
4%
48%
49%
54%
**
44%
50%
46%
49%
abd
ab
g
l
hl
hl
hl
-%
-%
118%
118%
118%
97%
3%
53%
13%
15%
29%
47%
99%
10%
6%
**
41%
59%
46%
53%
AGE SUMMARY 16-24
-
-
-
-
94
281
34
18
1
-
-
296
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
11%
14%
17%
5%
2%
-%
-%
15%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
jk
hijk
-%
-%
-%
-%
30%
90%
11%
6%
*%
-%
-%
95%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
25-34
-
-
-
-
110
359
62
29
2
*
2
395
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
13%
17%
32%
9%
4%
1%
1%
21%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
jk
hijk
-%
-%
-%
-%
26%
85%
15%
7%
*%
*%
*%
94%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
35-54
-
-
-
-
190
700
76
83
10
10
14
700
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
22%
34%
39%
25%
22%
19%
12%
36%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
k
hijk
-%
-%
-%
-%
24%
90%
10%
11%
1%
1%
2%
90%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
55-64
346
-
-
-
81
333
12
59
3
9
22
283
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
100%
-%
-%
-%
9%
16%
6%
18%
8%
17%
19%
15%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
g
i
100%
-%
-%
-%
23%
96%
4%
17%
1%
3%
6%
82%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
65+
-
204
189
393
393
382
12
145
27
34
75
247
334
32
19
**
147
187
160
174
-%
100%
100%
100%
45%
19%
6%
43%
63%
64%
67%
13%
100%
100%
100%
**
100%
100%
100%
100%
a
a
a
g
l
hl
hl
hl
-%
52%
48%
100%
100%
97%
3%
37%
7%
9%
19%
63%
85%
8%
5%
**
37%
48%
41%
44%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QSEG (QZ8). What is the occupation of the main wage earner in your household. CODE SOCIAL GRADE. (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
A
8
3
1
4
4
37
7
5
-
2
1
39
3
*
*
**
3
1
3
-
2%
1%
1%
1%
*%
2%
3%
2%
-%
5%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
**
2%
*%
2%
-%
k
t
18%
7%
3%
10%
10%
83%
15%
12%
-%
6%
2%
88%
8%
1%
1%
**
6%
2%
8%
-%
B
82
43
39
82
82
467
49
59
8
9
13
465
73
5
3
**
35
37
73
-
24%
21%
20%
21%
9%
23%
25%
18%
18%
18%
12%
24%
22%
15%
15%
**
24%
20%
45%
-%
hk
t
t
qrt
16%
8%
7%
16%
16%
89%
9%
11%
1%
2%
3%
89%
14%
1%
1%
**
7%
7%
14%
-%
C1
106
53
47
100
100
606
60
73
9
13
21
598
84
8
6
**
37
47
84
-
30%
26%
25%
25%
12%
29%
31%
22%
20%
25%
19%
31%
25%
25%
30%
**
25%
25%
52%
-%
hk
t
t
qrt
16%
8%
7%
15%
15%
91%
9%
11%
1%
2%
3%
89%
13%
1%
1%
**
6%
7%
13%
-%
C2
69
41
33
74
74
388
26
51
9
7
23
364
62
5
5
**
30
32
-
62
20%
20%
17%
19%
9%
19%
14%
15%
21%
12%
20%
19%
19%
17%
29%
**
20%
17%
-%
36%
s
s
qrs
17%
10%
8%
18%
18%
94%
6%
12%
2%
2%
6%
88%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
-%
15%
D
38
28
16
44
296
263
36
40
8
6
11
255
38
3
2
**
18
21
-
38
11%
14%
8%
11%
34%
13%
18%
12%
18%
12%
10%
13%
11%
10%
10%
**
12%
11%
-%
22%
f
s
s
qrs
13%
10%
5%
15%
100%
89%
12%
14%
3%
2%
4%
86%
13%
1%
1%
**
6%
7%
-%
13%
E
43
35
54
89
311
294
18
105
10
15
44
200
73
10
2
**
25
49
-
73
13%
17%
28%
23%
36%
14%
9%
32%
23%
28%
39%
10%
22%
32%
13%
**
17%
26%
-%
42%
ab
a
g
l
l
l
il
o
mo
s
qs
qrs
14%
11%
17%
29%
100%
95%
6%
34%
3%
5%
14%
65%
24%
3%
1%
**
8%
16%
-%
24%
Refused
1
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
*%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
70%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QSEG (QZ8). What is the occupation of the main wage earner in your household. CODE SOCIAL GRADE. (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
SOCIAL GROUP AB
90
46
40
86
86
504
55
64
8
12
14
504
76
5
3
**
38
38
76
-
26%
23%
21%
22%
10%
25%
28%
19%
18%
23%
12%
26%
23%
16%
18%
**
26%
21%
48%
-%
k
k
hk
t
t
qrt
16%
8%
7%
15%
15%
89%
10%
11%
1%
2%
2%
89%
13%
1%
1%
**
7%
7%
13%
-%
C1C2
175
95
80
174
174
994
87
124
18
20
44
962
146
13
11
**
66
79
84
62
50%
46%
42%
44%
20%
48%
44%
37%
42%
37%
39%
50%
44%
42%
59%
**
45%
42%
52%
36%
c
hjk
m
t
t
16%
9%
7%
16%
16%
92%
8%
11%
2%
2%
4%
89%
13%
1%
1%
**
6%
7%
8%
6%
DE
81
63
70
133
608
557
54
146
17
21
55
456
112
13
4
**
42
69
-
112
23%
31%
37%
34%
70%
27%
27%
44%
40%
40%
49%
24%
33%
42%
24%
**
29%
37%
-%
64%
a
a
a
l
l
l
l
o
o
s
s
qrs
13%
10%
11%
22%
100%
92%
9%
24%
3%
3%
9%
75%
18%
2%
1%
**
7%
11%
-%
18%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz6 (Sg). Working Status
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Base for %
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Working full time (30hrs/wk+)
100
12
-
12
122
781
96
46
9
6
3
843
11
-
*
**
9
2
6
5
29%
6%
-%
3%
14%
38%
49%
14%
20%
12%
3%
44%
3%
-%
3%
**
6%
1%
4%
3%
bcd
c
c
f
k
k
k
hijk
r
11%
1%
-%
1%
14%
88%
11%
5%
1%
1%
*%
95%
1%
-%
*%
**
1%
*%
1%
1%
Working part time (8-29 hrs/wk)
64
16
1
17
90
345
25
29
1
7
3
347
14
3
1
**
9
5
10
4
18%
8%
1%
4%
10%
17%
13%
9%
2%
14%
2%
18%
4%
8%
3%
**
6%
3%
6%
2%
bcd
c
c
ik
ik
hik
t
17%
4%
*%
5%
24%
92%
7%
8%
*%
2%
1%
93%
4%
1%
*%
**
2%
1%
3%
1%
Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - retired
118
158
164
323
346
422
14
141
24
29
72
292
270
27
17
**
122
148
130
140
34%
77%
87%
82%
40%
21%
7%
42%
55%
55%
64%
15%
81%
86%
92%
**
83%
79%
81%
81%
a
ab
a
g
l
l
hl
hl
m
m
27%
36%
38%
74%
79%
97%
3%
32%
5%
7%
17%
67%
62%
6%
4%
**
28%
34%
30%
32%
Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - unemployed (registered/ not registered but looking for work)
13
*
1
1
116
151
14
27
1
3
6
135
1
*
*
**
-
1
1
-
4%
*%
1%
*%
13%
7%
7%
8%
3%
5%
6%
7%
*%
*%
*%
**
-%
1%
1%
-%
bcd
8%
*%
1%
1%
71%
93%
9%
17%
1%
2%
4%
83%
1%
*%
*%
**
-%
1%
1%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz6 (Sg). Working Status
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk)
- student
-
*
-
*
19
111
23
9
2
-
-
121
-
*
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
*%
-%
*%
2%
5%
12%
3%
4%
-%
-%
6%
-%
1%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
k
k
hjk
-%
*%
-%
*%
14%
86%
18%
7%
1%
-%
-%
94%
-%
*%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - housewife/ disabled/ other
49
18
21
39
171
237
23
80
7
6
29
176
37
1
*
**
7
30
12
24
14%
9%
11%
10%
20%
12%
12%
24%
16%
12%
26%
9%
11%
5%
2%
**
5%
16%
8%
14%
bd
jl
l
jl
op
qs
qs
19%
7%
8%
15%
66%
92%
9%
31%
3%
2%
11%
68%
14%
1%
*%
**
3%
12%
5%
10%
Don't know
3
*
1
1
4
10
-
3
-
1
-
8
1
-
*
**
-
1
1
-
1%
*%
1%
*%
*%
*%
-%
1%
-%
3%
-%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
-%
1%
1%
-%
kl
26%
1%
13%
14%
43%
100%
-%
27%
-%
14%
-%
77%
13%
-%
1%
**
-%
13%
13%
-%
WORKING STATUS SUMMARY WORKING
164
28
1
29
213
1126
121
75
9
14
6
1190
25
3
1
**
18
7
16
9
47%
14%
1%
7%
25%
55%
62%
22%
22%
26%
5%
62%
7%
8%
6%
**
12%
4%
10%
5%
bcd
cd
c
k
k
k
hijk
rt
r
13%
2%
*%
2%
17%
89%
10%
6%
1%
1%
*%
94%
2%
*%
*%
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
NOT WORKING
180
176
186
363
651
920
74
256
34
38
107
724
308
29
18
**
129
179
143
164
52%
86%
99%
92%
75%
45%
38%
77%
78%
72%
95%
38%
92%
92%
94%
**
88%
96%
89%
95%
a
abd
ab
l
l
l
hijl
qs
q
18%
18%
19%
37%
66%
93%
8%
26%
3%
4%
11%
74%
31%
3%
2%
**
13%
18%
15%
17%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz7 (Sh). Household Status
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Base for %
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Being bought on mortgage
79
17
6
22
93
693
56
59
7
9
11
692
20
2
*
**
13
6
9
11
23%
8%
3%
6%
11%
34%
29%
18%
17%
16%
9%
36%
6%
6%
1%
**
9%
3%
5%
6%
bcd
c
k
hijk
r
11%
2%
1%
3%
12%
93%
8%
8%
1%
1%
1%
92%
3%
*%
*%
**
2%
1%
1%
1%
Owned outright by household
175
133
132
265
324
582
27
138
21
25
59
471
229
18
12
**
101
128
130
99
50%
65%
70%
67%
37%
28%
14%
41%
48%
47%
52%
24%
69%
56%
65%
**
69%
68%
81%
57%
a
a
a
g
l
l
l
hl
t
t
qrt
29%
22%
22%
44%
53%
96%
4%
23%
3%
4%
10%
77%
38%
3%
2%
**
17%
21%
21%
16%
Rented from Local Authority/ Housing Association/ Trust
74
44
40
83
314
451
50
101
9
16
32
398
65
10
6
**
25
40
14
51
21%
21%
21%
21%
36%
22%
26%
30%
22%
31%
28%
21%
19%
33%
30%
**
17%
21%
9%
30%
l
l
l
m
m
s
s
qs
15%
9%
8%
17%
62%
90%
10%
20%
2%
3%
6%
79%
13%
2%
1%
**
5%
8%
3%
10%
Rented from Private Landlord
14
8
6
14
116
276
56
28
4
2
8
309
12
1
1
**
5
7
6
6
4%
4%
3%
4%
13%
13%
29%
8%
9%
4%
7%
16%
4%
4%
4%
**
3%
4%
4%
4%
f
hjk
4%
2%
2%
4%
34%
82%
17%
8%
1%
1%
2%
92%
4%
*%
*%
**
1%
2%
2%
2%
Other
1
2
-
2
5
20
1
2
-
*
1
19
2
-
-
**
1
1
2
-
*%
1%
-%
*%
1%
1%
1%
1%
-%
*%
1%
1%
*%
-%
-%
**
*%
*%
1%
-%
4%
8%
-%
8%
25%
95%
6%
11%
-%
*%
3%
88%
7%
-%
-%
**
3%
4%
7%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz7 (Sh). Household Status
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Don't know
4
1
5
6
16
33
5
5
2
1
2
33
6
*
-
**
1
5
1
6
1%
1%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
4%
1%
2%
2%
2%
1%
-%
**
1%
3%
*%
3%
s
10%
3%
14%
17%
42%
88%
12%
13%
5%
2%
6%
87%
17%
*%
-%
**
4%
13%
2%
15%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
SH (SI). Total number in household (including respondent and any children)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
1
82
51
98
149
239
383
23
121
21
16
56
282
123
14
9
**
38
85
56
67
24%
25%
52%
38%
28%
19%
12%
36%
48%
31%
49%
15%
37%
43%
48%
**
26%
45%
35%
39%
abd
ab
g
l
jl
l
hjl
qs
q
q
20%
13%
24%
37%
59%
94%
6%
30%
5%
4%
14%
69%
30%
3%
2%
**
9%
21%
14%
16%
2
184
131
80
211
339
679
36
115
13
23
43
600
182
16
9
**
95
87
90
92
53%
64%
42%
54%
39%
33%
18%
34%
29%
43%
38%
31%
55%
51%
46%
**
65%
46%
56%
53%
c
acd
c
g
l
rt
26%
18%
11%
29%
47%
95%
5%
16%
2%
3%
6%
84%
25%
2%
1%
**
13%
12%
13%
13%
3
53
19
10
29
140
422
42
50
6
7
9
418
25
2
1
**
10
15
12
13
15%
9%
5%
7%
16%
21%
22%
15%
13%
13%
8%
22%
8%
6%
5%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
bcd
k
hk
11%
4%
2%
6%
30%
90%
9%
11%
1%
1%
2%
90%
5%
*%
*%
**
2%
3%
3%
3%
4
19
3
1
4
91
394
52
37
2
6
4
413
3
*
*
**
3
-
3
1
5%
1%
*%
1%
10%
19%
27%
11%
5%
12%
3%
21%
1%
*%
1%
**
2%
-%
2%
*%
bcd
f
k
k
hijk
r
4%
1%
*%
1%
20%
88%
12%
8%
*%
1%
1%
92%
1%
*%
*%
**
1%
-%
1%
*%
5+
9
*
1
1
59
177
42
11
2
1
2
208
1
-
-
**
1
-
1
-
3%
*%
*%
*%
7%
9%
21%
3%
5%
1%
2%
11%
*%
-%
-%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
bcd
f
hjk
4%
*%
*%
*%
27%
81%
19%
5%
1%
*%
1%
95%
*%
-%
-%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Refused
-
-
-
-
*
*
-
-
-
-
-
*
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
*%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
100%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Mean number of people
2.1
1.9
1.6
1.7
2.3
2.7
3.4
2.1
1.9
2.1
1.7
2.9
1.7
1.6
1.6
**
1.9
1.6
1.8
1.7
bcd
cd
c
f
k
k
hijk
o
rt
r
Standard deviation
.95
.63
.65
.65
1.30
1.32
1.56
1.17
1.23
1.02
.96
1.36
.65
.61
.66
**
.66
.63
.69
.63
Standard error
.04
.03
.04
.02
.03
.02
.11
.04
.12
.09
.06
.02
.03
.06
.06
**
.04
.04
.04
.04
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Si (Sk). Household Size
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Small (1-2 people)
266
182
178
360
578
1062
59
236
33
39
98
882
305
30
18
**
133
172
145
159
77%
89%
94%
92%
67%
52%
30%
71%
77%
74%
87%
46%
91%
94%
94%
**
91%
92%
91%
92%
a
a
a
g
l
l
l
hjl
24%
16%
16%
32%
51%
95%
5%
21%
3%
3%
9%
79%
27%
3%
2%
**
12%
15%
13%
14%
Medium (3-4 people)
72
22
11
32
231
816
94
87
8
13
13
831
28
2
1
**
13
15
14
14
21%
11%
6%
8%
27%
40%
48%
26%
18%
24%
11%
43%
9%
6%
6%
**
9%
8%
9%
8%
bcd
c
f
k
k
hijk
8%
2%
1%
4%
25%
89%
10%
10%
1%
1%
1%
91%
3%
*%
*%
**
1%
2%
2%
2%
Large (5+ people)
9
*
1
1
59
177
42
11
2
1
2
208
1
-
-
**
1
-
1
-
3%
*%
*%
*%
7%
9%
21%
3%
5%
1%
2%
11%
*%
-%
-%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
bcd
f
hjk
4%
*%
*%
*%
27%
81%
19%
5%
1%
*%
1%
95%
*%
-%
-%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Refused
-
-
-
-
*
*
-
-
-
-
-
*
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
*%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
100%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
SJ. Total number of children in household (under 18), including respondent (if respondent is under 18)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
None
325
202
188
389
632
1289
96
271
38
48
104
1112
330
32
19
**
146
185
159
172
94%
99%
99%
99%
73%
63%
49%
81%
89%
91%
92%
58%
99%
100%
100%
**
99%
99%
99%
99%
a
a
a
g
l
l
hl
hl
23%
15%
14%
28%
46%
93%
7%
20%
3%
3%
8%
80%
24%
2%
1%
**
10%
13%
11%
12%
1
17
3
*
3
96
322
35
30
1
3
6
328
3
*
-
**
1
1
1
2
5%
1%
*%
1%
11%
16%
18%
9%
3%
5%
5%
17%
1%
*%
-%
**
1%
1%
*%
1%
bcd
hijk
5%
1%
*%
1%
27%
90%
10%
9%
*%
1%
2%
92%
1%
*%
-%
**
*%
*%
*%
1%
2
3
-
1
1
81
313
43
24
1
2
2
335
1
-
-
**
-
1
1
-
1%
-%
1%
*%
9%
15%
22%
7%
3%
4%
2%
17%
*%
-%
-%
**
-%
1%
1%
-%
f
k
hijk
1%
-%
*%
*%
23%
87%
12%
7%
*%
1%
1%
94%
*%
-%
-%
**
-%
*%
*%
-%
3
1
-
-
-
36
96
12
5
1
-
*
105
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
*%
-%
-%
-%
4%
5%
6%
1%
3%
-%
*%
5%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
hjk
1%
-%
-%
-%
33%
89%
11%
4%
1%
-%
*%
96%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
4
-
-
-
-
15
23
7
2
1
-
1
27
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
2%
1%
4%
1%
2%
-%
1%
1%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
-%
-%
-%
-%
51%
78%
24%
8%
3%
-%
2%
93%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
5+
-
-
-
-
7
13
2
1
-
-
*
14
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
1%
1%
1%
*%
-%
-%
*%
1%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
47%
84%
15%
8%
-%
-%
2%
92%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Mean number of children
.1
*
*
*
.5
.7
1.0
.3
.3
.1
.1
.8
*
*
-
**
*
*
*
*
bcd
f
jk
hijk
Standard deviation
.34
.11
.15
.13
1.03
1.04
1.23
.79
.82
.45
.53
1.09
.14
.05
-
**
.10
.17
.18
.10
Standard error
.01
.01
.01
*
.03
.02
.09
.03
.08
.04
.03
.02
.01
.01
-
**
.01
.01
.01
.01
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Sk (Sm). Can You Speak Or Write In Welsh At All?
Base : All respondents in Wales
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
*b
*c
d
e
f
~g
h
~i
~j
*k
l
~m
~n
o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
86
58
51
109
228
502
11
130
17
29
51
383
-
-
109
-
-
-
-
-
Effective Weighted Sample
57
32
34
66
150
332
9
94
12
21
40
251
-
-
66
-
-
-
-
-
Total
17
9
10
19
51
108
4
25
4
5
10
85
-
-
19
-
-
-
-
-
**
**
**
17%
46%
97%
**
22%
**
**
**
76%
-%
-%
17%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
Yes, and fluent
**
**
**
4
6
16
**
5
**
**
**
11
-
-
4
-
-
-
-
-
**
**
**
19%
12%
15%
**
18%
**
**
**
13%
-%
-%
19%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
**
**
**
23%
39%
100%
**
29%
**
**
**
68%
-%
-%
23%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
Yes, but not fluent
**
**
**
2
9
18
**
5
**
**
**
13
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
**
**
**
10%
18%
17%
**
19%
**
**
**
15%
-%
-%
10%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
**
**
**
10%
50%
99%
**
26%
**
**
**
72%
-%
-%
10%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
No
**
**
**
13
36
75
**
16
**
**
**
61
-
-
13
-
-
-
-
-
**
**
**
71%
70%
69%
**
63%
**
**
**
72%
-%
-%
71%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
a
**
**
**
17%
46%
96%
**
20%
**
**
**
79%
-%
-%
17%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qb1. Showcard Which Of The Following Do You, Or Does Anyone In Your Household, Have In Your Home At The Moment? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
A DVD player
296
160
104
264
649
1667
145
250
26
42
80
1574
222
22
14
**
103
120
120
103
85%
78%
55%
67%
75%
81%
74%
75%
61%
80%
71%
82%
67%
71%
78%
**
70%
64%
75%
59%
bcd
cd
c
g
i
i
hik
p
p
t
rt
16%
9%
6%
14%
36%
92%
8%
14%
1%
2%
4%
86%
12%
1%
1%
**
6%
7%
7%
6%
Video games console connected to a TV (e.g. Sony PlayStation, Nintendo Wii or Microsoft Xbox)
97
24
5
28
302
1072
92
113
12
15
18
1058
26
1
2
**
18
7
15
11
28%
12%
2%
7%
35%
52%
47%
34%
27%
29%
16%
55%
8%
2%
8%
**
13%
4%
9%
6%
bcd
cd
c
k
k
hijk
p
p
rt
r
8%
2%
*%
2%
26%
92%
8%
10%
1%
1%
2%
91%
2%
*%
*%
**
2%
1%
1%
1%
An MP3 player/iPod
101
27
4
31
179
901
60
91
9
12
13
878
30
*
1
**
15
15
19
11
29%
13%
2%
8%
21%
44%
31%
27%
21%
23%
11%
46%
9%
1%
3%
**
10%
8%
12%
6%
bcd
cd
c
g
k
k
hijk
np
t
11%
3%
*%
3%
19%
93%
6%
9%
1%
1%
1%
91%
3%
*%
*%
**
2%
2%
2%
1%
Handheld/ portable games player (e.g. Nintendo DS, Sony PSP)
54
15
3
18
169
665
54
73
8
9
12
654
16
*
1
**
11
5
7
9
16%
7%
2%
4%
19%
32%
28%
22%
18%
18%
11%
34%
5%
*%
7%
**
7%
3%
4%
5%
bcd
c
k
hijk
n
7%
2%
*%
2%
23%
92%
7%
10%
1%
1%
2%
90%
2%
*%
*%
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
A Blu Ray DVD player
38
12
7
19
80
354
23
35
4
4
5
343
19
-
1
**
12
7
11
7
11%
6%
4%
5%
9%
17%
12%
10%
10%
8%
4%
18%
6%
-%
3%
**
8%
4%
7%
4%
bcd
k
hjk
10%
3%
2%
5%
21%
94%
6%
9%
1%
1%
1%
91%
5%
-%
*%
**
3%
2%
3%
2%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qb1. Showcard Which Of The Following Do You, Or Does Anyone In Your Household, Have In Your Home At The Moment? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
E-reader - digital book reader
(e.g. Kindle, Sony Reader, Kobo
eReader, iRiver Reader)
61
20
3
23
55
312
12
29
3
4
5
295
22
*
1
**
9
13
13
9
18%
10%
1%
6%
6%
15%
6%
9%
6%
8%
4%
15%
7%
*%
4%
**
6%
7%
8%
5%
bcd
cd
c
g
k
hik
n
19%
6%
1%
7%
17%
96%
4%
9%
1%
1%
1%
91%
7%
*%
*%
**
3%
4%
4%
3%
ANY DVD PLAYER
303
166
109
275
669
1749
150
258
28
42
81
1653
233
22
15
**
109
123
125
108
88%
81%
58%
70%
77%
85%
77%
77%
64%
80%
72%
86%
70%
71%
79%
**
75%
66%
78%
62%
bcd
cd
c
g
i
i
hik
p
p
t
rt
16%
9%
6%
14%
35%
92%
8%
14%
1%
2%
4%
87%
12%
1%
1%
**
6%
6%
7%
6%
ANY GAMES CONSOLE
108
30
5
36
320
1135
100
124
12
17
24
1118
33
1
2
**
22
10
16
16
31%
15%
3%
9%
37%
55%
51%
37%
27%
31%
21%
58%
10%
3%
10%
**
15%
6%
10%
9%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
p
r
9%
2%
*%
3%
26%
92%
8%
10%
1%
1%
2%
90%
3%
*%
*%
**
2%
1%
1%
1%
None of these
32
34
78
111
153
182
25
63
15
11
28
140
94
9
4
**
36
58
36
59
9%
17%
41%
28%
18%
9%
13%
19%
34%
20%
24%
7%
28%
29%
21%
**
25%
31%
22%
34%
a
abd
ab
l
hl
l
l
mo
qs
16%
17%
38%
54%
75%
89%
12%
31%
7%
5%
13%
68%
46%
5%
2%
**
18%
28%
17%
29%
Don't know
-
-
2
2
3
2
-
1
-
-
-
1
2
-
-
**
-
2
-
2
-%
-%
1%
1%
*%
*%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
*%
1%
-%
-%
**
-%
1%
-%
1%
a
-%
-%
97%
97%
135%
100%
-%
38%
-%
-%
-%
62%
97%
-%
-%
**
-%
97%
-%
97%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qb2. Showcard And Do You Personally Use...? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who have access to any of listed devices at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
530
344
191
535
1287
3150
177
538
63
88
183
2795
335
74
76
50
187
148
184
151
Effective Weighted Sample
374
205
138
342
863
2165
154
355
41
55
134
1952
266
45
48
40
165
117
146
120
Total
314
170
110
280
712
1871
170
271
28
42
85
1781
238
22
15
5
111
127
125
113
15%
8%
5%
14%
35%
91%
8%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
12%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
A DVD player
277
142
88
230
579
1494
131
224
**
**
72
1413
193
**
**
**
93
100
106
87
88%
83%
80%
82%
81%
80%
77%
83%
**
**
84%
79%
81%
**
**
**
84%
79%
85%
77%
cd
17%
9%
5%
14%
35%
91%
8%
14%
**
**
4%
86%
12%
**
**
**
6%
6%
7%
5%
Video games console connected to a TV (e.g. Sony PlayStation, Nintendo Wii or Microsoft Xbox)
49
9
3
13
191
707
47
72
**
**
8
685
12
**
**
**
8
4
9
4
15%
6%
3%
5%
27%
38%
28%
26%
**
**
9%
38%
5%
**
**
**
8%
3%
7%
3%
bcd
g
jk
k
hijk
6%
1%
*%
2%
25%
94%
6%
10%
**
**
1%
91%
2%
**
**
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
An MP3 player/iPod
65
19
4
22
117
647
41
64
**
**
7
629
22
**
**
**
11
11
14
8
21%
11%
3%
8%
16%
35%
24%
23%
**
**
8%
35%
9%
**
**
**
10%
8%
11%
7%
bcd
c
g
k
hijk
o
9%
3%
1%
3%
17%
94%
6%
9%
**
**
1%
91%
3%
**
**
**
2%
2%
2%
1%
Handheld/ portable games player (e.g. Nintendo DS, Sony PSP)
25
10
-
10
92
331
25
40
**
**
6
319
9
**
**
**
6
3
3
6
8%
6%
-%
3%
13%
18%
14%
15%
**
**
8%
18%
4%
**
**
**
6%
2%
2%
6%
cd
c
c
k
jk
7%
3%
-%
3%
26%
93%
7%
11%
**
**
2%
89%
3%
**
**
**
2%
1%
1%
2%
A Blu Ray DVD player
28
11
6
17
63
298
19
29
**
**
5
287
16
**
**
**
11
6
10
6
9%
6%
6%
6%
9%
16%
11%
11%
**
**
5%
16%
7%
**
**
**
10%
5%
8%
6%
hjk
9%
3%
2%
5%
20%
94%
6%
9%
**
**
1%
91%
5%
**
**
**
3%
2%
3%
2%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qb2. Showcard And Do You Personally Use...? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who have access to any of listed devices at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
530
344
191
535
1287
3150
177
538
63
88
183
2795
335
74
76
50
187
148
184
151
Effective Weighted Sample
374
205
138
342
863
2165
154
355
41
55
134
1952
266
45
48
40
165
117
146
120
Total
314
170
110
280
712
1871
170
271
28
42
85
1781
238
22
15
5
111
127
125
113
15%
8%
5%
14%
35%
91%
8%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
12%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
E-reader - digital book reader
(e.g. Kindle, Sony Reader, Kobo
eReader, iRiver Reader)
44
16
2
17
39
226
8
17
**
**
3
217
16
**
**
**
5
11
8
8
14%
9%
1%
6%
6%
12%
5%
6%
**
**
3%
12%
7%
**
**
**
5%
9%
6%
7%
cd
c
c
g
hijk
19%
7%
1%
7%
17%
97%
4%
7%
**
**
1%
93%
7%
**
**
**
2%
5%
3%
4%
ANY DVD PLAYER
283
146
92
238
599
1597
139
233
**
**
73
1515
201
**
**
**
99
102
110
91
90%
86%
84%
85%
84%
85%
82%
86%
**
**
85%
85%
85%
**
**
**
89%
81%
88%
81%
cd
p
rt
16%
8%
5%
14%
34%
91%
8%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
12%
**
**
**
6%
6%
6%
5%
ANY GAMES CONSOLE
58
16
3
19
209
761
53
81
**
**
12
735
18
**
**
**
12
7
10
9
18%
9%
3%
7%
29%
41%
31%
30%
**
**
14%
41%
8%
**
**
**
10%
5%
8%
8%
bcd
c
g
jk
hijk
7%
2%
*%
2%
26%
94%
6%
10%
**
**
1%
90%
2%
**
**
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
None of these
15
13
17
31
52
86
14
20
**
**
8
80
25
**
**
**
9
17
11
15
5%
8%
16%
11%
7%
5%
8%
7%
**
**
9%
4%
11%
**
**
**
8%
13%
9%
13%
ab
a
f
l
hl
l
m
15%
13%
17%
30%
52%
86%
14%
20%
**
**
8%
79%
25%
**
**
**
9%
17%
11%
15%
Don't know
1
2
-
2
4
3
-
*
**
**
*
3
2
**
**
**
1
1
2
-
*%
1%
-%
1%
1%
*%
-%
*%
**
**
*%
*%
1%
**
**
**
1%
1%
1%
-%
20%
61%
-%
61%
121%
100%
-%
6%
**
**
6%
94%
61%
**
**
**
19%
41%
61%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qb3 (Qb4). Showcard Which Games Console/S Do You Or Does Anyone In Your Household Have At The Moment? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who have access to a games console at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
*b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
*k
l
*m
~n
~o
~p
*q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
175
55
10
65
558
1851
104
227
26
28
52
1731
47
4
10
4
38
9
25
22
Effective Weighted Sample
126
38
6
43
376
1269
88
149
15
18
38
1204
37
3
7
3
33
8
19
18
Total
108
30
5
36
320
1135
100
124
12
17
24
1118
33
1
2
*
22
10
16
16
9%
**
**
**
26%
92%
8%
10%
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Nintendo Wii
51
**
**
**
158
635
49
68
**
**
**
617
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
47%
**
**
**
49%
56%
49%
54%
**
**
**
55%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
k
k
7%
**
**
**
23%
93%
7%
10%
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Nintendo DS/ DSi/ DS Lite/ 3DS
39
**
**
**
119
480
38
52
**
**
**
474
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
36%
**
**
**
37%
42%
38%
41%
**
**
**
42%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
**
**
**
23%
92%
7%
10%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
XBox 360
24
**
**
**
109
412
22
40
**
**
**
396
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
23%
**
**
**
34%
36%
22%
32%
**
**
**
35%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
g
6%
**
**
**
25%
95%
5%
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
PlayStation 3
15
**
**
**
90
316
30
29
**
**
**
319
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
14%
**
**
**
28%
28%
30%
23%
**
**
**
29%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
26%
91%
9%
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
PlayStation 2
17
**
**
**
61
223
20
31
**
**
**
215
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
15%
**
**
**
19%
20%
20%
25%
**
**
**
19%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
7%
**
**
**
25%
91%
8%
13%
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
PlayStation Portable (PSP)
6
**
**
**
36
122
8
11
**
**
**
120
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5%
**
**
**
11%
11%
8%
9%
**
**
**
11%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
27%
93%
6%
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
XBox
5
**
**
**
28
80
2
10
**
**
**
72
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
9%
7%
2%
8%
**
**
**
6%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
6%
**
**
**
34%
97%
3%
12%
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qb3 (Qb4). Showcard Which Games Console/S Do You Or Does Anyone In Your Household Have At The Moment? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who have access to a games console at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
*b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
*k
l
*m
~n
~o
~p
*q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
175
55
10
65
558
1851
104
227
26
28
52
1731
47
4
10
4
38
9
25
22
Effective Weighted Sample
126
38
6
43
376
1269
88
149
15
18
38
1204
37
3
7
3
33
8
19
18
Total
108
30
5
36
320
1135
100
124
12
17
24
1118
33
1
2
*
22
10
16
16
9%
**
**
**
26%
92%
8%
10%
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Other
3
**
**
**
6
18
1
2
**
**
**
16
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
2%
2%
1%
2%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
14%
**
**
**
31%
94%
4%
13%
**
**
**
87%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
PS3/ Wii/ XBox 360/ XBox
87
**
**
**
289
1045
84
107
**
**
**
1027
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
80%
**
**
**
90%
92%
85%
86%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
g
k
hk
8%
**
**
**
26%
92%
7%
10%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
DS/ PSP/ PORTABLE CONSOLE
44
**
**
**
135
520
42
57
**
**
**
512
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
41%
**
**
**
42%
46%
42%
46%
**
**
**
46%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
**
**
**
24%
92%
7%
10%
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
4
**
**
**
7
17
3
3
**
**
**
18
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
2%
1%
3%
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
l
17%
**
**
**
36%
83%
13%
13%
**
**
**
87%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qb4 (Qb5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use Your Games Console For? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who have access to a games console at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
*b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
*k
l
*m
~n
~o
~p
*q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
175
55
10
65
558
1851
104
227
26
28
52
1731
47
4
10
4
38
9
25
22
Effective Weighted Sample
126
38
6
43
376
1269
88
149
15
18
38
1204
37
3
7
3
33
8
19
18
Total
108
30
5
36
320
1135
100
124
12
17
24
1118
33
1
2
*
22
10
16
16
9%
**
**
**
26%
92%
8%
10%
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Online gaming
11
**
**
**
80
310
30
29
**
**
**
311
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
10%
**
**
**
25%
27%
31%
23%
**
**
**
28%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
24%
91%
9%
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Watching DVDs/ Blu Ray DVDs
10
**
**
**
76
299
20
40
**
**
**
279
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
9%
**
**
**
24%
26%
20%
32%
**
**
**
25%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
24%
94%
6%
13%
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Watching catch-up TV e.g. programmes on BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, Sky Player
8
**
**
**
38
185
12
26
**
**
**
172
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
**
**
**
12%
16%
12%
21%
**
**
**
15%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
19%
94%
6%
13%
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Browsing the web/ internet
8
**
**
**
41
164
15
20
**
**
**
159
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
7%
**
**
**
13%
14%
15%
16%
**
**
**
14%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5%
**
**
**
23%
92%
9%
11%
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Watching video clips online - e.g. on YouTube
6
**
**
**
29
111
9
22
**
**
**
98
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
6%
**
**
**
9%
10%
9%
17%
**
**
**
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
l
5%
**
**
**
24%
93%
7%
18%
**
**
**
82%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Watching 'live' TV programmes/ content
4
**
**
**
15
77
9
11
**
**
**
75
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
5%
7%
9%
9%
**
**
**
7%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
18%
89%
11%
13%
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qb4 (Qb5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use Your Games Console For? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who have access to a games console at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
*b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
*k
l
*m
~n
~o
~p
*q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
175
55
10
65
558
1851
104
227
26
28
52
1731
47
4
10
4
38
9
25
22
Effective Weighted Sample
126
38
6
43
376
1269
88
149
15
18
38
1204
37
3
7
3
33
8
19
18
Total
108
30
5
36
320
1135
100
124
12
17
24
1118
33
1
2
*
22
10
16
16
9%
**
**
**
26%
92%
8%
10%
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Other
1
**
**
**
-
2
-
*
**
**
**
1
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
-%
*%
-%
*%
**
**
**
*%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
65%
**
**
**
-%
100%
-%
27%
**
**
**
75%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
WATCHING VIDEO CONTENT
18
**
**
**
91
373
25
49
**
**
**
351
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
17%
**
**
**
29%
33%
25%
39%
**
**
**
31%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5%
**
**
**
23%
94%
6%
12%
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
IPTV
10
**
**
**
41
201
14
28
**
**
**
189
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
9%
**
**
**
13%
18%
14%
22%
**
**
**
17%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5%
**
**
**
19%
93%
7%
13%
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
None of these
73
**
**
**
175
580
52
59
**
**
**
577
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
67%
**
**
**
55%
51%
52%
48%
**
**
**
52%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
11%
**
**
**
28%
91%
8%
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
7
**
**
**
9
38
2
6
**
**
**
35
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
7%
**
**
**
3%
3%
2%
5%
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
18%
**
**
**
23%
92%
4%
15%
**
**
**
85%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qb5 (Qb6) Does Your Household'S E-Reader (Digital Book Reader) Have Built-In 3G Access To A Mobile Network? This Means That Books Can Be Purchased Online And Downloaded From Anywhere With A Signal, Without The Need For A Wi-Fi Connection?
Base : Those who personally use an e-reader/ digital book reader
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
*e
f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
75
26
2
28
66
350
9
27
-
4
5
333
22
2
3
1
11
11
15
7
Effective Weighted Sample
52
15
2
17
42
247
8
19
-
2
4
235
16
2
2
1
10
9
13
6
Total
44
16
2
17
39
226
8
17
-
1
3
217
16
*
1
*
5
11
8
8
**
**
**
**
**
97%
**
**
-%
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Yes
**
**
**
**
**
120
**
**
-
**
**
110
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
53%
**
**
-%
**
**
51%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
97%
**
**
-%
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
No
**
**
**
**
**
83
**
**
-
**
**
85
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
37%
**
**
-%
**
**
39%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
95%
**
**
-%
**
**
97%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
**
23
**
**
-
**
**
23
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
10%
**
**
-%
**
**
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
**
-%
**
**
97%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qc1. Is There A Landline Phone In Your Home That Can Be Used To Make And Receive Calls? (Single Code) Prompted
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Can use to make and receive
calls
317
191
184
375
688
1722
150
286
40
51
101
1590
319
30
17
**
140
179
157
162
92%
94%
97%
95%
79%
84%
77%
86%
93%
96%
89%
83%
96%
96%
93%
**
95%
96%
98%
93%
a
a
g
l
hl
l
t
17%
10%
10%
20%
37%
92%
8%
15%
2%
3%
5%
85%
17%
2%
1%
**
7%
10%
8%
9%
Can receive but not make calls/ incoming only
3
2
1
3
7
18
2
1
*
*
*
20
3
-
1
**
2
1
1
2
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
*%
*%
1%
*%
1%
1%
-%
4%
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
16%
11%
6%
17%
33%
86%
9%
4%
1%
2%
2%
96%
14%
-%
3%
**
8%
5%
5%
8%
Line not working properly/ needs to be repaired
*
*
-
*
3
6
-
2
*
-
*
3
-
-
*
**
-
-
-
-
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
*%
-%
1%
*%
-%
*%
*%
-%
-%
1%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
m
2%
6%
-%
6%
61%
100%
-%
39%
1%
-%
6%
58%
-%
-%
4%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
No, do not have landline phone
26
10
4
15
169
309
43
45
3
2
11
308
12
1
*
**
6
6
2
10
7%
5%
2%
4%
19%
15%
22%
13%
7%
4%
10%
16%
4%
4%
2%
**
4%
3%
1%
6%
cd
f
j
ijk
s
7%
3%
1%
4%
48%
88%
12%
13%
1%
1%
3%
87%
3%
*%
*%
**
2%
2%
1%
3%
Don't know
-
-
-
-
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
*%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
100%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
HOUSEHOLD PHONE OWNERSHIP FIXED ONLY
16
23
69
92
108
115
4
52
15
14
21
66
72
13
6
**
26
46
31
41
4%
11%
37%
23%
12%
6%
2%
16%
34%
26%
19%
3%
22%
40%
31%
**
18%
24%
19%
24%
a
abd
ab
l
hkl
hl
l
mp
13%
19%
58%
77%
90%
96%
4%
43%
12%
11%
18%
55%
60%
11%
5%
**
22%
38%
26%
34%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QC1. Is there a landline phone in your home that can be used to make and receive calls? (SINGLE CODE) PROMPTED
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
FIXED & MOBILE
305
171
115
287
590
1631
148
238
26
37
80
1547
250
18
12
**
115
135
127
122
88%
84%
61%
73%
68%
79%
76%
71%
59%
71%
71%
80%
75%
56%
67%
**
78%
72%
79%
70%
cd
cd
c
hijk
n
n
t
17%
10%
6%
16%
33%
91%
8%
13%
1%
2%
5%
87%
14%
1%
1%
**
6%
8%
7%
7%
MOBILE ONLY
22
10
3
13
157
296
43
39
3
2
9
301
11
1
*
**
5
6
2
9
6%
5%
1%
3%
18%
14%
22%
12%
6%
3%
8%
16%
3%
4%
2%
**
3%
3%
1%
5%
cd
c
f
j
hijk
s
7%
3%
1%
4%
46%
87%
13%
11%
1%
*%
3%
89%
3%
*%
*%
**
1%
2%
1%
3%
ALL FIXED
321
194
185
379
698
1746
152
290
40
51
102
1613
322
30
18
**
141
180
158
163
93%
95%
98%
96%
80%
85%
78%
87%
93%
96%
90%
84%
96%
96%
98%
**
96%
97%
99%
94%
a
a
g
l
hl
l
t
17%
10%
10%
20%
37%
92%
8%
15%
2%
3%
5%
85%
17%
2%
1%
**
7%
9%
8%
9%
ALL MOBILE
328
181
118
299
747
1927
191
276
28
39
90
1848
260
19
13
**
120
141
129
131
95%
89%
62%
76%
86%
94%
98%
83%
66%
74%
79%
96%
78%
60%
69%
**
82%
75%
81%
75%
bcd
cd
c
f
i
i
hijk
n
n
15%
9%
6%
14%
35%
91%
9%
13%
1%
2%
4%
87%
12%
1%
1%
**
6%
7%
6%
6%
NEITHER
3
-
2
2
13
14
-
6
*
*
2
8
1
-
-
**
1
1
-
1
1%
-%
1%
*%
2%
1%
-%
2%
*%
*%
2%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
*%
*%
-%
1%
l
l
24%
-%
12%
12%
95%
100%
-%
42%
1%
1%
15%
56%
11%
-%
-%
**
5%
6%
-%
11%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qc2 (Qc2A). Do You Ever Use This Landline Phone At Home Yourself To Make And/Or Receive Calls, For Internet Access Or Both? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with a landline phone at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
549
421
330
751
1304
3010
162
592
94
114
217
2585
461
98
106
86
243
218
232
229
Effective Weighted Sample
383
247
219
465
850
2049
140
386
61
70
153
1795
361
60
64
71
212
169
181
181
Total
321
194
185
379
698
1746
152
290
40
51
102
1613
322
30
18
8
141
180
158
163
17%
10%
10%
20%
37%
92%
8%
15%
**
3%
5%
85%
17%
**
1%
**
7%
9%
8%
9%
Yes to make calls
310
186
183
369
663
1642
145
279
**
50
99
1511
313
**
18
**
138
175
154
158
97%
96%
99%
97%
95%
94%
95%
97%
**
98%
97%
94%
97%
**
97%
**
98%
97%
97%
97%
b
l
17%
10%
10%
21%
37%
92%
8%
16%
**
3%
6%
84%
17%
**
1%
**
8%
10%
9%
9%
Yes to receive calls
305
183
180
363
651
1621
145
275
**
50
98
1495
308
**
17
**
137
171
154
154
95%
95%
97%
96%
93%
93%
95%
95%
**
98%
96%
93%
96%
**
96%
**
97%
95%
97%
94%
17%
10%
10%
21%
37%
92%
8%
16%
**
3%
6%
84%
17%
**
1%
**
8%
10%
9%
9%
Yes for internet access
170
89
32
121
292
984
96
104
**
13
30
982
112
**
4
**
57
55
71
41
53%
46%
17%
32%
42%
56%
63%
36%
**
26%
29%
61%
35%
**
20%
**
41%
30%
45%
25%
cd
cd
c
hijk
nop
rt
rt
16%
8%
3%
11%
27%
91%
9%
10%
**
1%
3%
91%
10%
**
*%
**
5%
5%
7%
4%
TOTAL PERSONALLY USE
317
190
184
374
681
1704
150
285
**
50
100
1574
317
**
18
**
139
177
156
161
99%
98%
100%
99%
98%
98%
99%
98%
**
99%
98%
98%
98%
**
100%
**
99%
98%
99%
98%
17%
10%
10%
20%
37%
92%
8%
15%
**
3%
5%
85%
17%
**
1%
**
7%
10%
8%
9%
No do not use landline at home
4
4
1
5
17
41
2
5
**
1
2
38
5
**
-
**
2
3
2
3
1%
2%
*%
1%
2%
2%
1%
2%
**
1%
2%
2%
2%
**
-%
**
1%
2%
1%
2%
10%
10%
2%
12%
39%
96%
4%
11%
**
1%
4%
88%
12%
**
-%
**
5%
7%
5%
7%
Don't know
-
-
-
-
1
1
-
-
**
-
-
1
-
**
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
*%
-%
**
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
87%
100%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
100%
-%
**
-%
**
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qc3 (Qc28). Showcard Which Of These Do You Consider To Be Your Main Method Of Making And Receiving Telephone Calls? (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Mobile phone
98
29
5
34
327
1007
127
116
10
10
22
1029
29
2
2
**
16
13
12
17
28%
14%
3%
9%
38%
49%
65%
35%
23%
18%
19%
54%
9%
5%
11%
**
11%
7%
8%
10%
bcd
cd
c
f
jk
hijk
9%
3%
*%
3%
29%
88%
11%
10%
1%
1%
2%
90%
3%
*%
*%
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
Landline phone at home
228
167
176
344
501
968
62
201
31
40
84
825
293
29
15
**
125
168
142
151
66%
82%
93%
87%
58%
47%
32%
60%
71%
75%
74%
43%
88%
91%
80%
**
85%
90%
89%
87%
a
abd
ab
g
l
l
hl
hl
p
p
22%
16%
17%
33%
49%
94%
6%
20%
3%
4%
8%
80%
29%
3%
1%
**
12%
16%
14%
15%
Landline phone at work
14
6
6
12
19
50
5
10
2
3
5
45
10
1
1
**
5
4
6
4
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
3%
3%
5%
6%
4%
2%
3%
2%
6%
**
4%
2%
4%
2%
l
26%
11%
11%
22%
35%
92%
10%
18%
4%
6%
9%
82%
18%
1%
2%
**
10%
8%
11%
7%
Other
6
1
1
2
16
22
-
7
*
1
2
15
1
-
1
**
1
*
*
1
2%
*%
1%
*%
2%
1%
-%
2%
*%
1%
2%
1%
*%
-%
3%
**
*%
*%
*%
*%
l
m
m
25%
4%
4%
8%
71%
100%
-%
31%
*%
2%
10%
67%
5%
-%
2%
**
3%
1%
1%
3%
Don't know
1
1
1
2
5
8
1
*
*
-
*
9
1
1
-
**
1
1
-
1
*%
1%
1%
1%
1%
*%
*%
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
*%
2%
-%
**
*%
*%
-%
1%
m
14%
14%
11%
25%
59%
85%
8%
1%
1%
-%
1%
99%
15%
6%
-%
**
6%
9%
-%
15%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qc4 (Qc28A). Showcard And Thinking About When You Are At Home, Which Is Your Main Method Of Making And Receiving Telephone Calls? (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Landline phone at home
257
177
180
357
536
1122
76
219
33
42
89
976
303
30
16
**
133
170
149
154
74%
87%
95%
91%
62%
55%
39%
65%
77%
80%
79%
51%
91%
95%
87%
**
91%
91%
93%
89%
a
abd
a
g
l
l
hl
hl
p
p
21%
15%
15%
30%
45%
94%
6%
18%
3%
4%
7%
82%
25%
3%
1%
**
11%
14%
12%
13%
Mobile phone
82
24
5
29
305
898
119
106
9
8
22
920
25
2
2
**
13
12
9
15
24%
12%
3%
7%
35%
44%
61%
32%
20%
16%
19%
48%
7%
5%
10%
**
9%
7%
6%
9%
bcd
cd
c
f
jk
hijk
8%
2%
*%
3%
30%
88%
12%
10%
1%
1%
2%
90%
2%
*%
*%
**
1%
1%
1%
2%
Other
6
3
3
6
21
29
-
9
1
2
3
20
5
-
1
**
1
4
1
3
2%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
-%
3%
3%
3%
2%
1%
1%
-%
3%
**
*%
2%
1%
2%
l
22%
9%
11%
19%
70%
100%
-%
32%
5%
6%
9%
67%
16%
-%
2%
**
2%
14%
4%
12%
Don't know
1
1
1
2
7
7
-
1
*
*
*
7
1
-
-
**
1
1
*
1
*%
*%
*%
*%
1%
*%
-%
*%
*%
*%
*%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
*%
*%
*%
*%
m
15%
12%
9%
21%
87%
92%
-%
9%
1%
2%
1%
90%
16%
-%
-%
**
7%
9%
6%
10%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qc5 (Qc21B). Showcard Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Supplier? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a landline phone at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
549
421
330
751
1304
3010
162
592
94
114
217
2585
461
98
106
86
243
218
232
229
Effective Weighted Sample
383
247
219
465
850
2049
140
386
61
70
153
1795
361
60
64
71
212
169
181
181
Total
321
194
185
379
698
1746
152
290
40
51
102
1613
322
30
18
8
141
180
158
163
17%
10%
10%
20%
37%
92%
8%
15%
**
3%
5%
85%
17%
**
1%
**
7%
9%
8%
9%
BT
155
101
137
239
367
827
67
161
**
32
57
735
196
**
13
**
84
112
96
100
48%
52%
74%
63%
53%
47%
44%
56%
**
62%
56%
46%
61%
**
72%
**
60%
62%
61%
61%
abd
ab
l
l
l
m
m
17%
11%
15%
27%
41%
92%
7%
18%
**
4%
6%
82%
22%
**
1%
**
9%
12%
11%
11%
Virgin Media (including NTL and Telewest)
67
22
12
34
104
314
33
41
**
5
13
307
30
**
2
**
12
19
14
16
21%
11%
6%
9%
15%
18%
22%
14%
**
11%
13%
19%
9%
**
10%
**
8%
10%
9%
10%
bcd
h
19%
6%
3%
10%
30%
90%
9%
12%
**
2%
4%
88%
9%
**
1%
**
3%
5%
4%
5%
Talk Talk/ Carphone Warehouse
43
36
15
51
93
224
26
41
**
7
16
210
47
**
2
**
19
28
27
21
13%
19%
8%
13%
13%
13%
17%
14%
**
14%
15%
13%
15%
**
10%
**
14%
16%
17%
13%
c
c
c
n
17%
15%
6%
20%
37%
89%
10%
16%
**
3%
6%
84%
19%
**
1%
**
8%
11%
11%
8%
SkyTalk
30
8
3
11
58
230
19
21
**
2
5
230
9
**
1
**
8
1
4
5
9%
4%
2%
3%
8%
13%
13%
7%
**
4%
5%
14%
3%
**
3%
**
5%
1%
2%
3%
bcd
hjk
r
12%
3%
1%
4%
23%
92%
8%
8%
**
1%
2%
92%
4%
**
*%
**
3%
1%
2%
2%
Post Office
9
4
5
9
12
22
-
6
**
1
3
16
7
**
-
**
3
3
4
3
3%
2%
3%
2%
2%
1%
-%
2%
**
2%
3%
1%
2%
**
-%
**
2%
2%
2%
2%
l
o
39%
16%
24%
41%
54%
100%
-%
25%
**
5%
14%
74%
31%
**
-%
**
15%
16%
17%
14%
Other
16
19
10
29
48
90
4
15
**
4
5
80
27
**
1
**
14
13
12
15
5%
10%
5%
8%
7%
5%
3%
5%
**
7%
5%
5%
8%
**
3%
**
10%
7%
8%
9%
a
17%
20%
10%
30%
50%
95%
4%
16%
**
4%
5%
84%
29%
**
1%
**
15%
14%
13%
16%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qc5 (Qc21B). Showcard Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Supplier? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a landline phone at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
549
421
330
751
1304
3010
162
592
94
114
217
2585
461
98
106
86
243
218
232
229
Effective Weighted Sample
383
247
219
465
850
2049
140
386
61
70
153
1795
361
60
64
71
212
169
181
181
Total
321
194
185
379
698
1746
152
290
40
51
102
1613
322
30
18
8
141
180
158
163
17%
10%
10%
20%
37%
92%
8%
15%
**
3%
5%
85%
17%
**
1%
**
7%
9%
8%
9%
Don't know
1
4
3
7
16
38
3
5
**
-
3
35
5
**
*
**
1
3
1
3
*%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
**
-%
3%
2%
1%
**
2%
**
1%
2%
1%
2%
a
a
a
mp
1%
10%
7%
18%
41%
94%
7%
12%
**
-%
8%
87%
11%
**
1%
**
3%
9%
3%
8%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qc6A (Qc13A). Showcard Thinking About Your Home Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With The Overall Service Provided By (Main Supplier). (Single Code)
Base : Those with a landline phone at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
549
421
330
751
1304
3010
162
592
94
114
217
2585
461
98
106
86
243
218
232
229
Effective Weighted Sample
383
247
219
465
850
2049
140
386
61
70
153
1795
361
60
64
71
212
169
181
181
Total
321
194
185
379
698
1746
152
290
40
51
102
1613
322
30
18
8
141
180
158
163
17%
10%
10%
20%
37%
92%
8%
15%
**
3%
5%
85%
17%
**
1%
**
7%
9%
8%
9%
Base for %
319
193
183
377
693
1728
152
287
40
50
101
1597
321
29
18
8
141
180
158
163
17%
10%
10%
20%
37%
92%
8%
15%
**
3%
5%
85%
17%
**
1%
**
7%
10%
8%
9%
Very satisfied
182
117
124
240
415
979
70
152
**
28
56
897
205
**
9
**
83
122
100
105
57%
60%
67%
64%
60%
57%
46%
53%
**
56%
56%
56%
64%
**
50%
**
59%
68%
63%
64%
a
a
g
o
op
17%
11%
12%
23%
40%
93%
7%
14%
**
3%
5%
86%
20%
**
1%
**
8%
12%
10%
10%
Fairly satisfied
107
56
48
105
211
565
67
96
**
15
31
539
89
**
7
**
42
47
43
45
33%
29%
26%
28%
30%
33%
45%
34%
**
30%
30%
34%
28%
**
37%
**
30%
26%
27%
28%
f
n
17%
9%
8%
16%
33%
89%
11%
15%
**
2%
5%
85%
14%
**
1%
**
7%
7%
7%
7%
TOTAL SATISFIED
289
173
172
345
626
1543
137
248
**
43
87
1437
294
**
16
**
125
169
144
150
91%
89%
94%
91%
90%
89%
90%
86%
**
86%
86%
90%
91%
**
87%
**
89%
94%
91%
92%
h
17%
10%
10%
20%
37%
92%
8%
15%
**
3%
5%
85%
17%
**
1%
**
7%
10%
9%
9%
Neither
15
10
5
15
26
91
7
13
**
3
7
83
13
**
1
**
7
5
6
7
5%
5%
3%
4%
4%
5%
4%
5%
**
6%
7%
5%
4%
**
7%
**
5%
3%
4%
4%
15%
10%
5%
15%
27%
94%
7%
14%
**
3%
7%
86%
13%
**
1%
**
8%
6%
6%
7%
Fairly dissatisfied
8
3
4
7
19
53
4
13
**
1
4
45
6
**
1
**
4
2
5
2
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
5%
**
2%
4%
3%
2%
**
3%
**
3%
1%
3%
1%
13%
5%
7%
12%
33%
92%
8%
23%
**
1%
7%
78%
11%
**
1%
**
6%
4%
8%
3%
Very dissatisfied
8
8
2
10
22
41
3
13
**
3
3
32
8
**
1
**
5
3
5
4
2%
4%
1%
3%
3%
2%
2%
5%
**
7%
3%
2%
3%
**
4%
**
4%
2%
3%
2%
l
l
17%
17%
5%
22%
49%
92%
8%
30%
**
7%
7%
72%
19%
**
1%
**
11%
8%
10%
9%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qc6A (Qc13A). Showcard Thinking About Your Home Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With The Overall Service Provided By (Main Supplier). (Single Code)
Base : Those with a landline phone at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
549
421
330
751
1304
3010
162
592
94
114
217
2585
461
98
106
86
243
218
232
229
Effective Weighted Sample
383
247
219
465
850
2049
140
386
61
70
153
1795
361
60
64
71
212
169
181
181
Total
321
194
185
379
698
1746
152
290
40
51
102
1613
322
30
18
8
141
180
158
163
17%
10%
10%
20%
37%
92%
8%
15%
**
3%
5%
85%
17%
**
1%
**
7%
9%
8%
9%
TOTAL DISSATISFIED
15
11
7
17
41
94
8
26
**
4
7
77
15
**
1
**
9
6
9
6
5%
6%
4%
5%
6%
5%
5%
9%
**
8%
7%
5%
5%
**
6%
**
6%
3%
6%
3%
l
15%
10%
6%
17%
40%
92%
8%
26%
**
4%
7%
75%
14%
**
1%
**
9%
6%
9%
5%
Don't know
2
*
1
2
5
17
1
2
**
1
1
16
1
**
*
**
1
-
-
1
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QD1. How many mobile phones IN TOTAL do you AND members of your household use? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
One
(1.0)
90
73
87
160
304
470
33
109
13
14
50
391
135
12
8
**
52
83
54
81
26%
36%
46%
41%
35%
23%
17%
33%
31%
26%
44%
20%
40%
37%
43%
**
35%
45%
34%
47%
a
ab
a
l
l
hjl
s
qs
18%
15%
17%
32%
60%
94%
7%
22%
3%
3%
10%
78%
27%
2%
2%
**
10%
17%
11%
16%
Two
(2.0)
163
87
26
113
279
770
67
93
7
13
28
743
100
7
4
**
53
46
59
41
47%
43%
14%
29%
32%
37%
34%
28%
17%
25%
25%
39%
30%
22%
23%
**
36%
25%
37%
23%
cd
cd
c
hijk
rt
rt
20%
10%
3%
14%
33%
92%
8%
11%
1%
2%
3%
89%
12%
1%
1%
**
6%
6%
7%
5%
Three
(3.0)
46
17
3
19
103
365
42
40
4
3
7
372
18
*
1
**
10
8
11
7
13%
8%
1%
5%
12%
18%
22%
12%
10%
6%
6%
19%
6%
*%
3%
**
7%
5%
7%
4%
bcd
c
c
k
hjk
11%
4%
1%
5%
25%
89%
10%
10%
1%
1%
2%
91%
4%
*%
*%
**
2%
2%
3%
2%
Four or more
(4.0)
28
5
2
7
62
322
48
34
4
9
5
342
7
-
-
**
5
2
5
2
8%
2%
1%
2%
7%
16%
25%
10%
8%
16%
4%
18%
2%
-%
-%
**
3%
1%
3%
1%
bcd
f
k
k
hik
8%
1%
1%
2%
17%
86%
13%
9%
1%
2%
1%
92%
2%
-%
-%
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
None
(0.0)
19
23
71
94
120
128
4
58
15
14
23
73
74
13
6
**
27
46
31
43
5%
11%
38%
24%
14%
6%
2%
17%
34%
26%
21%
4%
22%
40%
31%
**
18%
25%
19%
25%
a
abd
ab
g
l
hkl
l
l
mp
14%
17%
54%
71%
91%
96%
3%
44%
11%
10%
17%
55%
56%
10%
4%
**
21%
35%
23%
32%
Don't know
-
-
-
-
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
*%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
86%
100%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Mean mobiles in household
1.9
1.5
.8
1.2
1.6
2.1
2.5
1.7
1.3
1.6
1.3
2.3
1.3
.8
1.0
**
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.1
bcd
cd
c
f
ik
k
hijk
no
n
rt
rt
Standard deviation
.97
.88
.81
.92
1.09
1.12
1.10
1.19
1.27
1.38
1.00
1.09
.93
.79
.84
**
.98
.88
.98
.87
Standard error
.04
.04
.04
.03
.03
.02
.08
.05
.13
.13
.06
.02
.04
.08
.08
**
.06
.06
.06
.06
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QD1. How many mobile phones IN TOTAL do you AND members of your household use? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
HOUSEHOLD PHONE OWNERSHIP FIXED ONLY
16
23
69
92
108
115
4
52
15
14
21
66
72
13
6
**
26
46
31
41
4%
11%
37%
23%
12%
6%
2%
16%
34%
26%
19%
3%
22%
40%
31%
**
18%
24%
19%
24%
a
abd
ab
l
hkl
hl
l
mp
13%
19%
58%
77%
90%
96%
4%
43%
12%
11%
18%
55%
60%
11%
5%
**
22%
38%
26%
34%
FIXED & MOBILE
305
171
115
287
590
1631
148
238
26
37
80
1547
250
18
12
**
115
135
127
122
88%
84%
61%
73%
68%
79%
76%
71%
59%
71%
71%
80%
75%
56%
67%
**
78%
72%
79%
70%
cd
cd
c
hijk
n
n
t
17%
10%
6%
16%
33%
91%
8%
13%
1%
2%
5%
87%
14%
1%
1%
**
6%
8%
7%
7%
MOBILE ONLY
22
10
3
13
157
296
43
39
3
2
9
301
11
1
*
**
5
6
2
9
6%
5%
1%
3%
18%
14%
22%
12%
6%
3%
8%
16%
3%
4%
2%
**
3%
3%
1%
5%
cd
c
f
j
hijk
s
7%
3%
1%
4%
46%
87%
13%
11%
1%
*%
3%
89%
3%
*%
*%
**
1%
2%
1%
3%
ALL FIXED
321
194
185
379
698
1746
152
290
40
51
102
1613
322
30
18
**
141
180
158
163
93%
95%
98%
96%
80%
85%
78%
87%
93%
96%
90%
84%
96%
96%
98%
**
96%
97%
99%
94%
a
a
g
l
hl
l
t
17%
10%
10%
20%
37%
92%
8%
15%
2%
3%
5%
85%
17%
2%
1%
**
7%
9%
8%
9%
ALL MOBILE
328
181
118
299
747
1927
191
276
28
39
90
1848
260
19
13
**
120
141
129
131
95%
89%
62%
76%
86%
94%
98%
83%
66%
74%
79%
96%
78%
60%
69%
**
82%
75%
81%
75%
bcd
cd
c
f
i
i
hijk
n
n
15%
9%
6%
14%
35%
91%
9%
13%
1%
2%
4%
87%
12%
1%
1%
**
6%
7%
6%
6%
NEITHER
3
-
2
2
13
14
-
6
*
*
2
8
1
-
-
**
1
1
-
1
1%
-%
1%
*%
2%
1%
-%
2%
*%
*%
2%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
*%
*%
-%
1%
l
l
24%
-%
12%
12%
95%
100%
-%
42%
1%
1%
15%
56%
11%
-%
-%
**
5%
6%
-%
11%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QD2. Do you personally use a mobile phone? How many mobile phones with different telephone numbers do you use at least once a month? Please include any phones used for work or other purposes. (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
No
(0.0)
11
12
19
31
45
48
3
13
1
1
6
36
26
3
1
**
8
18
10
16
3%
6%
10%
8%
5%
2%
1%
4%
2%
2%
5%
2%
8%
10%
5%
**
5%
9%
6%
9%
a
a
l
l
23%
24%
38%
62%
90%
95%
5%
27%
2%
2%
12%
72%
52%
6%
2%
**
16%
36%
20%
31%
1
(1.0)
300
162
99
260
675
1762
179
248
23
36
83
1699
227
16
12
**
107
120
116
111
87%
79%
52%
66%
78%
86%
92%
74%
54%
68%
73%
88%
68%
50%
63%
**
73%
64%
72%
64%
bcd
cd
c
f
i
i
hijk
n
t
15%
8%
5%
13%
35%
91%
9%
13%
1%
2%
4%
87%
12%
1%
1%
**
6%
6%
6%
6%
2
(2.0)
15
7
*
8
24
103
10
13
4
2
1
101
7
-
*
**
4
3
2
5
4%
4%
*%
2%
3%
5%
5%
4%
10%
3%
1%
5%
2%
-%
2%
**
3%
2%
2%
3%
cd
c
hk
k
13%
6%
*%
7%
21%
91%
9%
11%
4%
2%
1%
89%
6%
-%
*%
**
4%
3%
2%
4%
3
(3.0)
1
*
-
*
2
12
-
1
-
-
*
10
*
-
-
**
*
-
*
-
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
1%
-%
*%
-%
-%
*%
1%
*%
-%
-%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
9%
4%
-%
4%
15%
100%
-%
13%
-%
-%
*%
89%
4%
-%
-%
**
4%
-%
4%
-%
4 or more
(4.0)
1
-
-
-
2
2
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
*%
-%
-%
-%
*%
*%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
26%
-%
-%
-%
71%
100%
-%
48%
-%
-%
-%
55%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
No mobiles in household (0.0)
19
23
71
94
121
129
4
58
15
14
23
74
74
13
6
**
27
46
31
43
5%
11%
38%
24%
14%
6%
2%
17%
34%
26%
21%
4%
22%
40%
31%
**
18%
25%
19%
25%
a
abd
ab
g
l
hkl
l
l
mp
14%
17%
53%
70%
91%
96%
3%
43%
11%
10%
17%
56%
55%
10%
4%
**
20%
35%
23%
32%
Mean mobiles used
1.0
.9
.5
.7
.8
1.0
1.0
.8
.7
.8
.8
1.0
.7
.5
.7
**
.8
.7
.8
.7
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
n
n
rt
Standard deviation
.40
.45
.50
.50
.47
.41
.29
.52
.64
.51
.46
.37
.50
.51
.52
**
.49
.50
.48
.52
Standard error
.02
.02
.03
.02
.01
.01
.02
.02
.06
.05
.03
.01
.02
.05
.05
**
.03
.03
.03
.03
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QD2. Do you personally use a mobile phone? How many mobile phones with different telephone numbers do you use at least once a month? Please include any phones used for work or other purposes. (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
PERSONALLY USE MOBILE Yes
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
**
112
123
119
115
91%
83%
52%
68%
81%
91%
97%
79%
64%
72%
74%
94%
70%
50%
64%
**
76%
66%
74%
66%
bcd
cd
c
f
i
hijk
n
n
rt
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
1%
2%
4%
87%
11%
1%
1%
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
No
30
35
90
125
165
175
7
71
16
15
29
109
99
16
7
**
35
64
41
58
9%
17%
48%
32%
19%
9%
3%
21%
36%
28%
26%
6%
30%
50%
36%
**
24%
34%
26%
34%
a
abd
ab
g
l
hl
l
l
mp
q
q
17%
19%
49%
68%
90%
96%
4%
39%
9%
8%
16%
60%
54%
9%
4%
**
19%
35%
23%
32%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd3 (Qd10). Which Mobile Network Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
O2 (formerly BTCellnet)
83
31
17
47
165
501
40
64
**
**
16
477
38
**
**
**
19
19
20
18
26%
18%
17%
18%
24%
27%
21%
24%
**
**
19%
26%
16%
**
**
**
17%
15%
17%
15%
bcd
mo
mno
15%
6%
3%
9%
31%
93%
7%
12%
**
**
3%
88%
7%
**
**
**
3%
4%
4%
3%
Orange
72
44
30
74
164
437
29
67
**
**
18
396
64
**
**
**
30
34
33
32
23%
26%
31%
28%
23%
23%
15%
25%
**
**
22%
22%
27%
**
**
**
27%
28%
28%
27%
g
p
mnp
16%
9%
7%
16%
35%
94%
6%
14%
**
**
4%
85%
14%
**
**
**
6%
7%
7%
7%
Vodafone
64
25
18
42
111
366
27
44
**
**
12
351
37
**
**
**
19
18
22
15
20%
15%
18%
16%
16%
20%
14%
17%
**
**
15%
19%
16%
**
**
**
17%
15%
19%
13%
16%
6%
5%
11%
28%
93%
7%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
10%
**
**
**
5%
5%
6%
4%
TMobile (formerly One2One)
28
19
8
27
85
192
53
25
**
**
10
229
25
**
**
**
13
12
13
12
9%
11%
8%
10%
12%
10%
28%
9%
**
**
12%
13%
11%
**
**
**
11%
10%
11%
11%
f
p
p
11%
8%
3%
11%
34%
76%
21%
10%
**
**
4%
91%
10%
**
**
**
5%
5%
5%
5%
'3'
13
4
-
4
45
121
25
13
**
**
4
134
3
**
**
**
3
*
2
1
4%
2%
-%
1%
6%
6%
14%
5%
**
**
5%
7%
1%
**
**
**
2%
*%
1%
1%
cd
f
9%
2%
-%
2%
31%
83%
17%
9%
**
**
3%
91%
2%
**
**
**
2%
*%
1%
1%
Virgin Media/ Any Virgin
33
14
5
19
44
118
5
17
**
**
7
106
17
**
**
**
10
7
8
9
10%
8%
5%
7%
6%
6%
3%
7%
**
**
8%
6%
7%
**
**
**
9%
6%
7%
8%
hl
27%
12%
4%
15%
36%
96%
4%
14%
**
**
5%
86%
14%
**
**
**
8%
6%
7%
7%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd3 (Qd10). Which Mobile Network Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Tesco
16
17
6
23
46
89
2
16
**
**
7
75
20
**
**
**
9
12
8
13
5%
10%
6%
9%
7%
5%
1%
6%
**
**
8%
4%
9%
**
**
**
8%
10%
6%
11%
a
g
l
l
18%
19%
6%
25%
50%
98%
3%
18%
**
**
7%
82%
22%
**
**
**
9%
13%
8%
14%
Other
3
6
3
9
16
28
4
6
**
**
3
27
8
**
**
**
3
5
3
5
1%
4%
3%
3%
2%
1%
2%
2%
**
**
3%
1%
3%
**
**
**
3%
4%
2%
5%
a
a
9%
19%
8%
27%
50%
88%
12%
18%
**
**
8%
83%
26%
**
**
**
10%
15%
9%
17%
Don't know
4
9
13
23
26
26
3
11
**
**
6
17
21
**
**
**
6
15
11
10
1%
6%
13%
8%
4%
1%
1%
4%
**
**
7%
1%
9%
**
**
**
5%
12%
9%
9%
a
ab
a
l
l
q
13%
33%
46%
79%
92%
92%
10%
39%
**
**
21%
61%
74%
**
**
**
21%
53%
38%
35%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd4 (Qd24B). Do You Personally Use A Smartphone? If Unsure - A Smartphone Is A Phone On Which You Can Easily Access Emails, Download Files And Applications, As Well As View Websites And Generally Surf The Internet. Popular Brands Of Smartphone Include Blackberry, Iphone And Android Phones Such As The Htc Desire.
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Yes
66
13
1
13
180
784
97
78
**
**
10
807
12
**
**
**
11
1
7
4
21%
7%
1%
5%
26%
42%
52%
30%
**
**
12%
45%
5%
**
**
**
9%
1%
6%
4%
bcd
c
c
f
k
k
hijk
rt
r
7%
1%
*%
2%
20%
89%
11%
9%
**
**
1%
91%
1%
**
**
**
1%
*%
1%
*%
No
250
155
98
253
520
1090
90
184
**
**
73
999
221
**
**
**
101
120
110
111
79%
92%
99%
94%
74%
58%
48%
70%
**
**
88%
55%
94%
**
**
**
91%
98%
92%
96%
a
abd
a
g
l
l
l
hjl
qs
q
21%
13%
8%
21%
44%
92%
8%
16%
**
**
6%
84%
19%
**
**
**
9%
10%
9%
9%
Don't know
1
2
*
2
3
5
1
*
**
**
-
6
2
**
**
**
-
2
2
-
*%
1%
*%
1%
*%
*%
*%
*%
**
**
-%
*%
1%
**
**
**
-%
1%
1%
-%
18%
26%
3%
29%
47%
88%
14%
4%
**
**
-%
96%
26%
**
**
**
-%
26%
26%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd5 (Qd39). Showcard Which Brand Or Type Of Smartphone Do You Have? If More Than One - Which One Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a smartphone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
95
30
3
33
300
1204
96
118
13
15
19
1184
21
3
6
3
20
1
14
7
Effective Weighted Sample
68
22
2
24
202
828
84
85
9
11
15
822
19
2
4
2
18
1
13
6
Total
66
13
1
13
180
784
97
78
7
11
10
807
12
1
1
*
11
1
7
4
**
**
**
**
20%
89%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Apple iPhone
**
**
**
**
40
276
**
23
**
**
**
287
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
22%
35%
**
30%
**
**
**
36%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
13%
89%
**
8%
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
BlackBerry
**
**
**
**
55
184
**
17
**
**
**
199
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
31%
23%
**
22%
**
**
**
25%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
26%
85%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
HTC
**
**
**
**
21
119
**
9
**
**
**
125
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
12%
15%
**
12%
**
**
**
15%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
16%
89%
**
7%
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Samsung
**
**
**
**
24
95
**
9
**
**
**
96
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
13%
12%
**
11%
**
**
**
12%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
23%
91%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Nokia
**
**
**
**
11
39
**
4
**
**
**
40
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
6%
5%
**
5%
**
**
**
5%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
24%
87%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Sony Ericsson
**
**
**
**
10
30
**
6
**
**
**
26
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
6%
4%
**
7%
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
l
**
**
**
**
32%
94%
**
19%
**
**
**
83%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
LG
**
**
**
**
7
13
**
2
**
**
**
12
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
2%
**
3%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
49%
96%
**
15%
**
**
**
85%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Other
**
**
**
**
9
22
**
7
**
**
**
16
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5%
3%
**
9%
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
l
**
**
**
**
39%
98%
**
30%
**
**
**
70%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd5 (Qd39). Showcard Which Brand Or Type Of Smartphone Do You Have? If More Than One - Which One Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a smartphone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
95
30
3
33
300
1204
96
118
13
15
19
1184
21
3
6
3
20
1
14
7
Effective Weighted Sample
68
22
2
24
202
828
84
85
9
11
15
822
19
2
4
2
18
1
13
6
Total
66
13
1
13
180
784
97
78
7
11
10
807
12
1
1
*
11
1
7
4
**
**
**
**
20%
89%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
4
7
**
1
**
**
**
7
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
1%
**
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
a
**
**
**
**
51%
89%
**
12%
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd6 (Qd40). Showcard And Which Operating System Is On Your Smartphone? This Means The Software Which Runs On Your Phone And Determines The Phone'S Appearance, Interaction And Functions. (Single Code)
Base : Those with a smartphone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
95
30
3
33
300
1204
96
118
13
15
19
1184
21
3
6
3
20
1
14
7
Effective Weighted Sample
68
22
2
24
202
828
84
85
9
11
15
822
19
2
4
2
18
1
13
6
Total
66
13
1
13
180
784
97
78
7
11
10
807
12
1
1
*
11
1
7
4
**
**
**
**
20%
89%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Apple iOS
**
**
**
**
37
263
**
23
**
**
**
273
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
20%
34%
**
30%
**
**
**
34%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
12%
89%
**
8%
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Android
**
**
**
**
58
244
**
23
**
**
**
244
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
32%
31%
**
29%
**
**
**
30%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
22%
92%
**
9%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
RIM BlackBerry OS
**
**
**
**
49
157
**
15
**
**
**
176
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
27%
20%
**
19%
**
**
**
22%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
f
**
**
**
**
26%
83%
**
8%
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Microsoft Windows
**
**
**
**
9
25
**
2
**
**
**
24
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5%
3%
**
3%
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
34%
94%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Symbian
**
**
**
**
2
9
**
2
**
**
**
11
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
1%
**
3%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
17%
73%
**
16%
**
**
**
86%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Other
**
**
**
**
5
12
**
5
**
**
**
9
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
2%
**
6%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
l
**
**
**
**
36%
91%
**
37%
**
**
**
64%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
20
73
**
8
**
**
**
70
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
11%
9%
**
11%
**
**
**
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
26%
93%
**
11%
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd7 (Qd11). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes The Mobile Package You Personally Use Most Often? (Single Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Prepay/ Pay as you go
186
134
90
223
489
864
78
169
**
**
63
771
193
**
**
**
83
111
90
103
59%
79%
91%
83%
70%
46%
41%
64%
**
**
75%
43%
82%
**
**
**
74%
90%
76%
89%
a
abd
a
l
l
l
hl
qs
qs
20%
14%
10%
24%
52%
92%
8%
18%
**
**
7%
82%
21%
**
**
**
9%
12%
10%
11%
Postpay/ monthly contract
127
34
8
42
209
1001
111
91
**
**
18
1030
38
**
**
**
27
11
27
11
40%
20%
8%
16%
30%
53%
59%
35%
**
**
22%
57%
16%
**
**
**
24%
9%
22%
10%
bcd
c
c
k
hijk
rt
rt
11%
3%
1%
4%
19%
90%
10%
8%
**
**
2%
92%
3%
**
**
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
Other
1
1
2
3
3
8
-
2
**
**
1
6
3
**
**
**
2
*
2
1
*%
1%
2%
1%
*%
*%
-%
1%
**
**
2%
*%
1%
**
**
**
2%
*%
1%
1%
l
l
11%
13%
19%
32%
32%
100%
-%
21%
**
**
17%
80%
32%
**
**
**
26%
6%
19%
13%
Don't know
2
1
-
1
2
5
-
1
**
**
1
5
1
**
**
**
-
1
1
-
1%
*%
-%
*%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
**
1%
*%
*%
**
**
**
-%
*%
*%
-%
39%
11%
-%
11%
40%
100%
-%
16%
**
**
16%
85%
11%
**
**
**
-%
11%
11%
-%
CONTRACT TYPE Subsidised handset
103
27
6
33
183
881
102
73
**
**
14
918
30
**
**
**
21
9
22
8
33%
16%
6%
12%
26%
47%
54%
28%
**
**
16%
51%
13%
**
**
**
19%
7%
18%
7%
bcd
c
k
hijk
rt
rt
10%
3%
1%
3%
19%
89%
10%
7%
**
**
1%
93%
3%
**
**
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
SIM only
22
6
2
8
23
110
7
18
**
**
5
100
7
**
**
**
5
2
5
2
7%
3%
2%
3%
3%
6%
4%
7%
**
**
6%
6%
3%
**
**
**
4%
2%
4%
2%
cd
19%
5%
2%
7%
19%
93%
6%
15%
**
**
4%
85%
6%
**
**
**
4%
2%
4%
2%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd8 (Qd11A). When You Signed Up For Your Current Mobile Contract Did You Get A Handset With The Contract Or Did You Only Get A Sim Card? (Single Code)
Base : Those who use a postpay/ contract mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
*b
~c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
*k
l
*m
~n
~o
~p
*q
~r
*s
~t
Unweighted total
196
75
12
87
350
1542
110
145
14
15
34
1510
62
9
9
7
49
13
43
19
Effective Weighted Sample
141
52
10
61
246
1083
97
101
11
11
27
1073
52
7
7
5
43
11
36
17
Total
127
34
8
42
209
1001
111
91
9
9
18
1030
38
2
1
1
27
11
27
11
11%
**
**
**
19%
90%
10%
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Handset and contract
103
**
**
**
183
881
102
73
**
**
**
918
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
81%
**
**
**
88%
88%
92%
80%
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
hk
10%
**
**
**
19%
89%
10%
7%
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
SIM card only
22
**
**
**
23
110
7
18
**
**
**
100
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
17%
**
**
**
11%
11%
7%
19%
**
**
**
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
l
l
19%
**
**
**
19%
93%
6%
15%
**
**
**
85%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
2
**
**
**
3
11
1
*
**
**
**
12
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
1%
1%
1%
*%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
13%
**
**
**
26%
91%
10%
1%
**
**
**
99%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd9A (Qd4A). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Send Or Receive Text Messages? (Single Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Several times a day
76
21
5
26
235
864
75
72
**
**
10
871
22
**
**
**
7
15
9
13
24%
13%
5%
10%
33%
46%
40%
27%
**
**
12%
48%
9%
**
**
**
6%
12%
8%
11%
bcd
c
k
hijk
8%
2%
1%
3%
25%
92%
8%
8%
**
**
1%
93%
2%
**
**
**
1%
2%
1%
1%
Every day
64
16
5
20
126
370
48
48
**
**
12
372
18
**
**
**
8
10
13
5
20%
9%
5%
8%
18%
20%
25%
18%
**
**
14%
21%
8%
**
**
**
7%
8%
11%
5%
bcd
15%
4%
1%
5%
30%
88%
11%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
4%
**
**
**
2%
2%
3%
1%
Several times a week
54
26
6
32
85
235
30
33
**
**
9
234
27
**
**
**
13
14
15
12
17%
15%
7%
12%
12%
13%
16%
13%
**
**
11%
13%
12%
**
**
**
11%
12%
13%
10%
c
c
20%
10%
2%
12%
32%
88%
11%
13%
**
**
3%
88%
10%
**
**
**
5%
5%
6%
4%
At least once a week
39
22
4
26
47
111
16
17
**
**
8
110
23
**
**
**
11
12
10
13
12%
13%
4%
10%
7%
6%
9%
7%
**
**
9%
6%
10%
**
**
**
9%
10%
9%
11%
c
c
c
l
30%
18%
3%
20%
37%
87%
13%
14%
**
**
6%
86%
18%
**
**
**
8%
10%
8%
10%
At least once a month
22
15
6
20
31
62
5
15
**
**
5
52
18
**
**
**
8
10
10
9
7%
9%
6%
8%
4%
3%
3%
6%
**
**
6%
3%
8%
**
**
**
7%
8%
8%
8%
l
l
33%
22%
8%
30%
46%
93%
8%
23%
**
**
7%
78%
27%
**
**
**
12%
15%
14%
13%
Less than once a month
23
17
10
28
39
66
3
16
**
**
7
53
26
**
**
**
14
12
14
12
7%
10%
11%
10%
6%
3%
2%
6%
**
**
8%
3%
11%
**
**
**
13%
10%
12%
11%
l
l
p
34%
25%
15%
40%
57%
95%
5%
23%
**
**
10%
77%
38%
**
**
**
21%
17%
20%
18%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd9A (Qd4A). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Send Or Receive Text Messages? (Single Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Never
38
52
63
115
140
171
11
60
**
**
34
119
100
**
**
**
51
49
48
52
12%
31%
64%
43%
20%
9%
6%
23%
**
**
40%
7%
43%
**
**
**
46%
40%
40%
45%
a
abd
ab
l
hl
l
hl
m
21%
29%
35%
64%
77%
95%
6%
33%
**
**
19%
66%
55%
**
**
**
28%
27%
27%
29%
TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK
233
85
20
105
492
1580
169
171
**
**
38
1587
90
**
**
**
38
52
47
42
74%
50%
20%
39%
70%
84%
90%
65%
**
**
46%
88%
38%
**
**
**
34%
42%
40%
37%
bcd
cd
c
ik
hijk
13%
5%
1%
6%
28%
90%
10%
10%
**
**
2%
90%
5%
**
**
**
2%
3%
3%
2%
TOTAL EVER
279
117
36
153
562
1707
178
202
**
**
50
1693
135
**
**
**
60
74
71
63
88%
69%
36%
57%
80%
91%
94%
77%
**
**
59%
93%
57%
**
**
**
54%
60%
60%
55%
bcd
cd
c
ik
hijk
p
15%
6%
2%
8%
30%
90%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
7%
**
**
**
3%
4%
4%
3%
Don't know
*
*
-
*
*
1
-
*
**
**
*
*
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
**
*%
*%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
l
m
27%
50%
-%
50%
77%
100%
-%
55%
**
**
55%
27%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd9B (Qd4B). Showcard And How Often, It At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Make Calls? (Single Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Several times a day
70
17
4
20
187
719
80
58
**
**
10
742
17
**
**
**
9
9
6
11
22%
10%
4%
8%
27%
38%
42%
22%
**
**
12%
41%
7%
**
**
**
8%
7%
5%
9%
bcd
c
k
hijk
9%
2%
*%
3%
23%
90%
10%
7%
**
**
1%
93%
2%
**
**
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
Every day
72
21
6
27
140
419
54
46
**
**
12
431
21
**
**
**
12
10
12
9
23%
13%
6%
10%
20%
22%
29%
17%
**
**
15%
24%
9%
**
**
**
11%
8%
10%
8%
bcd
c
hjk
m
15%
5%
1%
6%
29%
88%
11%
10%
**
**
3%
90%
4%
**
**
**
2%
2%
3%
2%
Several times a week
67
43
11
54
129
317
35
62
**
**
19
293
46
**
**
**
20
26
22
24
21%
25%
11%
20%
18%
17%
18%
24%
**
**
23%
16%
20%
**
**
**
18%
21%
19%
21%
c
c
c
l
mn
19%
12%
3%
15%
37%
90%
10%
17%
**
**
5%
83%
13%
**
**
**
6%
7%
6%
7%
At least once a week
49
37
14
52
86
186
12
29
**
**
14
167
46
**
**
**
21
25
27
19
16%
22%
15%
19%
12%
10%
6%
11%
**
**
17%
9%
20%
**
**
**
19%
20%
23%
16%
l
25%
19%
7%
26%
44%
95%
6%
15%
**
**
7%
85%
23%
**
**
**
11%
13%
14%
10%
At least once a month
25
19
14
33
53
99
3
21
**
**
4
81
28
**
**
**
12
16
13
15
8%
11%
15%
12%
8%
5%
2%
8%
**
**
5%
4%
12%
**
**
**
11%
13%
11%
13%
a
g
l
25%
18%
14%
32%
52%
97%
3%
21%
**
**
4%
79%
28%
**
**
**
12%
16%
13%
15%
Less than once a month
28
30
44
74
90
120
4
42
**
**
23
82
68
**
**
**
36
32
35
33
9%
18%
44%
28%
13%
6%
2%
16%
**
**
27%
5%
29%
**
**
**
32%
26%
30%
28%
a
abd
ab
g
l
l
l
hl
23%
24%
35%
60%
72%
97%
3%
34%
**
**
18%
66%
55%
**
**
**
29%
26%
29%
26%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd9B (Qd4B). Showcard And How Often, It At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Make Calls? (Single Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Never
5
2
5
7
14
16
1
3
**
**
1
14
6
**
**
**
2
4
3
4
1%
1%
5%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
**
**
2%
1%
3%
**
**
**
2%
4%
2%
3%
ab
l
27%
10%
30%
40%
83%
95%
6%
18%
**
**
8%
82%
37%
**
**
**
12%
25%
15%
22%
TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK
257
118
35
153
543
1641
180
195
**
**
56
1633
131
**
**
**
61
69
68
63
81%
70%
35%
57%
77%
87%
96%
74%
**
**
66%
90%
56%
**
**
**
55%
57%
57%
54%
bcd
cd
c
f
hijk
m
14%
6%
2%
8%
30%
90%
10%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
7%
**
**
**
3%
4%
4%
3%
TOTAL EVER
311
167
93
260
686
1860
187
259
**
**
82
1796
227
**
**
**
109
118
117
111
98%
99%
94%
97%
98%
99%
99%
99%
**
**
98%
99%
97%
**
**
**
98%
96%
98%
96%
c
c
j
j
15%
8%
5%
13%
33%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
5%
Don't know
1
*
1
1
2
2
-
1
**
**
-
2
1
**
**
**
1
*
-
1
*%
*%
1%
*%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
**
-%
*%
*%
**
**
**
1%
*%
-%
1%
l
47%
16%
28%
45%
92%
100%
-%
26%
**
**
-%
74%
45%
**
**
**
28%
16%
-%
45%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd9C (Qd4C). Showcard How Often, It At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access Email Or Internet Services? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a smartphone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
95
30
3
33
300
1204
96
118
13
15
19
1184
21
3
6
3
20
1
14
7
Effective Weighted Sample
68
22
2
24
202
828
84
85
9
11
15
822
19
2
4
2
18
1
13
6
Total
66
13
1
13
180
784
97
78
7
11
10
807
12
1
1
*
11
1
7
4
**
**
**
**
20%
89%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Several times a day
**
**
**
**
66
357
**
21
**
**
**
379
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
37%
46%
**
27%
**
**
**
47%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
h
**
**
**
**
16%
89%
**
5%
**
**
**
95%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Every day
**
**
**
**
44
203
**
25
**
**
**
209
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
25%
26%
**
32%
**
**
**
26%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
19%
87%
**
11%
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Several times a week
**
**
**
**
17
73
**
9
**
**
**
77
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
10%
9%
**
11%
**
**
**
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
20%
86%
**
10%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
At least once a week
**
**
**
**
7
34
**
3
**
**
**
33
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
4%
**
4%
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
20%
92%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
At least once a month
**
**
**
**
7
24
**
4
**
**
**
22
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
3%
**
5%
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
26%
93%
**
14%
**
**
**
87%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Less than once a month
**
**
**
**
8
24
**
3
**
**
**
23
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
3%
**
4%
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
a
**
**
**
**
30%
91%
**
12%
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Never
**
**
**
**
29
68
**
13
**
**
**
61
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
16%
9%
**
17%
**
**
**
8%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
l
**
**
**
**
39%
92%
**
18%
**
**
**
82%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd9C (Qd4C). Showcard How Often, It At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access Email Or Internet Services? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a smartphone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
95
30
3
33
300
1204
96
118
13
15
19
1184
21
3
6
3
20
1
14
7
Effective Weighted Sample
68
22
2
24
202
828
84
85
9
11
15
822
19
2
4
2
18
1
13
6
Total
66
13
1
13
180
784
97
78
7
11
10
807
12
1
1
*
11
1
7
4
**
**
**
**
20%
89%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A
WEEK
**
**
**
**
135
667
**
58
**
**
**
698
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
75%
85%
**
75%
**
**
**
86%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
h
**
**
**
**
18%
88%
**
8%
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
TOTAL EVER
**
**
**
**
149
715
**
65
**
**
**
744
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
83%
91%
**
83%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
h
**
**
**
**
19%
89%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
2
1
**
-
**
**
**
3
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
*%
**
-%
**
**
**
*%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
69%
51%
**
-%
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd9D (Qd4D). Showcard How Often, It At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Use Apps Or Applications? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a smartphone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
95
30
3
33
300
1204
96
118
13
15
19
1184
21
3
6
3
20
1
14
7
Effective Weighted Sample
68
22
2
24
202
828
84
85
9
11
15
822
19
2
4
2
18
1
13
6
Total
66
13
1
13
180
784
97
78
7
11
10
807
12
1
1
*
11
1
7
4
**
**
**
**
20%
89%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Several times a day
**
**
**
**
54
290
**
18
**
**
**
306
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
30%
37%
**
23%
**
**
**
38%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
d
h
**
**
**
**
17%
90%
**
6%
**
**
**
95%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Every day
**
**
**
**
42
169
**
18
**
**
**
180
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
23%
22%
**
23%
**
**
**
22%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
21%
85%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Several times a week
**
**
**
**
16
77
**
13
**
**
**
78
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
9%
10%
**
17%
**
**
**
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
l
**
**
**
**
18%
85%
**
15%
**
**
**
86%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
At least once a week
**
**
**
**
16
74
**
9
**
**
**
72
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
9%
9%
**
12%
**
**
**
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
19%
91%
**
11%
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
At least once a month
**
**
**
**
5
32
**
1
**
**
**
32
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
4%
**
2%
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
14%
96%
**
4%
**
**
**
96%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Less than once a month
**
**
**
**
7
31
**
1
**
**
**
34
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
4%
**
1%
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
20%
89%
**
2%
**
**
**
98%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Never
**
**
**
**
39
106
**
17
**
**
**
98
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
22%
13%
**
21%
**
**
**
12%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
a
l
**
**
**
**
34%
92%
**
15%
**
**
**
86%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd9D (Qd4D). Showcard How Often, It At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Use Apps Or Applications? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a smartphone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
95
30
3
33
300
1204
96
118
13
15
19
1184
21
3
6
3
20
1
14
7
Effective Weighted Sample
68
22
2
24
202
828
84
85
9
11
15
822
19
2
4
2
18
1
13
6
Total
66
13
1
13
180
784
97
78
7
11
10
807
12
1
1
*
11
1
7
4
**
**
**
**
20%
89%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A
WEEK
**
**
**
**
127
610
**
59
**
**
**
637
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
71%
78%
**
75%
**
**
**
79%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
18%
88%
**
9%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
TOTAL EVER
**
**
**
**
139
673
**
61
**
**
**
702
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
77%
86%
**
78%
**
**
**
87%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
d
h
**
**
**
**
18%
88%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
2
6
**
1
**
**
**
7
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
1%
**
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
33%
72%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd10 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Send/ receive text messages
(SMS)
264
107
34
141
524
1623
171
189
**
**
48
1614
126
**
**
**
58
68
71
55
84%
63%
34%
52%
75%
86%
91%
72%
**
**
57%
89%
54%
**
**
**
52%
56%
60%
47%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
t
15%
6%
2%
8%
29%
90%
10%
10%
**
**
3%
90%
7%
**
**
**
3%
4%
4%
3%
Use your phone as a camera
131
45
9
54
314
1130
126
115
**
**
23
1147
48
**
**
**
29
19
28
20
41%
27%
9%
20%
45%
60%
67%
44%
**
**
27%
63%
20%
**
**
**
26%
15%
24%
17%
bcd
c
c
k
k
hijk
r
10%
4%
1%
4%
25%
90%
10%
9%
**
**
2%
91%
4%
**
**
**
2%
1%
2%
2%
Accessing the internet
51
8
-
8
155
730
90
66
**
**
8
760
7
**
**
**
7
-
5
3
16%
5%
-%
3%
22%
39%
48%
25%
**
**
9%
42%
3%
**
**
**
7%
-%
4%
2%
bcd
c
c
f
k
k
k
hjk
r
r
6%
1%
-%
1%
19%
89%
11%
8%
**
**
1%
92%
1%
**
**
**
1%
-%
1%
*%
Send/ receive messages with pictures/ images
66
12
3
14
159
675
66
67
**
**
9
677
13
**
**
**
8
5
7
6
21%
7%
3%
5%
23%
36%
35%
25%
**
**
10%
37%
5%
**
**
**
7%
4%
6%
5%
bcd
ik
k
hijk
9%
2%
*%
2%
21%
91%
9%
9%
**
**
1%
91%
2%
**
**
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
Send/ receive emails (not SMS)
43
6
*
6
91
529
62
44
**
**
6
554
5
**
**
**
5
-
4
2
14%
3%
*%
2%
13%
28%
33%
17%
**
**
7%
31%
2%
**
**
**
5%
-%
3%
1%
bcd
k
hijk
r
7%
1%
*%
1%
15%
89%
10%
7%
**
**
1%
93%
1%
**
**
**
1%
-%
1%
*%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd10 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Upload pictures to PC/laptop
41
6
*
6
101
491
58
51
**
**
5
501
6
**
**
**
4
2
3
3
13%
3%
*%
2%
14%
26%
31%
20%
**
**
6%
28%
2%
**
**
**
3%
2%
2%
3%
bcd
k
k
k
hk
7%
1%
*%
1%
18%
89%
10%
9%
**
**
1%
91%
1%
**
**
**
1%
*%
*%
1%
Visiting social networking sites
23
1
-
1
84
424
46
41
**
**
4
434
1
**
**
**
1
-
1
-
7%
1%
-%
*%
12%
23%
24%
15%
**
**
5%
24%
*%
**
**
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
bcd
k
k
hjk
m
5%
*%
-%
*%
18%
90%
10%
9%
**
**
1%
92%
*%
**
**
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Listen to music using MP3 function
16
2
-
2
76
359
53
31
**
**
1
384
2
**
**
**
2
*
2
-
5%
1%
-%
1%
11%
19%
28%
12%
**
**
1%
21%
1%
**
**
**
2%
*%
2%
-%
bcd
f
k
k
k
hk
4%
1%
-%
1%
18%
87%
13%
7%
**
**
*%
93%
1%
**
**
**
1%
*%
1%
-%
Play games which come preinstalled, by yourself
15
4
*
4
92
366
47
31
**
**
2
383
4
**
**
**
2
2
2
2
5%
2%
*%
2%
13%
19%
25%
12%
**
**
2%
21%
2%
**
**
**
2%
2%
2%
2%
cd
k
k
k
hk
4%
1%
*%
1%
22%
89%
11%
8%
**
**
*%
93%
1%
**
**
**
*%
*%
*%
*%
Download applications or programs directly to your phone
27
2
-
2
66
360
41
34
**
**
2
371
1
**
**
**
1
-
1
-
9%
1%
-%
1%
9%
19%
22%
13%
**
**
2%
20%
*%
**
**
**
1%
-%
1%
-%
bcd
k
k
k
hk
7%
*%
-%
*%
16%
89%
10%
9%
**
**
*%
92%
*%
**
**
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd10 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Use IM/ Instant messaging (e.g.
BlackBerry Messenger/ BBM,
Apple iMessage, WhatsApp)
20
3
-
3
73
341
50
28
**
**
1
367
3
**
**
**
1
2
1
2
6%
2%
-%
1%
10%
18%
27%
10%
**
**
1%
20%
1%
**
**
**
1%
2%
1%
2%
bcd
f
k
k
k
hjk
5%
1%
-%
1%
19%
87%
13%
7%
**
**
*%
93%
1%
**
**
**
*%
*%
*%
1%
Record video clips using the phone
13
1
*
1
58
247
26
22
**
**
2
254
1
**
**
**
1
-
1
-
4%
*%
*%
*%
8%
13%
14%
8%
**
**
2%
14%
*%
**
**
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
bcd
k
k
hk
5%
*%
*%
*%
21%
90%
9%
8%
**
**
1%
92%
*%
**
**
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Accessing/ receiving news
22
1
-
1
31
228
37
18
**
**
1
249
1
**
**
**
1
-
1
-
7%
1%
-%
1%
4%
12%
20%
7%
**
**
1%
14%
*%
**
**
**
1%
-%
1%
-%
bcd
f
k
hijk
8%
1%
-%
1%
12%
86%
14%
7%
**
**
*%
94%
*%
**
**
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Listen to FM radio
17
2
*
2
48
205
28
25
**
**
2
213
2
**
**
**
1
*
2
-
5%
1%
*%
1%
7%
11%
15%
9%
**
**
3%
12%
1%
**
**
**
1%
*%
1%
-%
bcd
k
k
m
7%
1%
*%
1%
20%
87%
12%
11%
**
**
1%
90%
1%
**
**
**
1%
*%
1%
-%
Send/ receive video clips
13
*
*
1
39
192
34
14
**
**
1
215
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
4%
*%
*%
*%
6%
10%
18%
5%
**
**
1%
12%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
f
k
hk
m
m
6%
*%
*%
*%
17%
84%
15%
6%
**
**
*%
94%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd10 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Accessing/ receiving sports/
team news/ scores
14
1
-
1
32
178
30
11
**
**
*
199
*
**
**
**
*
-
*
-
4%
1%
-%
*%
5%
9%
16%
4%
**
**
1%
11%
*%
**
**
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
bcd
f
k
hjk
m
7%
1%
-%
1%
15%
85%
14%
5%
**
**
*%
95%
*%
**
**
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Play games which come preinstalled, with others
7
-
*
*
36
163
21
14
**
**
1
170
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
2%
-%
*%
*%
5%
9%
11%
5%
**
**
2%
9%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bd
ik
hik
4%
-%
*%
*%
19%
89%
11%
8%
**
**
1%
93%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
TV streaming (e.g. BBC iPlayer, Sky Go)
9
*
-
*
18
114
17
10
**
**
*
121
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
3%
*%
-%
*%
3%
6%
9%
4%
**
**
*%
7%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bd
k
k
k
7%
*%
-%
*%
14%
87%
13%
8%
**
**
*%
92%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Download a new video clip
7
*
-
*
23
103
18
8
**
**
*
115
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
2%
*%
-%
*%
3%
6%
9%
3%
**
**
1%
6%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bd
f
hk
6%
*%
-%
*%
18%
84%
14%
7%
**
**
*%
94%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Using VoIP service e.g. Skype
10
-
-
-
10
102
11
10
**
**
-
104
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
3%
-%
-%
-%
1%
5%
6%
4%
**
**
-%
6%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
k
k
k
9%
-%
-%
-%
9%
90%
10%
9%
**
**
-%
92%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd10 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Video streaming
3
-
-
-
13
87
19
10
**
**
-
97
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
1%
-%
-%
-%
2%
5%
10%
4%
**
**
-%
5%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
k
k
3%
-%
-%
-%
12%
82%
17%
10%
**
**
-%
91%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Video calling
3
-
-
-
13
70
17
5
**
**
-
84
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
1%
-%
-%
-%
2%
4%
9%
2%
**
**
-%
5%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
hk
3%
-%
-%
-%
15%
79%
19%
6%
**
**
-%
94%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Listen to Podcasts
8
*
-
*
8
78
9
4
**
**
*
83
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
2%
*%
-%
*%
1%
4%
5%
2%
**
**
*%
5%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bd
hk
9%
*%
-%
*%
9%
90%
10%
5%
**
**
*%
95%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Other
2
1
-
1
2
8
1
3
**
**
-
6
1
**
**
**
1
-
1
-
1%
*%
-%
*%
*%
*%
1%
1%
**
**
-%
*%
*%
**
**
**
1%
-%
1%
-%
l
l
25%
8%
-%
8%
25%
89%
14%
39%
**
**
-%
62%
8%
**
**
**
8%
-%
8%
-%
WEB/ DATA ACCESS
59
11
*
11
173
780
96
73
**
**
8
807
10
**
**
**
8
2
5
5
19%
6%
*%
4%
25%
42%
51%
28%
**
**
9%
45%
4%
**
**
**
7%
2%
4%
4%
bcd
c
c
f
k
k
k
hijk
r
7%
1%
*%
1%
20%
89%
11%
8%
**
**
1%
92%
1%
**
**
**
1%
*%
1%
1%
LISTEN TO AUDIO CONTENT
29
3
*
4
108
459
62
50
**
**
3
474
3
**
**
**
3
*
3
-
9%
2%
*%
1%
15%
24%
33%
19%
**
**
3%
26%
1%
**
**
**
2%
*%
3%
-%
bcd
f
k
k
k
hk
6%
1%
*%
1%
21%
88%
12%
10%
**
**
1%
91%
1%
**
**
**
*%
*%
1%
-%
PLAY GAMES
17
4
*
4
101
403
51
35
**
**
2
420
4
**
**
**
2
2
2
2
6%
2%
*%
2%
14%
21%
27%
13%
**
**
3%
23%
2%
**
**
**
2%
2%
2%
2%
cd
k
k
k
hk
4%
1%
*%
1%
22%
89%
11%
8%
**
**
1%
93%
1%
**
**
**
*%
*%
*%
*%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd10 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
DOWNLOAD APPLICATIONS
27
2
-
2
66
360
41
34
**
**
2
371
1
**
**
**
1
-
1
-
9%
1%
-%
1%
9%
19%
22%
13%
**
**
2%
20%
*%
**
**
**
1%
-%
1%
-%
bcd
k
k
k
hk
7%
*%
-%
*%
16%
89%
10%
9%
**
**
*%
92%
*%
**
**
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
WATCHING AV CONTENT
13
*
-
*
31
177
28
16
**
**
1
191
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
4%
*%
-%
*%
4%
9%
15%
6%
**
**
1%
11%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
f
k
k
hjk
6%
*%
-%
*%
15%
86%
14%
8%
**
**
*%
93%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
None of these
42
55
62
117
144
183
9
58
**
**
33
132
99
**
**
**
47
52
44
55
13%
32%
62%
43%
21%
10%
5%
22%
**
**
39%
7%
42%
**
**
**
42%
42%
37%
48%
a
abd
ab
g
l
l
l
hl
m
22%
29%
32%
61%
75%
96%
5%
31%
**
**
17%
69%
52%
**
**
**
25%
27%
23%
29%
Don't know
-
1
1
2
2
2
-
1
**
**
-
2
2
**
**
**
1
1
1
1
-%
1%
1%
1%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
**
-%
*%
1%
**
**
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
hl
-%
57%
27%
84%
84%
100%
-%
34%
**
**
-%
68%
79%
**
**
**
27%
52%
52%
27%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd10 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Send/ receive text messages
(SMS)
264
107
34
141
524
1623
171
189
16
23
48
1614
126
7
5
**
58
68
71
55
76%
52%
18%
36%
60%
79%
88%
57%
38%
44%
43%
84%
38%
22%
29%
**
39%
37%
45%
31%
bcd
cd
c
f
ijk
hijk
n
t
15%
6%
2%
8%
29%
90%
10%
10%
1%
1%
3%
90%
7%
*%
*%
**
3%
4%
4%
3%
Use your phone as a camera
131
45
9
54
314
1130
126
115
8
18
23
1147
48
4
2
**
29
19
28
20
38%
22%
5%
14%
36%
55%
64%
34%
20%
34%
20%
60%
14%
12%
9%
**
20%
10%
18%
11%
bcd
cd
c
f
ik
k
hijk
rt
r
10%
4%
1%
4%
25%
90%
10%
9%
1%
1%
2%
91%
4%
*%
*%
**
2%
1%
2%
2%
Accessing the internet
51
8
-
8
155
730
90
66
7
8
8
760
7
1
*
**
7
-
5
3
15%
4%
-%
2%
18%
36%
46%
20%
17%
15%
7%
40%
2%
2%
2%
**
5%
-%
3%
2%
bcd
c
c
f
k
k
k
hijk
rt
r
6%
1%
-%
1%
19%
89%
11%
8%
1%
1%
1%
92%
1%
*%
*%
**
1%
-%
1%
*%
Send/ receive messages with pictures/ images
66
12
3
14
159
675
66
67
3
9
9
677
13
1
1
**
8
5
7
6
19%
6%
1%
4%
18%
33%
34%
20%
7%
16%
8%
35%
4%
3%
4%
**
5%
3%
4%
3%
bcd
c
ik
hijk
9%
2%
*%
2%
21%
91%
9%
9%
*%
1%
1%
91%
2%
*%
*%
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
Send/ receive emails (not SMS)
43
6
*
6
91
529
62
44
3
4
6
554
5
*
*
**
5
-
4
2
13%
3%
*%
2%
11%
26%
32%
13%
6%
8%
5%
29%
2%
2%
3%
**
4%
-%
2%
1%
bcd
c
k
hijk
r
r
7%
1%
*%
1%
15%
89%
10%
7%
*%
1%
1%
93%
1%
*%
*%
**
1%
-%
1%
*%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd10 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Upload pictures to PC/laptop
41
6
*
6
101
491
58
51
4
8
5
501
6
*
*
**
4
2
3
3
12%
3%
*%
2%
12%
24%
29%
15%
10%
16%
4%
26%
2%
*%
2%
**
3%
1%
2%
2%
bcd
c
k
k
hik
7%
1%
*%
1%
18%
89%
10%
9%
1%
2%
1%
91%
1%
*%
*%
**
1%
*%
*%
1%
Visiting social networking sites
23
1
-
1
84
424
46
41
6
3
4
434
1
*
-
**
1
-
1
-
7%
*%
-%
*%
10%
21%
23%
12%
13%
5%
4%
23%
*%
2%
-%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
bcd
k
k
hjk
5%
*%
-%
*%
18%
90%
10%
9%
1%
1%
1%
92%
*%
*%
-%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Listen to music using MP3 function
16
2
-
2
76
359
53
31
4
4
1
384
2
*
-
**
2
*
2
-
5%
1%
-%
1%
9%
17%
27%
9%
8%
8%
1%
20%
1%
*%
-%
**
2%
*%
1%
-%
bcd
f
k
k
k
hijk
4%
1%
-%
1%
18%
87%
13%
7%
1%
1%
*%
93%
1%
*%
-%
**
1%
*%
1%
-%
Play games which come preinstalled, by yourself
15
4
*
4
92
366
47
31
3
6
2
383
4
*
*
**
2
2
2
2
4%
2%
*%
1%
11%
18%
24%
9%
7%
12%
1%
20%
1%
1%
1%
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
cd
c
f
k
k
k
hik
4%
1%
*%
1%
22%
89%
11%
8%
1%
2%
*%
93%
1%
*%
*%
**
*%
*%
*%
*%
Download applications or programs directly to your phone
27
2
-
2
66
360
41
34
5
5
2
371
1
*
*
**
1
-
1
-
8%
1%
-%
*%
8%
18%
21%
10%
11%
9%
2%
19%
*%
2%
1%
**
1%
-%
1%
-%
bcd
k
k
k
hjk
7%
*%
-%
*%
16%
89%
10%
9%
1%
1%
*%
92%
*%
*%
*%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd10 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Use IM/ Instant messaging (e.g.
BlackBerry Messenger/ BBM,
Apple iMessage, WhatsApp)
20
3
-
3
73
341
50
28
3
3
1
367
3
*
*
**
1
2
1
2
6%
2%
-%
1%
8%
17%
26%
8%
6%
6%
1%
19%
1%
*%
1%
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
bcd
f
k
k
k
hijk
5%
1%
-%
1%
19%
87%
13%
7%
1%
1%
*%
93%
1%
*%
*%
**
*%
*%
*%
1%
Record video clips using the phone
13
1
*
1
58
247
26
22
2
5
2
254
1
*
-
**
1
-
1
-
4%
*%
*%
*%
7%
12%
13%
7%
5%
9%
2%
13%
*%
*%
-%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
bcd
k
k
hk
5%
*%
*%
*%
21%
90%
9%
8%
1%
2%
1%
92%
*%
*%
-%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Accessing/ receiving news
22
1
-
1
31
228
37
18
1
1
1
249
1
*
*
**
1
-
1
-
6%
1%
-%
*%
4%
11%
19%
5%
2%
2%
1%
13%
*%
2%
1%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
bcd
f
k
hijk
8%
1%
-%
1%
12%
86%
14%
7%
*%
*%
*%
94%
*%
*%
*%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Listen to FM radio
17
2
*
2
48
205
28
25
2
2
2
213
2
*
*
**
1
*
2
-
5%
1%
*%
1%
6%
10%
14%
7%
5%
4%
2%
11%
*%
*%
1%
**
1%
*%
1%
-%
bcd
k
hjk
m
7%
1%
*%
1%
20%
87%
12%
11%
1%
1%
1%
90%
1%
*%
*%
**
1%
*%
1%
-%
Send/ receive video clips
13
*
*
1
39
192
34
14
2
1
1
215
-
*
*
**
-
-
-
-
4%
*%
*%
*%
5%
9%
17%
4%
4%
2%
1%
11%
-%
2%
1%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
f
k
hjk
m
m
6%
*%
*%
*%
17%
84%
15%
6%
1%
*%
*%
94%
-%
*%
*%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd10 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Accessing/ receiving sports/
team news/ scores
14
1
-
1
32
178
30
11
2
-
*
199
*
*
*
**
*
-
*
-
4%
1%
-%
*%
4%
9%
15%
3%
4%
-%
*%
10%
*%
2%
2%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
bcd
f
k
hjk
7%
1%
-%
1%
15%
85%
14%
5%
1%
-%
*%
95%
*%
*%
*%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Play games which come preinstalled, with others
7
-
*
*
36
163
21
14
-
4
1
170
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
2%
-%
*%
*%
4%
8%
11%
4%
-%
8%
1%
9%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
ik
hik
4%
-%
*%
*%
19%
89%
11%
8%
-%
2%
1%
93%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
TV streaming (e.g. BBC iPlayer, Sky Go)
9
*
-
*
18
114
17
10
1
-
*
121
-
*
-
**
-
-
-
-
3%
*%
-%
*%
2%
6%
8%
3%
3%
-%
*%
6%
-%
*%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
k
hjk
7%
*%
-%
*%
14%
87%
13%
8%
1%
-%
*%
92%
-%
*%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Download a new video clip
7
*
-
*
23
103
18
8
1
-
*
115
-
*
-
**
-
-
-
-
2%
*%
-%
*%
3%
5%
9%
2%
3%
-%
*%
6%
-%
*%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
f
hjk
6%
*%
-%
*%
18%
84%
14%
7%
1%
-%
*%
94%
-%
*%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Using VoIP service e.g. Skype
10
-
-
-
10
102
11
10
1
2
-
104
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
3%
-%
-%
-%
1%
5%
6%
3%
2%
3%
-%
5%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
k
k
hk
9%
-%
-%
-%
9%
90%
10%
9%
1%
1%
-%
92%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd10 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Video streaming
3
-
-
-
13
87
19
10
1
*
-
97
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
1%
-%
-%
-%
2%
4%
10%
3%
2%
*%
-%
5%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
d
f
k
k
3%
-%
-%
-%
12%
82%
17%
10%
1%
*%
-%
91%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Video calling
3
-
-
-
13
70
17
5
-
-
-
84
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
1%
-%
-%
-%
2%
3%
9%
2%
-%
-%
-%
4%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
d
f
hk
3%
-%
-%
-%
15%
79%
19%
6%
-%
-%
-%
94%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Listen to Podcasts
8
*
-
*
8
78
9
4
-
-
*
83
-
*
-
**
-
-
-
-
2%
*%
-%
*%
1%
4%
5%
1%
-%
-%
*%
4%
-%
*%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
hk
9%
*%
-%
*%
9%
90%
10%
5%
-%
-%
*%
95%
-%
*%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Other
2
1
-
1
2
8
1
3
-
1
-
6
1
-
-
**
1
-
1
-
1%
*%
-%
*%
*%
*%
1%
1%
-%
2%
-%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
l
l
25%
8%
-%
8%
25%
89%
14%
39%
-%
12%
-%
62%
8%
-%
-%
**
8%
-%
8%
-%
WEB/ DATA ACCESS
59
11
*
11
173
780
96
73
8
8
8
807
10
1
1
**
8
2
5
5
17%
5%
*%
3%
20%
38%
49%
22%
18%
16%
7%
42%
3%
2%
3%
**
5%
1%
3%
3%
bcd
c
c
f
k
k
k
hijk
r
7%
1%
*%
1%
20%
89%
11%
8%
1%
1%
1%
92%
1%
*%
*%
**
1%
*%
1%
1%
LISTEN TO AUDIO CONTENT
29
3
*
4
108
459
62
50
4
6
3
474
3
*
*
**
3
*
3
-
8%
2%
*%
1%
12%
22%
32%
15%
9%
12%
3%
25%
1%
*%
1%
**
2%
*%
2%
-%
bcd
f
k
k
k
hijk
6%
1%
*%
1%
21%
88%
12%
10%
1%
1%
1%
91%
1%
*%
*%
**
*%
*%
1%
-%
PLAY GAMES
17
4
*
4
101
403
51
35
3
7
2
420
4
*
*
**
2
2
2
2
5%
2%
*%
1%
12%
20%
26%
10%
7%
13%
2%
22%
1%
1%
1%
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
bcd
f
k
k
hik
4%
1%
*%
1%
22%
89%
11%
8%
1%
2%
1%
93%
1%
*%
*%
**
*%
*%
*%
*%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd10 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
DOWNLOAD APPLICATIONS
27
2
-
2
66
360
41
34
5
5
2
371
1
*
*
**
1
-
1
-
8%
1%
-%
*%
8%
18%
21%
10%
11%
9%
2%
19%
*%
2%
1%
**
1%
-%
1%
-%
bcd
k
k
k
hjk
7%
*%
-%
*%
16%
89%
10%
9%
1%
1%
*%
92%
*%
*%
*%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
WATCHING AV CONTENT
13
*
-
*
31
177
28
16
2
*
1
191
-
*
-
**
-
-
-
-
4%
*%
-%
*%
4%
9%
15%
5%
4%
*%
1%
10%
-%
*%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
f
k
hjk
6%
*%
-%
*%
15%
86%
14%
8%
1%
*%
*%
93%
-%
*%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
None of these
42
55
62
117
144
183
9
58
10
11
33
132
99
8
6
**
47
52
44
55
12%
27%
33%
30%
17%
9%
5%
17%
23%
20%
29%
7%
30%
24%
34%
**
32%
28%
28%
32%
a
a
a
l
l
l
hl
n
22%
29%
32%
61%
75%
96%
5%
31%
5%
6%
17%
69%
52%
4%
3%
**
25%
27%
23%
29%
Don't know
-
1
1
2
2
2
-
1
1
-
-
2
2
-
-
**
1
1
1
1
-%
1%
*%
1%
*%
*%
-%
*%
2%
-%
-%
*%
1%
-%
-%
**
*%
1%
1%
*%
l
-%
57%
27%
84%
84%
100%
-%
34%
34%
-%
-%
68%
79%
-%
-%
**
27%
52%
52%
27%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd11 (Qd28B) Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Send/ receive text messages
(SMS)
210
79
14
94
438
1448
159
156
**
**
35
1458
83
**
**
**
39
45
46
37
66%
47%
14%
35%
62%
77%
84%
59%
**
**
42%
80%
36%
**
**
**
35%
37%
39%
32%
bcd
cd
c
f
ijk
hijk
13%
5%
1%
6%
27%
90%
10%
10%
**
**
2%
90%
5%
**
**
**
2%
3%
3%
2%
Accessing the internet
37
5
-
5
127
584
76
57
**
**
7
606
4
**
**
**
4
-
3
2
12%
3%
-%
2%
18%
31%
41%
22%
**
**
8%
33%
2%
**
**
**
4%
-%
2%
2%
bcd
f
k
k
k
hjk
r
6%
1%
-%
1%
19%
88%
12%
9%
**
**
1%
92%
1%
**
**
**
1%
-%
*%
*%
Use your phone as a camera
50
11
1
12
149
579
74
56
**
**
7
604
11
**
**
**
5
6
5
6
16%
6%
1%
4%
21%
31%
39%
21%
**
**
8%
33%
5%
**
**
**
4%
5%
4%
5%
bcd
c
f
k
hijk
8%
2%
*%
2%
23%
88%
11%
8%
**
**
1%
92%
2%
**
**
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
Send/ receive emails (not SMS)
34
4
-
4
71
422
47
34
**
**
4
439
4
**
**
**
4
-
2
2
11%
2%
-%
2%
10%
22%
25%
13%
**
**
5%
24%
2%
**
**
**
3%
-%
2%
1%
bcd
k
hijk
r
7%
1%
-%
1%
15%
90%
10%
7%
**
**
1%
93%
1%
**
**
**
1%
-%
*%
*%
Send/ receive messages with pictures/ images
31
3
2
5
88
355
36
40
**
**
3
356
5
**
**
**
2
3
2
3
10%
2%
2%
2%
13%
19%
19%
15%
**
**
4%
20%
2%
**
**
**
2%
2%
2%
3%
bcd
k
k
ik
8%
1%
1%
1%
22%
90%
9%
10%
**
**
1%
90%
1%
**
**
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd11 (Qd28B) Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Visiting social networking sites
12
*
-
*
76
353
33
35
**
**
3
356
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
4%
*%
-%
*%
11%
19%
18%
13%
**
**
4%
20%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
k
k
hjk
m
3%
*%
-%
*%
19%
91%
9%
9%
**
**
1%
91%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Listen to music using MP3 function
11
2
-
2
55
261
37
24
**
**
1
276
2
**
**
**
2
*
2
-
3%
1%
-%
1%
8%
14%
20%
9%
**
**
1%
15%
1%
**
**
**
2%
*%
2%
-%
cd
f
k
k
k
hk
4%
1%
-%
1%
19%
87%
12%
8%
**
**
*%
92%
1%
**
**
**
1%
*%
1%
-%
Use IM/ Instant messaging (e.g. BlackBerry Messenger/ BBM, Apple iMessage, WhatsApp)
10
2
-
2
61
253
39
20
**
**
1
276
2
**
**
**
*
2
*
2
3%
1%
-%
1%
9%
13%
21%
8%
**
**
1%
15%
1%
**
**
**
*%
2%
*%
2%
cd
f
k
hjk
3%
1%
-%
1%
21%
86%
13%
7%
**
**
*%
93%
1%
**
**
**
*%
1%
*%
1%
Upload pictures to PC/laptop
17
4
-
4
57
257
23
30
**
**
2
252
4
**
**
**
2
2
1
3
5%
2%
-%
2%
8%
14%
12%
11%
**
**
2%
14%
2%
**
**
**
2%
2%
1%
3%
cd
k
k
k
k
6%
1%
-%
1%
20%
92%
8%
11%
**
**
1%
90%
1%
**
**
**
1%
1%
*%
1%
Play games which come preinstalled, by yourself
9
2
*
2
65
244
30
25
**
**
1
248
2
**
**
**
*
2
*
2
3%
1%
*%
1%
9%
13%
16%
10%
**
**
1%
14%
1%
**
**
**
*%
2%
*%
2%
d
k
k
k
hk
3%
1%
*%
1%
24%
90%
11%
9%
**
**
*%
91%
1%
**
**
**
*%
1%
*%
1%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd11 (Qd28B) Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Download applications or
programs directly to your phone
8
1
-
1
35
182
23
20
**
**
1
187
*
**
**
**
*
-
*
-
3%
*%
-%
*%
5%
10%
12%
7%
**
**
1%
10%
*%
**
**
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
bd
k
k
k
k
4%
*%
-%
*%
17%
89%
11%
10%
**
**
*%
91%
*%
**
**
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Accessing/ receiving news
13
*
-
*
21
156
23
15
**
**
*
165
*
**
**
**
*
-
*
-
4%
*%
-%
*%
3%
8%
12%
6%
**
**
*%
9%
*%
**
**
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
bcd
k
hk
7%
*%
-%
*%
12%
87%
13%
8%
**
**
*%
92%
*%
**
**
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Accessing/ receiving sports/ team news/ scores
9
*
-
*
24
126
23
7
**
**
-
144
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
3%
*%
-%
*%
3%
7%
12%
3%
**
**
-%
8%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bd
f
hjk
6%
*%
-%
*%
16%
84%
15%
4%
**
**
-%
96%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Listen to FM radio
10
1
-
1
27
114
18
14
**
**
1
121
1
**
**
**
1
-
1
-
3%
*%
-%
*%
4%
6%
10%
5%
**
**
1%
7%
*%
**
**
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
bd
k
k
7%
1%
-%
1%
20%
85%
14%
10%
**
**
1%
90%
*%
**
**
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Play games which come preinstalled, with others
5
-
*
*
26
101
8
11
**
**
1
98
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
1%
-%
*%
*%
4%
5%
4%
4%
**
**
2%
5%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
d
4%
-%
*%
*%
24%
93%
7%
10%
**
**
1%
90%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd11 (Qd28B) Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Record video clips using the
phone
3
-
-
-
27
100
7
8
**
**
1
99
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
1%
-%
-%
-%
4%
5%
4%
3%
**
**
1%
5%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
hk
3%
-%
-%
-%
25%
94%
7%
7%
**
**
1%
94%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Send/ receive video clips
4
-
-
-
12
63
11
5
**
**
*
70
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
1%
-%
-%
-%
2%
3%
6%
2%
**
**
1%
4%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
d
h
5%
-%
-%
-%
17%
85%
15%
6%
**
**
1%
95%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
TV streaming (e.g. BBC iPlayer, Sky Go)
6
-
-
-
12
67
7
8
**
**
*
66
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
2%
-%
-%
-%
2%
4%
4%
3%
**
**
*%
4%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bd
k
k
8%
-%
-%
-%
16%
92%
10%
11%
**
**
*%
90%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Using VoIP service e.g. Skype
6
-
-
-
6
63
5
7
**
**
-
61
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
2%
-%
-%
-%
1%
3%
3%
3%
**
**
-%
3%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bd
k
k
9%
-%
-%
-%
9%
93%
7%
11%
**
**
-%
90%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Download a new video clip
3
-
-
-
16
54
7
4
**
**
*
57
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
1%
-%
-%
-%
2%
3%
4%
2%
**
**
1%
3%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
4%
-%
-%
-%
27%
89%
12%
7%
**
**
1%
94%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Listen to Podcasts
2
-
-
-
5
48
3
4
**
**
*
48
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
1%
-%
-%
-%
1%
3%
2%
1%
**
**
*%
3%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
4%
-%
-%
-%
10%
93%
6%
7%
**
**
1%
93%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd11 (Qd28B) Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Video streaming
-
-
-
-
10
42
8
5
**
**
-
46
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
1%
2%
4%
2%
**
**
-%
3%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
19%
84%
17%
9%
**
**
-%
92%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Video calling
2
-
-
-
6
30
7
2
**
**
-
34
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
1%
-%
-%
-%
1%
2%
4%
1%
**
**
-%
2%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
5%
-%
-%
-%
16%
84%
19%
5%
**
**
-%
95%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Other
*
-
-
-
1
2
*
*
**
**
-
2
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
*%
-%
-%
-%
*%
*%
*%
*%
**
**
-%
*%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
21%
-%
-%
-%
23%
83%
21%
20%
**
**
-%
79%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
WEB/ DATA ACCESS
51
8
-
8
154
716
88
64
**
**
7
744
7
**
**
**
5
2
3
4
16%
5%
-%
3%
22%
38%
46%
24%
**
**
9%
41%
3%
**
**
**
5%
2%
2%
4%
bcd
c
f
k
k
k
hijk
6%
1%
-%
1%
19%
89%
11%
8%
**
**
1%
92%
1%
**
**
**
1%
*%
*%
1%
LISTEN TO AUDIO CONTENT
17
2
-
2
74
325
44
34
**
**
1
338
2
**
**
**
2
*
2
-
5%
1%
-%
1%
11%
17%
23%
13%
**
**
2%
19%
1%
**
**
**
2%
*%
2%
-%
bcd
f
k
k
k
hk
5%
1%
-%
1%
20%
88%
12%
9%
**
**
*%
91%
1%
**
**
**
*%
*%
1%
-%
PLAY GAMES
11
2
*
3
72
265
31
28
**
**
2
268
2
**
**
**
*
2
*
2
3%
1%
*%
1%
10%
14%
17%
11%
**
**
2%
15%
1%
**
**
**
*%
2%
*%
2%
d
k
k
k
hk
4%
1%
*%
1%
24%
90%
11%
9%
**
**
1%
91%
1%
**
**
**
*%
1%
*%
1%
DOWNLOAD APPLICATIONS
8
1
-
1
35
182
23
20
**
**
1
187
*
**
**
**
*
-
*
-
3%
*%
-%
*%
5%
10%
12%
7%
**
**
1%
10%
*%
**
**
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
bd
k
k
k
k
4%
*%
-%
*%
17%
89%
11%
10%
**
**
*%
91%
*%
**
**
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd11 (Qd28B) Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
WATCHING AV CONTENT
7
-
-
-
20
103
13
10
**
**
1
106
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
2%
-%
-%
-%
3%
5%
7%
4%
**
**
1%
6%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bd
k
6%
-%
-%
-%
18%
90%
11%
9%
**
**
1%
92%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
None of these
90
85
83
168
216
309
15
88
**
**
47
234
144
**
**
**
68
77
70
74
28%
50%
83%
62%
31%
16%
8%
33%
**
**
56%
13%
62%
**
**
**
61%
62%
59%
64%
a
abd
ab
g
l
hl
hl
hl
28%
26%
26%
52%
67%
96%
5%
27%
**
**
15%
73%
45%
**
**
**
21%
24%
22%
23%
Don't know
2
1
1
2
3
6
-
1
**
**
-
5
2
**
**
**
1
1
1
1
1%
1%
1%
1%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
**
-%
*%
1%
**
**
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
hl
30%
24%
11%
35%
56%
100%
-%
14%
**
**
-%
87%
32%
**
**
**
11%
21%
21%
11%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd11 (Qd28B) Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Send/ receive text messages
(SMS)
210
79
14
94
438
1448
159
156
11
16
35
1458
83
5
3
**
39
45
46
37
61%
39%
7%
24%
50%
70%
81%
47%
26%
30%
31%
76%
25%
17%
15%
**
26%
24%
29%
22%
bcd
cd
c
f
ijk
hijk
13%
5%
1%
6%
27%
90%
10%
10%
1%
1%
2%
90%
5%
*%
*%
**
2%
3%
3%
2%
Accessing the internet
37
5
-
5
127
584
76
57
6
7
7
606
4
1
*
**
4
-
3
2
11%
3%
-%
1%
15%
28%
39%
17%
14%
13%
6%
32%
1%
2%
2%
**
3%
-%
2%
1%
bcd
c
f
k
k
hijk
r
6%
1%
-%
1%
19%
88%
12%
9%
1%
1%
1%
92%
1%
*%
*%
**
1%
-%
*%
*%
Use your phone as a camera
50
11
1
12
149
579
74
56
5
6
7
604
11
*
*
**
5
6
5
6
14%
5%
*%
3%
17%
28%
38%
17%
11%
12%
6%
31%
3%
1%
2%
**
3%
3%
3%
3%
bcd
c
c
f
k
hijk
8%
2%
*%
2%
23%
88%
11%
8%
1%
1%
1%
92%
2%
*%
*%
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
Send/ receive emails (not SMS)
34
4
-
4
71
422
47
34
2
4
4
439
4
*
*
**
4
-
2
2
10%
2%
-%
1%
8%
21%
24%
10%
5%
8%
3%
23%
1%
*%
1%
**
3%
-%
1%
1%
bcd
c
k
hijk
r
7%
1%
-%
1%
15%
90%
10%
7%
*%
1%
1%
93%
1%
*%
*%
**
1%
-%
*%
*%
Send/ receive messages with pictures/ images
31
3
2
5
88
355
36
40
2
4
3
356
5
-
*
**
2
3
2
3
9%
1%
1%
1%
10%
17%
18%
12%
4%
8%
3%
19%
2%
-%
*%
**
1%
2%
1%
2%
bcd
k
k
hijk
8%
1%
1%
1%
22%
90%
9%
10%
*%
1%
1%
90%
1%
-%
*%
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd11 (Qd28B) Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Visiting social networking sites
12
*
-
*
76
353
33
35
5
3
3
356
-
*
-
**
-
-
-
-
3%
*%
-%
*%
9%
17%
17%
10%
11%
5%
3%
19%
-%
2%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
k
k
hjk
m
3%
*%
-%
*%
19%
91%
9%
9%
1%
1%
1%
91%
-%
*%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Listen to music using MP3 function
11
2
-
2
55
261
37
24
4
3
1
276
2
*
-
**
2
*
2
-
3%
1%
-%
1%
6%
13%
19%
7%
8%
5%
1%
14%
1%
*%
-%
**
1%
*%
1%
-%
cd
f
k
k
k
hjk
4%
1%
-%
1%
19%
87%
12%
8%
1%
1%
*%
92%
1%
*%
-%
**
1%
*%
1%
-%
Use IM/ Instant messaging (e.g. BlackBerry Messenger/ BBM, Apple iMessage, WhatsApp)
10
2
-
2
61
253
39
20
1
2
1
276
2
*
-
**
*
2
*
2
3%
1%
-%
1%
7%
12%
20%
6%
3%
3%
1%
14%
1%
*%
-%
**
*%
1%
*%
1%
cd
f
k
hijk
3%
1%
-%
1%
21%
86%
13%
7%
1%
1%
*%
93%
1%
*%
-%
**
*%
1%
*%
1%
Upload pictures to PC/laptop
17
4
-
4
57
257
23
30
3
4
2
252
4
-
-
**
2
2
1
3
5%
2%
-%
1%
7%
13%
12%
9%
7%
7%
1%
13%
1%
-%
-%
**
1%
1%
1%
2%
cd
c
k
k
k
hk
6%
1%
-%
1%
20%
92%
8%
11%
1%
1%
1%
90%
1%
-%
-%
**
1%
1%
*%
1%
Play games which come preinstalled, by yourself
9
2
*
2
65
244
30
25
3
4
1
248
2
-
-
**
*
2
*
2
3%
1%
*%
1%
7%
12%
16%
8%
6%
7%
1%
13%
1%
-%
-%
**
*%
1%
*%
1%
cd
k
k
k
hk
3%
1%
*%
1%
24%
90%
11%
9%
1%
1%
*%
91%
1%
-%
-%
**
*%
1%
*%
1%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd11 (Qd28B) Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Download applications or
programs directly to your phone
8
1
-
1
35
182
23
20
4
4
1
187
*
-
*
**
*
-
*
-
2%
*%
-%
*%
4%
9%
12%
6%
8%
7%
*%
10%
*%
-%
1%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
bcd
k
k
k
hk
4%
*%
-%
*%
17%
89%
11%
10%
2%
2%
*%
91%
*%
-%
*%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Accessing/ receiving news
13
*
-
*
21
156
23
15
1
1
*
165
*
*
-
**
*
-
*
-
4%
*%
-%
*%
2%
8%
12%
5%
2%
2%
*%
9%
*%
*%
-%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
bcd
f
k
hijk
7%
*%
-%
*%
12%
87%
13%
8%
*%
1%
*%
92%
*%
*%
-%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Accessing/ receiving sports/ team news/ scores
9
*
-
*
24
126
23
7
1
-
-
144
-
-
*
**
-
-
-
-
3%
*%
-%
*%
3%
6%
12%
2%
2%
-%
-%
7%
-%
-%
1%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
f
hjk
6%
*%
-%
*%
16%
84%
15%
4%
1%
-%
-%
96%
-%
-%
*%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Listen to FM radio
10
1
-
1
27
114
18
14
1
1
1
121
1
*
-
**
1
-
1
-
3%
*%
-%
*%
3%
6%
9%
4%
3%
1%
1%
6%
*%
*%
-%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
bcd
f
k
k
7%
1%
-%
1%
20%
85%
14%
10%
1%
1%
1%
90%
*%
*%
-%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Play games which come preinstalled, with others
5
-
*
*
26
101
8
11
-
2
1
98
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
1%
-%
*%
*%
3%
5%
4%
3%
-%
3%
1%
5%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
d
k
4%
-%
*%
*%
24%
93%
7%
10%
-%
2%
1%
90%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd11 (Qd28B) Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Record video clips using the
phone
3
-
-
-
27
100
7
8
*
1
1
99
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
1%
-%
-%
-%
3%
5%
4%
2%
1%
2%
*%
5%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
d
hk
3%
-%
-%
-%
25%
94%
7%
7%
*%
1%
1%
94%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Send/ receive video clips
4
-
-
-
12
63
11
5
*
-
*
70
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
1%
-%
-%
-%
1%
3%
6%
1%
1%
-%
*%
4%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
d
f
hk
5%
-%
-%
-%
17%
85%
15%
6%
1%
-%
1%
95%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
TV streaming (e.g. BBC iPlayer, Sky Go)
6
-
-
-
12
67
7
8
1
-
*
66
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
2%
-%
-%
-%
1%
3%
4%
2%
3%
-%
*%
3%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
k
8%
-%
-%
-%
16%
92%
10%
11%
2%
-%
*%
90%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Using VoIP service e.g. Skype
6
-
-
-
6
63
5
7
1
2
-
61
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
2%
-%
-%
-%
1%
3%
3%
2%
2%
3%
-%
3%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
k
k
9%
-%
-%
-%
9%
93%
7%
11%
1%
2%
-%
90%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Download a new video clip
3
-
-
-
16
54
7
4
1
-
*
57
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
1%
-%
-%
-%
2%
3%
4%
1%
2%
-%
*%
3%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
d
hk
4%
-%
-%
-%
27%
89%
12%
7%
1%
-%
1%
94%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Listen to Podcasts
2
-
-
-
5
48
3
4
-
-
*
48
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
1%
-%
-%
-%
1%
2%
2%
1%
-%
-%
*%
2%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
4%
-%
-%
-%
10%
93%
6%
7%
-%
-%
1%
93%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd11 (Qd28B) Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Video streaming
-
-
-
-
10
42
8
5
1
-
-
46
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
1%
2%
4%
1%
2%
-%
-%
2%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
k
-%
-%
-%
-%
19%
84%
17%
9%
2%
-%
-%
92%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Video calling
2
-
-
-
6
30
7
2
-
-
-
34
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
*%
-%
-%
-%
1%
1%
4%
1%
-%
-%
-%
2%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
5%
-%
-%
-%
16%
84%
19%
5%
-%
-%
-%
95%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Other
*
-
-
-
1
2
*
*
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
*%
-%
-%
-%
*%
*%
*%
*%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
21%
-%
-%
-%
23%
83%
21%
20%
-%
-%
-%
79%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
WEB/ DATA ACCESS
51
8
-
8
154
716
88
64
7
8
7
744
7
1
*
**
5
2
3
4
15%
4%
-%
2%
18%
35%
45%
19%
15%
14%
7%
39%
2%
2%
2%
**
3%
1%
2%
2%
bcd
c
c
f
k
k
hijk
6%
1%
-%
1%
19%
89%
11%
8%
1%
1%
1%
92%
1%
*%
*%
**
1%
*%
*%
1%
LISTEN TO AUDIO CONTENT
17
2
-
2
74
325
44
34
4
3
1
338
2
*
-
**
2
*
2
-
5%
1%
-%
1%
9%
16%
22%
10%
8%
6%
1%
18%
1%
*%
-%
**
1%
*%
1%
-%
bcd
f
k
k
k
hjk
5%
1%
-%
1%
20%
88%
12%
9%
1%
1%
*%
91%
1%
*%
-%
**
*%
*%
1%
-%
PLAY GAMES
11
2
*
3
72
265
31
28
3
4
2
268
2
-
-
**
*
2
*
2
3%
1%
*%
1%
8%
13%
16%
8%
6%
8%
1%
14%
1%
-%
-%
**
*%
1%
*%
1%
cd
k
k
k
hk
4%
1%
*%
1%
24%
90%
11%
9%
1%
1%
1%
91%
1%
-%
-%
**
*%
1%
*%
1%
DOWNLOAD APPLICATIONS
8
1
-
1
35
182
23
20
4
4
1
187
*
-
*
**
*
-
*
-
2%
*%
-%
*%
4%
9%
12%
6%
8%
7%
*%
10%
*%
-%
1%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
bcd
k
k
k
hk
4%
*%
-%
*%
17%
89%
11%
10%
2%
2%
*%
91%
*%
-%
*%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd11 (Qd28B) Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
WATCHING AV CONTENT
7
-
-
-
20
103
13
10
1
-
1
106
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
2%
-%
-%
-%
2%
5%
7%
3%
3%
-%
1%
6%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
hjk
6%
-%
-%
-%
18%
90%
11%
9%
1%
-%
1%
92%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
None of these
90
85
83
168
216
309
15
88
14
18
47
234
144
10
9
**
68
77
70
74
26%
42%
44%
43%
25%
15%
8%
26%
33%
35%
42%
12%
43%
32%
49%
**
46%
41%
44%
43%
a
a
a
g
l
l
l
hl
n
28%
26%
26%
52%
67%
96%
5%
27%
4%
6%
15%
73%
45%
3%
3%
**
21%
24%
22%
23%
Don't know
2
1
1
2
3
6
-
1
1
-
-
5
2
-
*
**
1
1
1
1
1%
1%
*%
1%
*%
*%
-%
*%
2%
-%
-%
*%
1%
-%
*%
**
*%
1%
1%
*%
l
30%
24%
11%
35%
56%
100%
-%
14%
14%
-%
-%
87%
32%
-%
1%
**
11%
21%
21%
11%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd12 (Qd28C). Showcard You Said That You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet. Which One Of These Best Describes Where You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet? (Single Code)
Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
72
21
-
21
260
1112
87
101
11
13
16
1100
14
3
3
1
14
-
10
4
Effective Weighted Sample
50
16
-
16
173
765
76
72
8
8
12
765
13
2
3
1
13
-
9
4
Total
51
8
-
8
155
730
90
66
7
8
8
760
7
1
*
*
7
-
5
3
**
**
-%
**
19%
89%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
I always use in the home
**
**
-
**
13
47
**
9
**
**
**
45
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
8%
6%
**
13%
**
**
**
6%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
l
**
**
-%
**
24%
89%
**
16%
**
**
**
84%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
I mainly use in the home
**
**
-
**
24
84
**
12
**
**
**
84
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
16%
11%
**
19%
**
**
**
11%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
-%
**
25%
87%
**
13%
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
I use equally in the home and outside the home
**
**
-
**
95
446
**
31
**
**
**
466
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
61%
61%
**
47%
**
**
**
61%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
h
**
**
-%
**
19%
90%
**
6%
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
I mainly use outside the home
**
**
-
**
19
114
**
12
**
**
**
115
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
12%
16%
**
18%
**
**
**
15%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
-%
**
15%
90%
**
10%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
I always use outside the home
**
**
-
**
4
36
**
2
**
**
**
45
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
3%
5%
**
3%
**
**
**
6%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
f
**
**
-%
**
9%
76%
**
4%
**
**
**
96%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE IN THE HOME
**
**
-
**
37
131
**
21
**
**
**
129
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
24%
18%
**
32%
**
**
**
17%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
l
**
**
-%
**
25%
88%
**
14%
**
**
**
86%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd12 (Qd28C). Showcard You Said That You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet. Which One Of These Best Describes Where You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet? (Single Code)
Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
72
21
-
21
260
1112
87
101
11
13
16
1100
14
3
3
1
14
-
10
4
Effective Weighted Sample
50
16
-
16
173
765
76
72
8
8
12
765
13
2
3
1
13
-
9
4
Total
51
8
-
8
155
730
90
66
7
8
8
760
7
1
*
*
7
-
5
3
**
**
-%
**
19%
89%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE
OUTSIDE THE HOME
**
**
-
**
23
150
**
14
**
**
**
160
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
15%
20%
**
21%
**
**
**
21%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
-%
**
13%
86%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
EVER USE OUTSIDE THE HOME
**
**
-
**
142
679
**
57
**
**
**
710
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
92%
93%
**
87%
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
h
**
**
-%
**
19%
89%
**
7%
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
Don't know
**
**
-
**
-
4
**
-
**
**
**
4
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
1%
**
-%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
100%
**
-%
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd13 (Qd28E) Showcard Which Of These Ways Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
72
21
-
21
260
1112
87
101
11
13
16
1100
14
3
3
1
14
-
10
4
Effective Weighted Sample
50
16
-
16
173
765
76
72
8
8
12
765
13
2
3
1
13
-
9
4
Total
51
8
-
8
155
730
90
66
7
8
8
760
7
1
*
*
7
-
5
3
**
**
-%
**
19%
89%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
Via mobile network (2G or 3G)
**
**
-
**
112
540
**
47
**
**
**
561
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
72%
74%
**
72%
**
**
**
74%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
-%
**
18%
89%
**
8%
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
Wi-Fi/ wireless broadband network at home
**
**
-
**
62
373
**
35
**
**
**
378
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
40%
51%
**
52%
**
**
**
50%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
-%
**
15%
91%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
Wi-Fi/ wireless broadband elsewhere (i.e. 'hotspots')
**
**
-
**
24
186
**
18
**
**
**
183
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
16%
25%
**
28%
**
**
**
24%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
-%
**
12%
93%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
MOBILE NETWORK AND NOT WI-FI
**
**
-
**
78
301
**
22
**
**
**
326
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
51%
41%
**
34%
**
**
**
43%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
-%
**
23%
87%
**
6%
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
WI-FI AND NOT MOBILE NETWORK
**
**
-
**
35
175
**
18
**
**
**
181
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
23%
24%
**
27%
**
**
**
24%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
-%
**
18%
89%
**
9%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
ANY WI-FI USE
**
**
-
**
69
414
**
42
**
**
**
416
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
45%
57%
**
65%
**
**
**
55%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
-%
**
15%
91%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
Don't know
**
**
-
**
7
15
**
1
**
**
**
18
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
5%
2%
**
1%
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
-%
**
40%
80%
**
5%
**
**
**
95%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd14 (Qd28F) Showcard In Which Of These Places Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet Outside Of The Home? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet outside the home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
*g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
64
18
-
18
233
1026
79
86
10
10
12
1021
12
3
2
1
12
-
10
2
Effective Weighted Sample
43
13
-
13
155
708
70
62
8
6
9
712
11
2
2
1
11
-
9
2
Total
45
7
-
7
142
679
84
57
7
6
5
710
6
1
*
*
6
-
5
1
**
**
-%
**
19%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
When travelling (e.g. on a train
or in a car)
**
**
-
**
85
478
**
**
**
**
**
505
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
60%
70%
**
**
**
**
**
71%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
h
**
**
-%
**
16%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
Outdoors
**
**
-
**
87
471
**
**
**
**
**
488
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
62%
69%
**
**
**
**
**
69%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
-%
**
17%
90%
**
**
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
Indoor public spaces (e.g. pub/ restaurant/ theatre/ shopping centre)
**
**
-
**
87
457
**
**
**
**
**
481
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
61%
67%
**
**
**
**
**
68%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
-%
**
17%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
In other people's homes (e.g. friends/ family)
**
**
-
**
80
385
**
**
**
**
**
395
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
56%
57%
**
**
**
**
**
56%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
g
**
**
-%
**
19%
92%
**
**
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
At your workplace
**
**
-
**
40
339
**
**
**
**
**
361
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
28%
50%
**
**
**
**
**
51%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
h
**
**
-%
**
11%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
95%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
Other
**
**
-
**
6
19
**
**
**
**
**
19
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
4%
3%
**
**
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
-%
**
30%
92%
**
**
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd14 (Qd28F) Showcard In Which Of These Places Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet Outside Of The Home? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet outside the home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
*g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
64
18
-
18
233
1026
79
86
10
10
12
1021
12
3
2
1
12
-
10
2
Effective Weighted Sample
43
13
-
13
155
708
70
62
8
6
9
712
11
2
2
1
11
-
9
2
Total
45
7
-
7
142
679
84
57
7
6
5
710
6
1
*
*
6
-
5
1
**
**
-%
**
19%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
Don't know
**
**
-
**
7
18
**
**
**
**
**
19
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
-%
**
5%
3%
**
**
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
-%
**
33%
85%
**
**
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd15 (Qd28G) Showcard Do You Use Any Of The Following Types Of Apps Or Applications On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with a smartphone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
95
30
3
33
300
1204
96
118
13
15
19
1184
21
3
6
3
20
1
14
7
Effective Weighted Sample
68
22
2
24
202
828
84
85
9
11
15
822
19
2
4
2
18
1
13
6
Total
66
13
1
13
180
784
97
78
7
11
10
807
12
1
1
*
11
1
7
4
**
**
**
**
20%
89%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Social networking (e.g.
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn)
**
**
**
**
95
462
**
42
**
**
**
479
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
53%
59%
**
53%
**
**
**
59%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
d
**
**
**
**
18%
89%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Weather
**
**
**
**
62
409
**
35
**
**
**
429
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
35%
52%
**
44%
**
**
**
53%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
d
**
**
**
**
13%
88%
**
8%
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Games
**
**
**
**
90
411
**
37
**
**
**
417
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
50%
52%
**
47%
**
**
**
52%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
d
**
**
**
**
20%
91%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Maps/ navigation
**
**
**
**
71
383
**
27
**
**
**
416
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
39%
49%
**
35%
**
**
**
52%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
h
**
**
**
**
16%
87%
**
6%
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
News
**
**
**
**
61
358
**
27
**
**
**
386
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
34%
46%
**
35%
**
**
**
48%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
d
h
**
**
**
**
15%
87%
**
7%
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Music
**
**
**
**
69
335
**
31
**
**
**
351
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
38%
43%
**
39%
**
**
**
43%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
18%
88%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd15 (Qd28G) Showcard Do You Use Any Of The Following Types Of Apps Or Applications On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with a smartphone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
95
30
3
33
300
1204
96
118
13
15
19
1184
21
3
6
3
20
1
14
7
Effective Weighted Sample
68
22
2
24
202
828
84
85
9
11
15
822
19
2
4
2
18
1
13
6
Total
66
13
1
13
180
784
97
78
7
11
10
807
12
1
1
*
11
1
7
4
**
**
**
**
20%
89%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Travel/ journey planning
**
**
**
**
46
311
**
24
**
**
**
337
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
26%
40%
**
31%
**
**
**
42%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
d
h
**
**
**
**
13%
86%
**
7%
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Sports/ sports news
**
**
**
**
44
270
**
18
**
**
**
291
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
25%
34%
**
23%
**
**
**
36%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
h
**
**
**
**
14%
88%
**
6%
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Shopping (e.g. Tesco, Ocado, eBay)
**
**
**
**
47
221
**
18
**
**
**
236
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
26%
28%
**
22%
**
**
**
29%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
d
**
**
**
**
19%
88%
**
7%
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Banking
**
**
**
**
31
186
**
13
**
**
**
204
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
17%
24%
**
17%
**
**
**
25%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
14%
86%
**
6%
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Location-based services
**
**
**
**
13
104
**
9
**
**
**
114
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
7%
13%
**
12%
**
**
**
14%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
f
**
**
**
**
10%
84%
**
8%
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Books
**
**
**
**
10
92
**
9
**
**
**
100
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5%
12%
**
12%
**
**
**
12%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
9%
85%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Vouchers
**
**
**
**
12
83
**
4
**
**
**
91
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
6%
11%
**
5%
**
**
**
11%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
12%
88%
**
4%
**
**
**
97%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd15 (Qd28G) Showcard Do You Use Any Of The Following Types Of Apps Or Applications On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with a smartphone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
95
30
3
33
300
1204
96
118
13
15
19
1184
21
3
6
3
20
1
14
7
Effective Weighted Sample
68
22
2
24
202
828
84
85
9
11
15
822
19
2
4
2
18
1
13
6
Total
66
13
1
13
180
784
97
78
7
11
10
807
12
1
1
*
11
1
7
4
**
**
**
**
20%
89%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Finance/ business
**
**
**
**
10
66
**
6
**
**
**
73
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5%
8%
**
8%
**
**
**
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
12%
84%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
NONE OF THESE
**
**
**
**
39
99
**
14
**
**
**
95
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
22%
13%
**
17%
**
**
**
12%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
a
**
**
**
**
36%
92%
**
13%
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
1
3
**
*
**
**
**
4
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*%
*%
**
1%
**
**
**
*%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
17%
72%
**
12%
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd16 (Qd28H) Showcard And Which Of These Types Of Apps Or Applications Have You Paid For To Download On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with a smartphone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
95
30
3
33
300
1204
96
118
13
15
19
1184
21
3
6
3
20
1
14
7
Effective Weighted Sample
68
22
2
24
202
828
84
85
9
11
15
822
19
2
4
2
18
1
13
6
Total
66
13
1
13
180
784
97
78
7
11
10
807
12
1
1
*
11
1
7
4
**
**
**
**
20%
89%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Games
**
**
**
**
26
110
**
13
**
**
**
108
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
14%
14%
**
17%
**
**
**
13%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
21%
92%
**
11%
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Music
**
**
**
**
9
66
**
8
**
**
**
62
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5%
8%
**
10%
**
**
**
8%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
12%
94%
**
12%
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Maps/ navigation
**
**
**
**
6
44
**
3
**
**
**
44
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
6%
**
4%
**
**
**
5%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
13%
94%
**
6%
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Social networking (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn)
**
**
**
**
11
34
**
6
**
**
**
32
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
6%
4%
**
7%
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
29%
90%
**
16%
**
**
**
86%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Travel/ journey planning
**
**
**
**
2
30
**
3
**
**
**
31
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
4%
**
3%
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
7%
90%
**
8%
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Sports/ sports news
**
**
**
**
3
26
**
3
**
**
**
26
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
3%
**
3%
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
9%
92%
**
9%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Weather
**
**
**
**
4
20
**
1
**
**
**
21
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
3%
**
1%
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
17%
91%
**
5%
**
**
**
96%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
News
**
**
**
**
5
16
**
2
**
**
**
18
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
2%
**
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
24%
80%
**
10%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd16 (Qd28H) Showcard And Which Of These Types Of Apps Or Applications Have You Paid For To Download On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with a smartphone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
95
30
3
33
300
1204
96
118
13
15
19
1184
21
3
6
3
20
1
14
7
Effective Weighted Sample
68
22
2
24
202
828
84
85
9
11
15
822
19
2
4
2
18
1
13
6
Total
66
13
1
13
180
784
97
78
7
11
10
807
12
1
1
*
11
1
7
4
**
**
**
**
20%
89%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Books
**
**
**
**
1
15
**
2
**
**
**
14
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*%
2%
**
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
93%
**
11%
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Finance/ business
**
**
**
**
3
12
**
2
**
**
**
11
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
2%
**
3%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
22%
90%
**
16%
**
**
**
85%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Banking
**
**
**
**
1
11
**
1
**
**
**
10
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
1%
**
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
13%
100%
**
9%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Shopping (e.g. Tesco, Ocado, eBay)
**
**
**
**
2
10
**
2
**
**
**
8
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
1%
**
3%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
20%
100%
**
24%
**
**
**
79%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Location-based services
**
**
**
**
1
7
**
2
**
**
**
7
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*%
1%
**
3%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
10%
73%
**
21%
**
**
**
79%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Vouchers
**
**
**
**
2
3
**
-
**
**
**
6
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
*%
**
-%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
f
**
**
**
**
24%
52%
**
-%
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
NONE OF THESE
**
**
**
**
135
555
**
56
**
**
**
574
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
75%
71%
**
71%
**
**
**
71%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
21%
88%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
4
19
**
2
**
**
**
22
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
2%
**
2%
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
19%
83%
**
7%
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd17A (Qd21A). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... The Overall Service Provided By Main Supplier. (Single Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Base for %
311
165
93
258
684
1850
188
258
27
37
82
1787
226
15
12
6
107
118
115
111
15%
8%
5%
13%
33%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
5%
Very satisfied
164
97
51
148
389
1096
88
151
**
**
44
1040
132
**
**
**
53
78
61
70
53%
59%
55%
57%
57%
59%
47%
58%
**
**
55%
58%
58%
**
**
**
50%
66%
53%
63%
g
qs
q
14%
8%
4%
12%
33%
92%
7%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
4%
7%
5%
6%
Fairly satisfied
130
56
36
92
257
657
93
93
**
**
31
659
78
**
**
**
45
33
47
31
42%
34%
39%
36%
38%
36%
49%
36%
**
**
38%
37%
35%
**
**
**
42%
28%
41%
28%
f
m
rt
rt
17%
7%
5%
12%
34%
87%
12%
12%
**
**
4%
88%
10%
**
**
**
6%
4%
6%
4%
TOTAL SATISFIED
294
154
87
240
646
1753
180
244
**
**
75
1699
209
**
**
**
98
111
108
101
95%
93%
94%
93%
94%
95%
96%
94%
**
**
92%
95%
93%
**
**
**
91%
94%
94%
91%
15%
8%
4%
12%
33%
90%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
88%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
5%
Neither
11
7
5
12
28
57
7
10
**
**
5
52
11
**
**
**
7
5
3
8
3%
4%
5%
5%
4%
3%
4%
4%
**
**
6%
3%
5%
**
**
**
6%
4%
3%
7%
hl
17%
12%
8%
20%
45%
91%
11%
17%
**
**
8%
83%
18%
**
**
**
11%
7%
5%
13%
Fairly dissatisfied
5
2
1
3
6
29
1
2
**
**
2
28
3
**
**
**
2
1
1
1
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
**
**
2%
2%
1%
**
**
**
2%
1%
1%
1%
17%
7%
3%
10%
21%
97%
5%
6%
**
**
5%
94%
9%
**
**
**
5%
4%
5%
4%
Very dissatisfied
1
2
-
2
4
11
-
2
**
**
-
9
2
**
**
**
1
1
2
-
*%
1%
-%
1%
1%
1%
-%
1%
**
**
-%
*%
1%
**
**
**
1%
1%
2%
-%
l
10%
19%
-%
19%
40%
100%
-%
22%
**
**
-%
80%
17%
**
**
**
6%
11%
17%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd17A (Qd21A). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... The Overall Service Provided By Main Supplier. (Single Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
TOTAL DISSATISFIED
6
4
1
5
11
40
1
4
**
**
2
37
5
**
**
**
2
2
3
1
2%
3%
1%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
**
**
2%
2%
2%
**
**
**
2%
2%
3%
1%
15%
11%
2%
13%
26%
98%
4%
10%
**
**
4%
90%
12%
**
**
**
6%
6%
8%
3%
Don't know
6
4
6
10
18
29
-
5
**
**
2
24
9
**
**
**
4
5
5
4
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd17J (Qd21J). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... Reception/ Accessing Network. (Single Code).
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Base for %
310
165
91
256
682
1847
188
256
26
37
81
1787
224
15
12
6
107
117
113
111
15%
8%
4%
13%
33%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
88%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
5%
Very satisfied
159
88
48
136
366
1029
79
142
**
**
41
972
121
**
**
**
50
71
55
67
51%
53%
53%
53%
54%
56%
42%
56%
**
**
50%
54%
54%
**
**
**
47%
61%
48%
60%
g
qs
q
14%
8%
4%
12%
33%
92%
7%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
5%
6%
Fairly satisfied
115
58
34
92
247
615
96
82
**
**
29
630
78
**
**
**
42
35
45
33
37%
35%
38%
36%
36%
33%
51%
32%
**
**
36%
35%
35%
**
**
**
40%
30%
40%
30%
f
16%
8%
5%
13%
35%
86%
14%
12%
**
**
4%
89%
11%
**
**
**
6%
5%
6%
5%
TOTAL SATISFIED
274
146
82
228
613
1644
176
224
**
**
70
1602
199
**
**
**
93
106
100
100
88%
88%
90%
89%
90%
89%
93%
88%
**
**
86%
90%
89%
**
**
**
87%
91%
88%
90%
mo
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
90%
10%
12%
**
**
4%
88%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
5%
5%
Neither
14
9
5
14
30
83
6
16
**
**
5
73
12
**
**
**
6
6
4
7
5%
5%
6%
5%
4%
5%
3%
6%
**
**
6%
4%
5%
**
**
**
5%
5%
4%
7%
16%
10%
6%
15%
34%
93%
7%
18%
**
**
5%
82%
13%
**
**
**
6%
7%
5%
8%
Fairly dissatisfied
15
5
3
8
26
83
5
9
**
**
5
78
7
**
**
**
5
2
3
4
5%
3%
3%
3%
4%
5%
2%
4%
**
**
6%
4%
3%
**
**
**
4%
2%
3%
3%
17%
6%
3%
9%
30%
95%
5%
11%
**
**
5%
89%
8%
**
**
**
5%
2%
4%
4%
Very dissatisfied
7
6
1
7
13
36
2
6
**
**
2
33
6
**
**
**
4
2
6
1
2%
3%
1%
3%
2%
2%
1%
2%
**
**
2%
2%
3%
**
**
**
4%
2%
5%
*%
t
19%
15%
2%
17%
33%
94%
6%
16%
**
**
5%
84%
16%
**
**
**
10%
6%
14%
1%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd17J (Qd21J). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... Reception/ Accessing Network. (Single Code).
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
543
357
175
532
1297
3189
198
520
65
77
169
2872
340
62
69
61
189
151
182
158
Effective Weighted Sample
375
214
123
337
858
2166
171
342
40
50
126
1982
270
39
42
51
167
117
145
126
Total
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
6
112
123
119
115
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
TOTAL DISSATISFIED
22
11
4
14
39
120
7
16
**
**
7
111
13
**
**
**
9
4
9
4
7%
6%
4%
6%
6%
6%
4%
6%
**
**
8%
6%
6%
**
**
**
8%
4%
8%
4%
17%
8%
3%
11%
31%
95%
6%
12%
**
**
5%
88%
10%
**
**
**
7%
3%
7%
3%
Don't know
6
4
8
12
20
32
-
7
**
**
2
25
11
**
**
**
4
6
6
4
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QD17K (QD21K). SHOWCARD Thinking about your mobile phone service only, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with (MAIN SUPPLIER) for each of the following... Ability to connect to the internet using the mobile network (3G). (SINGLE CODE).
Base : Those with a smartphone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
95
30
3
33
300
1204
96
118
13
15
19
1184
21
3
6
3
20
1
14
7
Effective Weighted Sample
68
22
2
24
202
828
84
85
9
11
15
822
19
2
4
2
18
1
13
6
Total
66
13
1
13
180
784
97
78
7
11
10
807
12
1
1
*
11
1
7
4
**
**
**
**
20%
89%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Base for %
57
11
*
11
164
745
96
70
6
9
8
775
10
1
*
*
9
1
6
3
**
**
**
**
19%
88%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Very satisfied
**
**
**
**
85
393
**
43
**
**
**
407
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
52%
53%
**
61%
**
**
**
52%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
19%
88%
**
10%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Fairly satisfied
**
**
**
**
52
248
**
16
**
**
**
271
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
32%
33%
**
24%
**
**
**
35%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
h
**
**
**
**
18%
86%
**
6%
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
TOTAL SATISFIED
**
**
**
**
137
641
**
59
**
**
**
678
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
83%
86%
**
85%
**
**
**
87%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
f
**
**
**
**
19%
87%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Neither
**
**
**
**
17
57
**
8
**
**
**
51
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
10%
8%
**
12%
**
**
**
7%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
28%
96%
**
14%
**
**
**
87%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Fairly dissatisfied
**
**
**
**
5
33
**
1
**
**
**
34
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
4%
**
1%
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
16%
96%
**
2%
**
**
**
98%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Very dissatisfied
**
**
**
**
5
13
**
2
**
**
**
12
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
2%
**
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
37%
100%
**
12%
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
TOTAL DISSATISFIED
**
**
**
**
10
46
**
2
**
**
**
46
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
6%
6%
**
3%
**
**
**
6%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
22%
97%
**
5%
**
**
**
95%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QD17K (QD21K). SHOWCARD Thinking about your mobile phone service only, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with (MAIN SUPPLIER) for each of the following... Ability to connect to the internet using the mobile network (3G). (SINGLE CODE).
Base : Those with a smartphone
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
95
30
3
33
300
1204
96
118
13
15
19
1184
21
3
6
3
20
1
14
7
Effective Weighted Sample
68
22
2
24
202
828
84
85
9
11
15
822
19
2
4
2
18
1
13
6
Total
66
13
1
13
180
784
97
78
7
11
10
807
12
1
1
*
11
1
7
4
**
**
**
**
20%
89%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
16
39
**
9
**
**
**
32
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QE1. Does your household have a PC, laptop, netbook or tablet computer? (MULTI CODE OPTIONS 1-4 ONLY)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Yes - PC
172
81
42
123
289
910
76
111
15
23
30
882
113
4
5
**
57
55
73
40
50%
40%
22%
31%
33%
44%
39%
33%
34%
44%
27%
46%
34%
14%
27%
**
39%
30%
45%
23%
bcd
cd
c
k
hk
np
t
rt
17%
8%
4%
12%
29%
92%
8%
11%
2%
2%
3%
89%
11%
*%
1%
**
6%
6%
7%
4%
Yes - laptop
185
84
26
109
352
1252
122
148
12
18
36
1236
98
5
4
**
53
45
60
38
53%
41%
14%
28%
41%
61%
63%
44%
28%
34%
32%
64%
29%
17%
21%
**
36%
24%
38%
22%
bcd
cd
c
ik
hijk
n
rt
rt
13%
6%
2%
8%
25%
91%
9%
11%
1%
1%
3%
89%
7%
*%
*%
**
4%
3%
4%
3%
Yes - netbook
14
4
-
4
24
144
5
17
2
3
2
133
4
-
-
**
2
2
4
-
4%
2%
-%
1%
3%
7%
3%
5%
6%
6%
2%
7%
1%
-%
-%
**
1%
1%
3%
-%
cd
c
g
k
t
9%
3%
-%
3%
16%
97%
3%
12%
2%
2%
1%
89%
3%
-%
-%
**
1%
1%
3%
-%
Yes - tablet computer - e.g. iPad
25
6
2
8
31
219
22
20
3
3
4
223
7
*
1
**
2
4
4
3
7%
3%
1%
2%
4%
11%
11%
6%
6%
7%
4%
12%
2%
1%
6%
**
2%
2%
2%
2%
bcd
hk
10%
2%
1%
3%
13%
90%
9%
8%
1%
1%
2%
92%
3%
*%
*%
**
1%
2%
2%
1%
TOTAL YES
265
132
59
191
514
1613
156
198
21
29
55
1583
172
9
7
**
90
82
105
68
76%
65%
31%
49%
59%
78%
80%
59%
48%
55%
49%
82%
52%
28%
36%
**
61%
44%
65%
39%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
nop
rt
rt
15%
7%
3%
11%
29%
91%
9%
11%
1%
2%
3%
89%
10%
1%
*%
**
5%
5%
6%
4%
No
81
71
129
200
349
438
38
135
22
23
58
334
159
23
12
**
55
104
55
104
23%
35%
68%
51%
40%
21%
19%
40%
52%
44%
51%
17%
48%
71%
64%
**
38%
56%
34%
60%
a
abd
ab
l
l
l
hl
m
m
m
qs
qs
17%
15%
27%
42%
74%
93%
8%
29%
5%
5%
12%
71%
34%
5%
3%
**
12%
22%
12%
22%
Don't know
1
2
1
2
5
4
1
2
-
*
-
4
2
*
*
**
1
1
1
1
*%
1%
*%
1%
1%
*%
1%
*%
-%
*%
-%
*%
1%
*%
*%
**
1%
*%
*%
1%
17%
25%
11%
37%
85%
69%
23%
27%
-%
1%
-%
73%
35%
1%
1%
**
24%
11%
11%
23%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe2 (Qe1A). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Tablet Computer - Such As An Ipad - In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code)
Base : Those without a tablet computer in the household
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
557
436
338
774
1571
3243
185
652
97
115
236
2782
472
103
106
93
249
223
230
242
Effective Weighted Sample
386
256
223
479
1028
2189
159
422
60
69
165
1916
372
62
65
77
217
174
180
192
Total
321
198
187
385
837
1837
173
314
41
49
109
1699
327
31
18
9
145
183
157
171
16%
10%
9%
19%
42%
91%
9%
16%
**
2%
5%
84%
16%
2%
1%
**
7%
9%
8%
8%
Certain to
6
2
1
3
9
39
6
5
**
*
1
40
1
1
*
**
1
1
1
-
2%
1%
*%
1%
1%
2%
3%
2%
**
*%
1%
2%
*%
3%
2%
**
*%
*%
1%
-%
m
14%
5%
1%
6%
20%
86%
12%
11%
**
*%
2%
88%
3%
2%
1%
**
1%
1%
3%
-%
Very likely
20
3
-
3
21
84
10
9
**
1
4
84
3
-
*
**
3
1
3
-
6%
2%
-%
1%
3%
5%
6%
3%
**
2%
4%
5%
1%
-%
1%
**
2%
*%
2%
-%
bcd
h
21%
3%
-%
3%
23%
90%
10%
9%
**
1%
4%
91%
3%
-%
*%
**
3%
1%
3%
-%
Likely
25
8
4
12
45
173
23
17
**
4
2
179
11
1
*
**
4
7
8
3
8%
4%
2%
3%
5%
9%
13%
5%
**
8%
2%
11%
3%
3%
2%
**
3%
4%
5%
2%
cd
k
k
hik
13%
4%
2%
6%
23%
89%
12%
8%
**
2%
1%
92%
6%
1%
*%
**
2%
4%
4%
2%
TOTAL LIKELY
51
14
5
18
76
296
38
30
**
5
6
303
15
2
1
**
7
8
12
3
16%
7%
2%
5%
9%
16%
22%
10%
**
10%
6%
18%
5%
7%
5%
**
5%
5%
8%
2%
bcd
c
hik
t
15%
4%
1%
5%
23%
89%
11%
9%
**
1%
2%
91%
5%
1%
*%
**
2%
3%
4%
1%
Unlikely
41
28
13
41
118
309
34
48
**
8
13
300
37
2
2
**
18
18
20
16
13%
14%
7%
11%
14%
17%
19%
15%
**
15%
12%
18%
11%
6%
10%
**
13%
10%
13%
10%
c
c
12%
8%
4%
12%
34%
89%
10%
14%
**
2%
4%
86%
11%
1%
1%
**
5%
5%
6%
5%
Very unlikely
81
44
31
75
178
388
32
62
**
7
22
360
63
7
4
**
34
29
38
25
25%
22%
16%
20%
21%
21%
19%
20%
**
15%
20%
21%
19%
22%
22%
**
24%
16%
24%
15%
cd
t
rt
19%
11%
7%
18%
42%
92%
8%
15%
**
2%
5%
85%
15%
2%
1%
**
8%
7%
9%
6%
Certain not to
117
101
123
224
390
627
36
148
**
28
60
512
188
19
11
**
76
112
73
115
36%
51%
66%
58%
47%
34%
21%
47%
**
56%
55%
30%
58%
61%
60%
**
53%
61%
47%
67%
a
abd
a
g
l
l
l
l
m
s
qs
18%
15%
19%
34%
59%
95%
5%
22%
**
4%
9%
77%
28%
3%
2%
**
12%
17%
11%
17%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe2 (Qe1A). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Tablet Computer - Such As An Ipad - In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code)
Base : Those without a tablet computer in the household
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
557
436
338
774
1571
3243
185
652
97
115
236
2782
472
103
106
93
249
223
230
242
Effective Weighted Sample
386
256
223
479
1028
2189
159
422
60
69
165
1916
372
62
65
77
217
174
180
192
Total
321
198
187
385
837
1837
173
314
41
49
109
1699
327
31
18
9
145
183
157
171
16%
10%
9%
19%
42%
91%
9%
16%
**
2%
5%
84%
16%
2%
1%
**
7%
9%
8%
8%
TOTAL UNLIKELY
239
173
167
340
687
1324
102
258
**
42
95
1172
288
28
16
**
129
160
132
156
74%
87%
90%
88%
82%
72%
59%
82%
**
86%
87%
69%
88%
89%
93%
**
89%
87%
84%
92%
a
a
a
g
l
l
l
l
s
17%
12%
12%
24%
48%
92%
7%
18%
**
3%
7%
82%
20%
2%
1%
**
9%
11%
9%
11%
Don't know
32
12
15
26
75
217
34
25
**
2
8
225
24
2
*
**
9
15
13
11
10%
6%
8%
7%
9%
12%
19%
8%
**
5%
7%
13%
7%
5%
3%
**
6%
8%
8%
6%
f
hjk
13%
5%
6%
11%
30%
87%
13%
10%
**
1%
3%
90%
10%
1%
*%
**
4%
6%
5%
4%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe3 (Qe2). Do You Or Does Anyone In Your Household Have Access To The Internet/ Worldwide Web At Home (Via Any Device, E.G. Pc, Mobile Phone Etc)? (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Yes - have access and use at
home
253
122
45
166
491
1569
151
178
21
25
46
1551
150
8
6
**
81
69
94
55
73%
60%
24%
42%
57%
76%
77%
53%
48%
48%
40%
81%
45%
25%
33%
**
55%
37%
59%
32%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
np
rt
rt
15%
7%
3%
10%
28%
91%
9%
10%
1%
1%
3%
90%
9%
*%
*%
**
5%
4%
5%
3%
Yes - have access but don't use at home
6
10
6
16
29
48
3
14
*
1
9
37
14
1
*
**
6
8
4
10
2%
5%
3%
4%
3%
2%
2%
4%
*%
3%
8%
2%
4%
3%
2%
**
4%
5%
3%
6%
a
l
il
12%
19%
12%
31%
57%
94%
6%
28%
*%
3%
17%
72%
27%
2%
1%
**
11%
16%
9%
19%
No do not have access at home
85
72
136
208
343
428
41
137
22
26
57
328
167
23
12
**
60
107
59
108
24%
35%
72%
53%
40%
21%
21%
41%
51%
49%
51%
17%
50%
72%
64%
**
41%
57%
37%
62%
a
abd
ab
l
l
l
hl
m
m
m
qs
qs
18%
15%
29%
44%
73%
91%
9%
29%
5%
6%
12%
70%
36%
5%
3%
**
13%
23%
13%
23%
Don't know
3
1
2
3
5
10
*
5
*
-
1
6
3
*
*
**
*
3
2
1
1%
*%
1%
1%
1%
*%
*%
1%
1%
-%
1%
*%
1%
*%
*%
**
*%
1%
1%
1%
l
28%
6%
24%
30%
46%
99%
2%
45%
4%
-%
11%
56%
29%
1%
1%
**
3%
26%
20%
9%
INTERNET ACCESS AT HOME YES
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
**
86
78
99
65
75%
64%
27%
46%
60%
79%
79%
58%
48%
51%
48%
83%
49%
28%
36%
**
59%
42%
62%
37%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
nop
rt
rt
15%
7%
3%
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
1%
2%
3%
89%
9%
*%
*%
**
5%
4%
6%
4%
NO
85
72
136
208
343
428
41
137
22
26
57
328
167
23
12
**
60
107
59
108
24%
35%
72%
53%
40%
21%
21%
41%
51%
49%
51%
17%
50%
72%
64%
**
41%
57%
37%
62%
a
abd
ab
l
l
l
hl
m
m
m
qs
qs
18%
15%
29%
44%
73%
91%
9%
29%
5%
6%
12%
70%
36%
5%
3%
**
13%
23%
13%
23%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QE4 (IN6). SHOWCARD Do you ever access the internet anywhere other than in your home at all? IF YES: Where is that? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Your workplace
66
6
-
6
39
525
56
32
4
3
1
558
5
*
*
**
3
3
5
-
19%
3%
-%
1%
4%
26%
29%
10%
10%
6%
1%
29%
2%
*%
1%
**
2%
1%
3%
-%
bcd
c
k
k
k
hijk
t
11%
1%
-%
1%
7%
89%
10%
5%
1%
1%
*%
95%
1%
*%
*%
**
*%
*%
1%
-%
Anywhere - using a 3G mobile phone/ smartphone
35
5
-
5
100
498
63
47
5
7
3
517
5
-
*
**
5
-
3
1
10%
2%
-%
1%
11%
24%
32%
14%
12%
14%
3%
27%
1%
-%
2%
**
3%
-%
2%
1%
bcd
c
f
k
k
k
hijk
r
6%
1%
-%
1%
18%
89%
11%
8%
1%
1%
1%
92%
1%
-%
*%
**
1%
-%
1%
*%
In someone else's home
25
11
1
12
82
289
33
25
1
1
4
301
9
1
1
**
7
3
7
2
7%
5%
1%
3%
9%
14%
17%
7%
3%
1%
4%
16%
3%
4%
5%
**
4%
1%
4%
1%
cd
c
j
hijk
8%
3%
*%
4%
25%
89%
10%
8%
*%
*%
1%
93%
3%
*%
*%
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
Anywhere - using Wi-Fi/ wireless broadband and a laptop/ portable media player/ portable games console/ tablet computer
17
5
1
6
25
155
18
15
1
1
2
160
6
-
-
**
5
1
5
1
5%
3%
*%
1%
3%
8%
9%
4%
2%
2%
2%
8%
2%
-%
-%
**
3%
1%
3%
1%
cd
hk
t
10%
3%
*%
3%
14%
89%
10%
8%
1%
1%
1%
92%
3%
-%
-%
**
3%
1%
3%
1%
Library
11
6
2
8
36
81
28
12
1
1
3
103
7
*
*
**
3
4
5
2
3%
3%
1%
2%
4%
4%
14%
4%
3%
2%
3%
5%
2%
2%
2%
**
2%
2%
3%
1%
f
10%
5%
2%
7%
31%
70%
24%
11%
1%
1%
3%
89%
6%
*%
*%
**
3%
3%
4%
2%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QE4 (IN6). SHOWCARD Do you ever access the internet anywhere other than in your home at all? IF YES: Where is that? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
School/ college
2
1
-
1
15
100
17
4
1
-
-
110
1
-
-
**
1
-
1
-
*%
*%
-%
*%
2%
5%
9%
1%
2%
-%
-%
6%
*%
-%
-%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
f
hjk
1%
*%
-%
*%
13%
88%
15%
3%
1%
-%
-%
97%
*%
-%
-%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Internet café
10
2
-
2
14
59
11
9
1
1
2
62
2
-
*
**
2
-
1
1
3%
1%
-%
1%
2%
3%
6%
3%
2%
1%
2%
3%
1%
-%
*%
**
2%
-%
1%
1%
cd
f
14%
3%
-%
3%
20%
84%
16%
12%
1%
1%
3%
88%
3%
-%
*%
**
3%
-%
2%
1%
University
1
1
-
1
4
43
15
7
-
-
*
50
1
-
-
**
1
-
1
-
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
2%
8%
2%
-%
-%
*%
3%
*%
-%
-%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
f
k
2%
1%
-%
1%
7%
75%
27%
12%
-%
-%
*%
89%
1%
-%
-%
**
1%
-%
1%
-%
Other
3
1
-
1
9
17
3
3
-
1
-
16
1
-
*
**
1
-
1
-
1%
*%
-%
*%
1%
1%
2%
1%
-%
1%
-%
1%
*%
-%
1%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
14%
4%
-%
4%
46%
86%
17%
15%
-%
3%
-%
85%
3%
-%
1%
**
3%
-%
3%
-%
No, do not
233
177
185
362
654
1034
66
234
35
42
103
862
307
30
17
**
130
177
139
168
67%
87%
98%
92%
75%
50%
34%
70%
82%
79%
91%
45%
92%
94%
91%
**
88%
95%
87%
97%
a
abd
ab
g
l
l
l
hijl
qs
qs
21%
16%
17%
33%
59%
94%
6%
21%
3%
4%
9%
78%
28%
3%
2%
**
12%
16%
13%
15%
EVER USE INTERNET AT HOME OR ELSEWHERE
262
125
47
172
533
1657
170
194
21
27
48
1644
156
8
6
**
83
72
97
58
76%
61%
25%
44%
61%
81%
87%
58%
48%
50%
43%
86%
47%
26%
35%
**
57%
39%
61%
34%
bcd
cd
c
f
k
hijk
np
rt
rt
14%
7%
3%
9%
29%
90%
9%
11%
1%
1%
3%
90%
8%
*%
*%
**
5%
4%
5%
3%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe5 (Qe23). Showcard And How Often Do You Personally Use The Internet Nowadays Either At Home Or Elsewhere? (Single Code)
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
~n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
428
243
73
316
927
2702
177
357
43
50
98
2527
216
30
42
28
140
76
141
75
Effective Weighted Sample
300
148
52
200
619
1852
153
235
28
32
71
1759
169
17
25
23
124
60
111
59
Total
262
125
47
172
533
1657
170
194
21
27
48
1644
156
8
6
2
83
72
97
58
14%
7%
**
9%
29%
90%
9%
11%
**
**
**
90%
8%
**
**
**
5%
**
5%
**
Every day
160
68
**
81
305
1178
106
129
**
**
**
1162
74
**
**
**
50
**
49
**
61%
55%
**
47%
57%
71%
62%
66%
**
**
**
71%
48%
**
**
**
60%
**
51%
**
cd
c
c
g
k
rt
r
12%
5%
**
6%
24%
92%
8%
10%
**
**
**
90%
6%
**
**
**
4%
**
4%
**
Several times a week
58
26
**
38
105
266
40
27
**
**
**
284
33
**
**
**
15
**
21
**
22%
21%
**
22%
20%
16%
23%
14%
**
**
**
17%
21%
**
**
**
18%
**
22%
**
f
19%
8%
**
12%
34%
86%
13%
9%
**
**
**
91%
11%
**
**
**
5%
**
7%
**
At least once a week
21
9
**
17
45
95
10
15
**
**
**
92
15
**
**
**
7
**
7
**
8%
7%
**
10%
8%
6%
6%
8%
**
**
**
6%
10%
**
**
**
8%
**
7%
**
ab
l
20%
8%
**
16%
42%
90%
10%
14%
**
**
**
87%
14%
**
**
**
7%
**
7%
**
At least once a month
6
8
**
11
25
44
7
5
**
**
**
46
10
**
**
**
2
**
7
**
2%
6%
**
6%
5%
3%
4%
2%
**
**
**
3%
6%
**
**
**
3%
**
7%
**
a
a
12%
16%
**
21%
50%
86%
14%
9%
**
**
**
91%
19%
**
**
**
5%
**
14%
**
A few times a year
4
3
**
5
9
15
2
3
**
**
**
14
5
**
**
**
1
**
4
**
2%
2%
**
3%
2%
1%
1%
2%
**
**
**
1%
3%
**
**
**
2%
**
4%
**
l
26%
15%
**
29%
53%
90%
12%
19%
**
**
**
79%
27%
**
**
**
8%
**
22%
**
Less than once a year
1
1
**
1
2
3
-
1
**
**
**
2
1
**
**
**
-
**
-
**
*%
1%
**
1%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
**
**
*%
1%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
l
28%
45%
**
45%
70%
100%
-%
26%
**
**
**
72%
45%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe5 (Qe23). Showcard And How Often Do You Personally Use The Internet Nowadays Either At Home Or Elsewhere? (Single Code)
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
~n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
428
243
73
316
927
2702
177
357
43
50
98
2527
216
30
42
28
140
76
141
75
Effective Weighted Sample
300
148
52
200
619
1852
153
235
28
32
71
1759
169
17
25
23
124
60
111
59
Total
262
125
47
172
533
1657
170
194
21
27
48
1644
156
8
6
2
83
72
97
58
14%
7%
**
9%
29%
90%
9%
11%
**
**
**
90%
8%
**
**
**
5%
**
5%
**
Never
10
9
**
18
32
40
-
12
**
**
**
28
17
**
**
**
7
**
7
**
4%
7%
**
11%
6%
2%
-%
6%
**
**
**
2%
11%
**
**
**
8%
**
8%
**
ab
a
l
l
l
hl
24%
23%
**
46%
80%
100%
-%
30%
**
**
**
70%
42%
**
**
**
17%
**
19%
**
TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK
240
103
**
136
455
1540
156
171
**
**
**
1537
122
**
**
**
73
**
78
**
91%
82%
**
79%
85%
93%
92%
88%
**
**
**
93%
79%
**
**
**
87%
**
80%
**
bcd
hijk
r
14%
6%
**
8%
27%
90%
9%
10%
**
**
**
90%
7%
**
**
**
4%
**
5%
**
TOTAL EVER
251
114
**
153
491
1602
165
179
**
**
**
1598
138
**
**
**
77
**
89
**
96%
92%
**
89%
92%
97%
97%
93%
**
**
**
97%
88%
**
**
**
92%
**
91%
**
cd
c
hik
14%
6%
**
9%
28%
90%
9%
10%
**
**
**
90%
8%
**
**
**
4%
**
5%
**
Don't know
2
1
**
1
9
16
4
3
**
**
**
18
1
**
**
**
-
**
1
**
1%
1%
**
1%
2%
1%
3%
1%
**
**
**
1%
1%
**
**
**
-%
**
1%
**
9%
6%
**
6%
46%
76%
21%
13%
**
**
**
89%
6%
**
**
**
-%
**
6%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe6 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Ordinary phone line - dialup
access
2
1
**
2
4
7
1
2
**
**
1
6
2
**
**
**
2
**
1
**
1%
*%
**
1%
1%
*%
1%
1%
**
**
2%
*%
1%
**
**
**
2%
**
1%
**
l
28%
9%
**
23%
53%
89%
14%
20%
**
**
16%
81%
22%
**
**
**
22%
**
14%
**
Fixed Broadband ADSL through a phone line or cable service - perhaps using a Wi-Fi router,
243
127
**
175
450
1476
136
177
**
**
49
1444
158
**
**
**
83
**
94
**
94%
97%
**
96%
86%
91%
88%
92%
**
**
89%
91%
97%
**
**
**
96%
**
96%
**
op
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
91%
8%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
10%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Mobile Broadband from a mobile network - connecting via a USB stick or dongle, or built in connectivity in a laptop or netbook or tablet computer
24
8
**
10
70
258
31
30
**
**
6
260
9
**
**
**
6
**
6
**
9%
6%
**
5%
13%
16%
20%
15%
**
**
11%
16%
5%
**
**
**
7%
**
6%
**
8%
3%
**
3%
24%
89%
11%
10%
**
**
2%
90%
3%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe6 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Access to the internet using a
mobile phone or smartphone -
through a Wi-Fi network or your phone's mobile network
27
6
**
6
100
417
40
43
**
**
5
414
6
**
**
**
4
**
3
**
11%
5%
**
4%
19%
26%
26%
22%
**
**
8%
26%
4%
**
**
**
5%
**
3%
**
bcd
k
k
k
6%
1%
**
1%
22%
92%
9%
9%
**
**
1%
91%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
ISDN line - mid speed access, allows you to make voice calls at the same time as using the internet
1
1
**
1
2
6
-
1
**
**
-
6
1
**
**
**
1
**
1
**
*%
1%
**
*%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
**
-%
*%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
10%
13%
**
13%
24%
100%
-%
9%
**
**
-%
90%
13%
**
**
**
8%
**
13%
**
TOTAL NARROWBAND
3
1
**
3
5
13
1
2
**
**
1
12
2
**
**
**
2
**
2
**
1%
1%
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
**
**
2%
1%
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
20%
11%
**
18%
40%
94%
7%
15%
**
**
9%
85%
18%
**
**
**
16%
**
14%
**
TOTAL BROADBAND (INC. USING MOBILE PHONE)
255
131
**
180
514
1607
153
191
**
**
53
1578
163
**
**
**
85
**
98
**
99%
100%
**
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
**
**
98%
99%
99%
**
**
**
99%
**
99%
**
op
14%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe6 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
TOTAL BROADBAND (EXC.
USING MOBILE PHONE)
253
130
**
180
494
1567
148
189
**
**
52
1537
162
**
**
**
85
**
98
**
98%
99%
**
99%
95%
97%
96%
98%
**
**
95%
97%
99%
**
**
**
98%
**
99%
**
op
15%
8%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
MOBILE BROADBAND ONLY
10
3
**
5
44
92
11
12
**
**
3
93
4
**
**
**
2
**
3
**
4%
2%
**
3%
9%
6%
7%
6%
**
**
6%
6%
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
3%
**
10%
3%
**
5%
42%
88%
11%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
4%
**
**
**
2%
**
3%
**
Other
1
-
**
-
-
1
-
*
**
**
*
1
-
**
**
**
-
**
-
**
*%
-%
**
-%
-%
*%
-%
*%
**
**
*%
*%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
52%
-%
**
-%
-%
100%
-%
9%
**
**
9%
91%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
Don't know
1
1
**
1
3
5
-
*
**
**
-
4
-
**
**
**
-
**
-
**
*%
*%
**
*%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
**
-%
*%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
m
m
21%
13%
**
18%
54%
100%
-%
5%
**
**
-%
95%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe6 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Ordinary phone line - dialup
access
2
1
1
2
4
7
1
2
*
*
1
6
2
-
-
**
2
-
1
1
1%
*%
1%
*%
*%
*%
1%
*%
*%
*%
1%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
1%
-%
1%
*%
28%
9%
14%
23%
53%
89%
14%
20%
1%
1%
16%
81%
22%
-%
-%
**
22%
-%
14%
8%
Fixed Broadband ADSL through a phone line or cable service - perhaps using a Wi-Fi router,
243
127
48
175
450
1476
136
177
20
26
49
1444
158
8
6
**
83
76
94
64
70%
62%
25%
44%
52%
72%
70%
53%
46%
49%
43%
75%
47%
27%
31%
**
56%
41%
59%
37%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
nop
rt
rt
15%
8%
3%
11%
28%
91%
8%
11%
1%
2%
3%
89%
10%
1%
*%
**
5%
5%
6%
4%
Mobile Broadband from a mobile network - connecting via a USB stick or dongle, or built in connectivity in a laptop or netbook or tablet computer
24
8
2
10
70
258
31
30
4
1
6
260
9
1
*
**
6
3
6
3
7%
4%
1%
3%
8%
13%
16%
9%
10%
3%
5%
14%
3%
2%
3%
**
4%
1%
3%
2%
cd
hjk
8%
3%
1%
3%
24%
89%
11%
10%
2%
*%
2%
90%
3%
*%
*%
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe6 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Access to the internet using a
mobile phone or smartphone -
through a Wi-Fi network or your phone's mobile network
27
6
-
6
100
417
40
43
4
8
5
414
6
*
-
**
4
2
3
3
8%
3%
-%
2%
12%
20%
21%
13%
9%
15%
4%
22%
2%
*%
-%
**
3%
1%
2%
2%
bcd
c
k
k
hik
6%
1%
-%
1%
22%
92%
9%
9%
1%
2%
1%
91%
1%
*%
-%
**
1%
*%
1%
1%
ISDN line - mid speed access, allows you to make voice calls at the same time as using the internet
1
1
-
1
2
6
-
1
-
1
-
6
1
-
-
**
1
*
1
-
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
*%
-%
*%
-%
1%
-%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
*%
*%
1%
-%
10%
13%
-%
13%
24%
100%
-%
9%
-%
9%
-%
90%
13%
-%
-%
**
8%
5%
13%
-%
TOTAL NARROWBAND
3
1
1
3
5
13
1
2
*
1
1
12
2
-
-
**
2
*
2
1
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
*%
1%
1%
1%
1%
-%
-%
**
1%
*%
1%
*%
20%
11%
8%
18%
40%
94%
7%
15%
*%
5%
9%
85%
18%
-%
-%
**
16%
2%
14%
4%
TOTAL BROADBAND (INC. USING MOBILE PHONE)
255
131
50
180
514
1607
153
191
21
27
53
1578
163
9
6
**
85
78
98
65
74%
64%
26%
46%
59%
78%
79%
57%
48%
50%
47%
82%
49%
28%
33%
**
58%
42%
61%
37%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
nop
rt
rt
14%
7%
3%
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
1%
2%
3%
89%
9%
1%
*%
**
5%
4%
6%
4%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QE6 (QE9). SHOWCARD Which of these methods does your household use to connect to the internet at home? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
TOTAL BROADBAND (EXC.
USING MOBILE PHONE)
253
130
50
180
494
1567
148
189
21
27
52
1537
162
9
6
**
85
78
98
64
73%
64%
26%
46%
57%
76%
76%
56%
48%
50%
46%
80%
49%
28%
33%
**
58%
42%
61%
37%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
nop
rt
rt
15%
8%
3%
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
1%
2%
3%
89%
9%
1%
*%
**
5%
5%
6%
4%
MOBILE BROADBAND ONLY
10
3
2
5
44
92
11
12
1
1
3
93
4
*
*
**
2
2
3
1
3%
1%
1%
1%
5%
4%
6%
4%
2%
1%
3%
5%
1%
1%
1%
**
1%
1%
2%
*%
10%
3%
2%
5%
42%
88%
11%
11%
1%
1%
3%
89%
4%
*%
*%
**
2%
2%
3%
1%
Other
1
-
-
-
-
1
-
*
-
-
*
1
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
*%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
*%
-%
-%
*%
*%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
52%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
-%
9%
-%
-%
9%
91%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Don't know
1
1
*
1
3
5
-
*
-
*
-
4
-
-
1
**
-
-
-
-
*%
*%
*%
*%
*%
*%
-%
*%
-%
*%
-%
*%
-%
-%
3%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
m
m
21%
13%
5%
18%
54%
100%
-%
5%
-%
5%
-%
95%
-%
-%
13%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
No internet access at home
85
72
136
208
343
428
41
137
22
26
57
328
167
23
12
**
60
107
59
108
24%
35%
72%
53%
40%
21%
21%
41%
51%
49%
51%
17%
50%
72%
64%
**
41%
57%
37%
62%
a
abd
ab
l
l
l
hl
m
m
m
qs
qs
18%
15%
29%
44%
73%
91%
9%
29%
5%
6%
12%
70%
36%
5%
3%
**
13%
23%
13%
23%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe7 (Qe22B). You Mentioned That Your Household Has A Mobile Broadband Connection (Connecting Via A Usb Stick Or Dongle, Or Built-In 3G Connectivity In A Laptop Or Another Device). Do You Personally Access The Internet In This Way, Using Mobile Broadband?
Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
*g
*h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
39
19
3
22
125
399
31
50
5
4
14
381
13
3
2
4
11
2
8
5
Effective Weighted Sample
27
13
1
12
83
279
26
33
4
2
10
271
10
2
2
3
10
2
6
4
Total
24
8
2
10
70
258
31
30
4
1
6
260
9
1
*
*
6
3
6
3
**
**
**
**
24%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Yes
**
**
**
**
63
233
**
**
**
**
**
240
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
90%
91%
**
**
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
h
**
**
**
**
24%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
No
**
**
**
**
6
23
**
**
**
**
**
18
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
9%
9%
**
**
**
**
**
7%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
l
**
**
**
**
26%
95%
**
**
**
**
**
76%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
1
1
**
**
**
**
**
1
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
52%
100%
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe7 (Qe22B). You Mentioned That Your Household Has A Mobile Broadband Connection (Connecting Via A Usb Stick Or Dongle, Or Built-In 3G Connectivity In A Laptop Or Another Device). Do You Personally Access The Internet In This Way, Using Mobile Broadband?
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Yes
21
7
2
9
63
233
30
24
3
*
5
240
7
*
*
**
5
3
5
2
6%
3%
1%
2%
7%
11%
15%
7%
7%
1%
5%
12%
2%
2%
1%
**
3%
1%
3%
1%
cd
j
hjk
8%
3%
1%
3%
24%
89%
11%
9%
1%
*%
2%
91%
3%
*%
*%
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
No
3
*
*
1
6
23
1
6
1
1
1
18
*
*
*
**
*
-
*
-
1%
*%
*%
*%
1%
1%
1%
2%
3%
2%
1%
1%
*%
*%
1%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
14%
2%
1%
3%
26%
95%
5%
25%
5%
4%
3%
76%
1%
*%
1%
**
1%
-%
1%
-%
Don't know
-
1
-
1
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
-
-
**
1
-
-
1
-%
*%
-%
*%
*%
*%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
1%
-%
-%
*%
-%
52%
-%
52%
52%
100%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
52%
-%
-%
**
52%
-%
-%
52%
DO NOT HAVE MOBILE BROADBAND CONNECTION IN HOUSEHOLD
322
196
187
383
798
1798
164
304
39
52
107
1662
325
31
18
**
141
184
155
171
93%
96%
99%
97%
92%
87%
84%
91%
90%
97%
95%
86%
97%
98%
97%
**
96%
99%
97%
98%
a
a
l
l
l
16%
10%
10%
19%
41%
91%
8%
15%
2%
3%
5%
84%
17%
2%
1%
**
7%
9%
8%
9%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe8 (Qe22C). Which One Of These Best Describes Where You Use Mobile Broadband To Access The Internet? (Single Code)
Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
~g
*h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
35
16
2
18
113
364
29
42
4
2
12
352
11
2
1
4
9
2
7
4
Effective Weighted Sample
24
11
1
10
74
252
24
28
4
2
8
248
8
1
1
3
8
2
5
3
Total
21
7
2
9
63
233
30
24
3
*
5
240
7
*
*
*
5
3
5
2
**
**
**
**
24%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
I always use in the home
**
**
**
**
19
51
**
**
**
**
**
51
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
31%
22%
**
**
**
**
**
21%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
33%
87%
**
**
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
I mainly use in the home
**
**
**
**
14
28
**
**
**
**
**
29
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
22%
12%
**
**
**
**
**
12%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
44%
91%
**
**
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
I use equally in the home and outside the home
**
**
**
**
22
107
**
**
**
**
**
113
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
35%
46%
**
**
**
**
**
47%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
18%
88%
**
**
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
I mainly use outside the home
**
**
**
**
4
28
**
**
**
**
**
29
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
7%
12%
**
**
**
**
**
12%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
13%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
I always use outside the home
**
**
**
**
3
17
**
**
**
**
**
17
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
7%
**
**
**
**
**
7%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
15%
97%
**
**
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE IN THE HOME
**
**
**
**
33
79
**
**
**
**
**
80
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
53%
34%
**
**
**
**
**
33%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
37%
88%
**
**
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe8 (Qe22C). Which One Of These Best Describes Where You Use Mobile Broadband To Access The Internet? (Single Code)
Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
~g
*h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
35
16
2
18
113
364
29
42
4
2
12
352
11
2
1
4
9
2
7
4
Effective Weighted Sample
24
11
1
10
74
252
24
28
4
2
8
248
8
1
1
3
8
2
5
3
Total
21
7
2
9
63
233
30
24
3
*
5
240
7
*
*
*
5
3
5
2
**
**
**
**
24%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE
OUTSIDE THE HOME
**
**
**
**
7
45
**
**
**
**
**
46
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
11%
19%
**
**
**
**
**
19%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
14%
92%
**
**
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
EVER USE OUTSIDE THE HOME
**
**
**
**
42
181
**
**
**
**
**
187
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
68%
78%
**
**
**
**
**
78%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
21%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
1
2
**
**
**
**
**
1
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
52%
100%
**
**
**
**
**
83%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe9 (Qe32). Showcard In Which Of These Places Do You Use Mobile Broadband To Access The Internet Outside Of The Home? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet outside the home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
*e
f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
24
11
1
12
71
263
23
25
2
2
7
262
8
1
-
3
7
1
5
3
Effective Weighted Sample
17
7
1
8
48
188
18
17
2
2
5
190
7
1
-
3
6
1
4
2
Total
16
5
*
5
42
181
22
17
2
*
3
187
5
*
-
*
4
1
3
2
**
**
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
92%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
When travelling (e.g. on a train
or in a car)
**
**
**
**
**
118
**
**
**
**
**
120
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
65%
**
**
**
**
**
64%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
92%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
Indoor public spaces (e.g. pub/restaurant/ theatre/ shopping centre)
**
**
**
**
**
105
**
**
**
**
**
104
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
58%
**
**
**
**
**
56%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
91%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
Outdoors
**
**
**
**
**
96
**
**
**
**
**
100
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
53%
**
**
**
**
**
54%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
92%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
In other people's home (e.g. friends/ family)
**
**
**
**
**
85
**
**
**
**
**
83
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
47%
**
**
**
**
**
44%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
At your work place
**
**
**
**
**
63
**
**
**
**
**
71
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
35%
**
**
**
**
**
38%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
86%
**
**
**
**
**
96%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
Other
**
**
**
**
**
8
**
**
**
**
**
8
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
89%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
**
2
**
**
**
**
**
2
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
1%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
81%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe10 (Qe7). Which Internet Service Provider (Isp) Does Your Household Currently Use As Its Main Supplier At Home? (Single Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Virgin Media (NTL/ Telewest/
Blueyonder)
67
18
**
23
98
355
36
43
**
**
11
349
20
**
**
**
9
**
12
**
26%
13%
**
12%
19%
22%
23%
22%
**
**
21%
22%
12%
**
**
**
11%
**
12%
**
bcd
17%
4%
**
6%
25%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
5%
**
**
**
2%
**
3%
**
BT Total Broadband/ BT Yahoo/ BT Openworld
58
30
**
48
95
322
23
35
**
**
9
314
42
**
**
**
19
**
28
**
22%
23%
**
26%
18%
20%
15%
18%
**
**
17%
20%
26%
**
**
**
22%
**
28%
**
17%
9%
**
14%
27%
93%
7%
10%
**
**
3%
90%
12%
**
**
**
5%
**
8%
**
Sky
33
13
**
15
72
280
29
23
**
**
5
287
14
**
**
**
9
**
8
**
13%
10%
**
8%
14%
17%
19%
12%
**
**
10%
18%
8%
**
**
**
11%
**
8%
**
h
11%
4%
**
5%
23%
90%
9%
7%
**
**
2%
93%
4%
**
**
**
3%
**
3%
**
Talk Talk (Carphone Warehouse)
38
33
**
42
82
211
24
34
**
**
13
203
40
**
**
**
20
**
25
**
15%
25%
**
23%
16%
13%
16%
18%
**
**
23%
13%
24%
**
**
**
23%
**
25%
**
a
a
l
l
l
16%
14%
**
18%
35%
89%
10%
14%
**
**
5%
86%
17%
**
**
**
8%
**
11%
**
Orange
8
4
**
5
24
63
1
8
**
**
1
56
4
**
**
**
3
**
3
**
3%
3%
**
3%
5%
4%
*%
4%
**
**
3%
4%
2%
**
**
**
3%
**
3%
**
g
12%
7%
**
7%
37%
99%
1%
12%
**
**
2%
89%
6%
**
**
**
4%
**
4%
**
BT (other/ unspecified)
7
7
**
12
22
55
4
12
**
**
5
48
10
**
**
**
5
**
7
**
3%
5%
**
7%
4%
3%
3%
6%
**
**
9%
3%
6%
**
**
**
6%
**
7%
**
a
a
l
l
12%
11%
**
20%
37%
92%
7%
20%
**
**
8%
80%
17%
**
**
**
9%
**
11%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe10 (Qe7). Which Internet Service Provider (Isp) Does Your Household Currently Use As Its Main Supplier At Home? (Single Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
AOL
9
6
**
9
17
52
4
8
**
**
*
48
8
**
**
**
7
**
6
**
3%
5%
**
5%
3%
3%
2%
4%
**
**
*%
3%
5%
**
**
**
8%
**
6%
**
hkl
o
16%
12%
**
17%
31%
94%
6%
14%
**
**
*%
86%
15%
**
**
**
13%
**
11%
**
BT Infinity
7
7
**
8
14
46
4
6
**
**
2
45
8
**
**
**
2
**
2
**
3%
5%
**
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
**
**
4%
3%
5%
**
**
**
3%
**
2%
**
s
14%
14%
**
15%
27%
92%
8%
11%
**
**
4%
89%
15%
**
**
**
5%
**
3%
**
O2
6
2
**
3
17
42
8
7
**
**
2
43
2
**
**
**
2
**
2
**
2%
1%
**
1%
3%
3%
5%
3%
**
**
4%
3%
1%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
12%
3%
**
5%
35%
86%
16%
13%
**
**
5%
87%
4%
**
**
**
4%
**
3%
**
'3'
4
3
**
3
18
37
4
5
**
**
3
36
2
**
**
**
2
**
1
**
2%
2%
**
2%
4%
2%
3%
2%
**
**
5%
2%
1%
**
**
**
2%
**
1%
**
m
10%
7%
**
7%
45%
91%
10%
11%
**
**
6%
88%
5%
**
**
**
5%
**
3%
**
Plusnet
5
2
**
2
3
28
1
1
**
**
-
28
2
**
**
**
1
**
1
**
2%
2%
**
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
**
**
-%
2%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
18%
7%
**
7%
12%
97%
3%
4%
**
**
-%
97%
6%
**
**
**
3%
**
4%
**
T-Mobile
-
-
**
-
13
17
5
4
**
**
-
19
-
**
**
**
-
**
-
**
-%
-%
**
-%
2%
1%
3%
2%
**
**
-%
1%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
f
-%
-%
**
-%
57%
76%
21%
18%
**
**
-%
85%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
Vodafone
1
-
**
-
4
15
-
2
**
**
1
14
-
**
**
**
-
**
-
**
*%
-%
**
-%
1%
1%
-%
1%
**
**
2%
1%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
4%
-%
**
-%
26%
92%
-%
10%
**
**
5%
89%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe10 (Qe7). Which Internet Service Provider (Isp) Does Your Household Currently Use As Its Main Supplier At Home? (Single Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Other
9
5
**
8
20
55
8
3
**
**
*
60
8
**
**
**
6
**
5
**
4%
4%
**
4%
4%
3%
5%
2%
**
**
*%
4%
5%
**
**
**
7%
**
5%
**
15%
8%
**
13%
32%
87%
13%
5%
**
**
*%
95%
12%
**
**
**
9%
**
8%
**
TOTAL BT
72
44
**
68
130
423
31
52
**
**
16
406
60
**
**
**
27
**
36
**
28%
33%
**
37%
25%
26%
20%
27%
**
**
29%
26%
37%
**
**
**
31%
**
37%
**
a
a
16%
10%
**
15%
28%
92%
7%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
13%
**
**
**
6%
**
8%
**
Don't know
8
2
**
6
20
39
4
4
**
**
2
38
4
**
**
**
1
**
1
**
3%
1%
**
3%
4%
2%
3%
2%
**
**
3%
2%
3%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
b
qs
18%
4%
**
13%
46%
91%
10%
10%
**
**
4%
90%
10%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe11 (Qe3B). How Many People Aged 16 Or Over In Your Household (Including Yourself) Could Access The Fixed Broadband Connection In Your Home If They Wanted To?
Base : Those with fixed broadband at home where there is more than one person in household
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
*k
l
m
~n
~o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
344
190
47
237
642
2156
134
265
32
43
71
2029
168
26
25
18
118
50
109
59
Effective Weighted Sample
243
119
33
152
430
1475
115
176
21
28
53
1410
131
15
14
15
103
44
87
46
Total
211
110
34
144
391
1338
125
146
15
24
35
1323
131
7
4
2
70
61
78
53
14%
8%
**
10%
27%
91%
9%
10%
**
**
**
90%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
5%
**
1
7
13
**
20
57
102
9
17
**
**
**
95
17
**
**
**
10
**
6
**
3%
11%
**
14%
15%
8%
8%
12%
**
**
**
7%
13%
**
**
**
14%
**
7%
**
a
a
a
l
l
s
6%
11%
**
18%
51%
92%
8%
15%
**
**
**
85%
15%
**
**
**
9%
**
5%
**
2
143
86
**
109
238
787
58
84
**
**
**
764
100
**
**
**
53
**
62
**
68%
78%
**
76%
61%
59%
47%
58%
**
**
**
58%
76%
**
**
**
75%
**
79%
**
g
17%
10%
**
13%
28%
93%
7%
10%
**
**
**
90%
12%
**
**
**
6%
**
7%
**
3
41
11
**
14
58
252
18
30
**
**
**
244
13
**
**
**
6
**
9
**
20%
10%
**
10%
15%
19%
15%
20%
**
**
**
18%
10%
**
**
**
8%
**
11%
**
bd
k
15%
4%
**
5%
21%
93%
7%
11%
**
**
**
89%
5%
**
**
**
2%
**
3%
**
4
12
1
**
1
28
150
25
13
**
**
**
163
1
**
**
**
1
**
1
**
6%
1%
**
1%
7%
11%
20%
9%
**
**
**
12%
1%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
bd
f
7%
1%
**
1%
16%
85%
14%
7%
**
**
**
93%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
5 or more
7
-
**
1
10
43
13
2
**
**
**
54
1
**
**
**
1
**
1
**
3%
-%
**
*%
3%
3%
11%
2%
**
**
**
4%
*%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
b
f
12%
-%
**
1%
17%
77%
24%
4%
**
**
**
96%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
Don't know
1
-
**
-
*
4
-
-
**
**
**
4
-
**
**
**
-
**
-
**
*%
-%
**
-%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
**
**
*%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
24%
-%
**
-%
3%
100%
-%
-%
**
**
**
100%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
Mean number of people
2.4
2.0
**
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.8
2.3
**
**
**
2.4
2.0
**
**
**
2.0
**
2.1
**
bcd
f
k
k
hk
t
Standard deviation
.85
.51
**
.55
.95
.96
1.38
.88
**
**
**
1.01
.55
**
**
**
.61
**
.56
**
Standard error
.05
.04
**
.04
.04
.02
.12
.05
**
**
**
.02
.04
**
**
**
.06
**
.05
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe12 (Qe3A). How Many People Aged 16 Or Over In Your Household (Including Yourself) Could Access The Mobile Broadband Connection In Your Home If They Wanted To?
Base : Those with mobile broadband at home where there is more than one person in household
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
~g
*h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
28
13
1
14
108
355
28
38
3
3
9
346
10
2
1
1
8
2
7
3
Effective Weighted Sample
20
9
1
9
74
250
23
25
3
2
6
248
8
2
1
1
7
2
5
3
Total
18
6
2
8
64
232
27
24
3
1
4
237
7
*
*
*
5
3
5
2
**
**
**
**
25%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1
**
**
**
**
19
48
**
**
**
**
**
50
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
29%
21%
**
**
**
**
**
21%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
34%
87%
**
**
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2
**
**
**
**
27
109
**
**
**
**
**
108
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
42%
47%
**
**
**
**
**
46%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
23%
92%
**
**
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3
**
**
**
**
10
29
**
**
**
**
**
27
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
15%
12%
**
**
**
**
**
11%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
30%
90%
**
**
**
**
**
84%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4
**
**
**
**
3
23
**
**
**
**
**
22
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
12%
92%
**
**
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5 or more
**
**
**
**
-
8
**
**
**
**
**
8
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
3%
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
94%
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
6
16
**
**
**
**
**
21
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
10%
7%
**
**
**
**
**
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
29%
77%
**
**
**
**
**
99%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Mean number of people
**
**
**
**
1.8
2.1
**
**
**
**
**
2.0
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Standard deviation
**
**
**
**
.98
1.15
**
**
**
**
**
1.20
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Standard error
**
**
**
**
.09
.06
**
**
**
**
**
.06
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe13 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Or Members Of Your Household Use The Internet For Whilst At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Sending and receiving e-mail
223
107
**
147
405
1429
134
156
**
**
39
1414
135
**
**
**
73
**
88
**
86%
82%
**
81%
78%
88%
87%
81%
**
**
71%
89%
83%
**
**
**
84%
**
89%
**
hk
np
t
14%
7%
**
9%
26%
91%
9%
10%
**
**
2%
90%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
General surfing/ browsing the internet
221
107
**
143
408
1418
128
152
**
**
38
1403
129
**
**
**
72
**
84
**
85%
81%
**
78%
78%
88%
83%
79%
**
**
70%
88%
79%
**
**
**
84%
**
85%
**
cd
hk
t
t
14%
7%
**
9%
26%
91%
8%
10%
**
**
2%
90%
8%
**
**
**
5%
**
5%
**
Purchasing goods/services/ tickets etc.
195
82
**
99
303
1198
96
128
**
**
31
1172
88
**
**
**
51
**
59
**
75%
62%
**
54%
58%
74%
63%
66%
**
**
57%
74%
54%
**
**
**
59%
**
60%
**
bcd
c
c
g
hjk
15%
6%
**
8%
23%
92%
7%
10%
**
**
2%
90%
7%
**
**
**
4%
**
5%
**
Banking
150
58
**
71
207
1022
88
98
**
**
20
1018
64
**
**
**
36
**
48
**
58%
44%
**
39%
40%
63%
57%
51%
**
**
37%
64%
39%
**
**
**
42%
**
48%
**
bcd
c
k
hik
t
t
13%
5%
**
6%
19%
92%
8%
9%
**
**
2%
91%
6%
**
**
**
3%
**
4%
**
Using social networking sites (such as MySpace, Facebook or Bebo)
106
32
**
38
261
1012
86
106
**
**
19
1000
33
**
**
**
19
**
22
**
41%
24%
**
21%
50%
63%
56%
55%
**
**
35%
63%
20%
**
**
**
23%
**
22%
**
bcd
k
hk
m
10%
3%
**
3%
24%
92%
8%
10%
**
**
2%
91%
3%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe13 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Or Members Of Your Household Use The Internet For Whilst At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Finding/ downloading information
for personal reasons e.g.
information, news, weather
184
66
**
93
236
967
102
107
**
**
26
964
85
**
**
**
47
**
63
**
71%
51%
**
51%
45%
60%
66%
56%
**
**
48%
61%
52%
**
**
**
55%
**
64%
**
bcd
k
t
t
17%
6%
**
9%
22%
90%
10%
10%
**
**
2%
90%
8%
**
**
**
4%
**
6%
**
Finding/ downloading information for work/ business
120
28
**
30
114
732
85
64
**
**
6
759
28
**
**
**
19
**
21
**
47%
21%
**
17%
22%
45%
55%
33%
**
**
11%
48%
17%
**
**
**
22%
**
21%
**
bcd
c
c
f
k
k
k
hk
n
15%
3%
**
4%
14%
89%
10%
8%
**
**
1%
93%
3%
**
**
**
2%
**
3%
**
Watching video clips/ webcasts (e.g. YouTube or Big Brother)
79
16
**
19
152
689
74
63
**
**
13
704
18
**
**
**
16
**
13
**
31%
12%
**
11%
29%
43%
48%
33%
**
**
24%
44%
11%
**
**
**
18%
**
14%
**
bcd
hk
rt
r
10%
2%
**
3%
20%
90%
10%
8%
**
**
2%
92%
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
Playing games online/ interactively
64
26
**
33
190
644
64
74
**
**
17
637
30
**
**
**
15
**
17
**
25%
19%
**
18%
37%
40%
42%
38%
**
**
31%
40%
18%
**
**
**
17%
**
17%
**
9%
4%
**
5%
27%
91%
9%
10%
**
**
2%
90%
4%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe13 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Or Members Of Your Household Use The Internet For Whilst At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Using local council/ Government
sites, e.g. to find information, to
complete processes such as tax returns, to contact local MP
120
51
**
63
143
633
65
70
**
**
17
632
59
**
**
**
31
**
46
**
47%
39%
**
34%
27%
39%
42%
37%
**
**
30%
40%
36%
**
**
**
36%
**
46%
**
cd
c
hik
p
t
t
17%
7%
**
9%
20%
90%
9%
10%
**
**
2%
90%
8%
**
**
**
4%
**
7%
**
Downloading music files, movies or video clips
72
18
**
20
129
633
63
63
**
**
7
638
19
**
**
**
14
**
13
**
28%
14%
**
11%
25%
39%
41%
33%
**
**
13%
40%
11%
**
**
**
16%
**
14%
**
bcd
k
k
k
hk
10%
3%
**
3%
18%
91%
9%
9%
**
**
1%
91%
3%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
To find information on health related issues e.g. NHS Direct/ NHS 24
106
35
**
48
142
610
66
61
**
**
13
618
45
**
**
**
30
**
32
**
41%
26%
**
26%
27%
38%
43%
32%
**
**
23%
39%
28%
**
**
**
35%
**
33%
**
bd
hk
rt
16%
5%
**
7%
21%
90%
10%
9%
**
**
2%
91%
7%
**
**
**
4%
**
5%
**
Finding/ downloading information for school/ college/ university/ homework
58
9
**
10
103
583
73
50
**
**
7
612
9
**
**
**
6
**
6
**
22%
7%
**
5%
20%
36%
47%
26%
**
**
12%
39%
6%
**
**
**
7%
**
6%
**
bcd
f
k
hk
9%
1%
**
1%
16%
89%
11%
8%
**
**
1%
93%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe13 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Or Members Of Your Household Use The Internet For Whilst At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Watching catch-up TV (such as
BBC iPlayer, Sky Player, ITV
Player)
82
29
**
34
121
588
61
62
**
**
13
591
30
**
**
**
18
**
23
**
32%
22%
**
18%
23%
36%
40%
32%
**
**
23%
37%
19%
**
**
**
21%
**
24%
**
bcd
ik
t
13%
4%
**
5%
19%
90%
9%
9%
**
**
2%
91%
5%
**
**
**
3%
**
4%
**
Communicating via instant messaging, SMS messaging, chat rooms, voice calls
51
16
**
18
112
507
54
46
**
**
4
521
16
**
**
**
10
**
12
**
20%
12%
**
10%
22%
31%
35%
24%
**
**
7%
33%
10%
**
**
**
11%
**
12%
**
bcd
k
k
hik
9%
3%
**
3%
20%
90%
10%
8%
**
**
1%
92%
3%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
Watching live TV programmes
49
19
**
21
94
457
47
42
**
**
7
462
20
**
**
**
14
**
14
**
19%
14%
**
12%
18%
28%
31%
22%
**
**
13%
29%
12%
**
**
**
17%
**
14%
**
cd
hk
10%
4%
**
4%
19%
91%
9%
8%
**
**
1%
92%
4%
**
**
**
3%
**
3%
**
Real time gambling/ trading/ auctions
42
10
**
11
55
335
21
24
**
**
3
334
9
**
**
**
6
**
6
**
16%
7%
**
6%
10%
21%
14%
13%
**
**
5%
21%
5%
**
**
**
7%
**
6%
**
bcd
hk
mp
12%
3%
**
3%
15%
94%
6%
7%
**
**
1%
94%
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
Listening to radio
46
13
**
14
58
322
28
26
**
**
4
329
13
**
**
**
8
**
10
**
18%
10%
**
8%
11%
20%
18%
14%
**
**
8%
21%
8%
**
**
**
9%
**
10%
**
bcd
hk
13%
4%
**
4%
17%
91%
8%
7%
**
**
1%
93%
4%
**
**
**
2%
**
3%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe13 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Or Members Of Your Household Use The Internet For Whilst At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Uploading/ adding content to the
internet
30
11
**
12
58
305
30
25
**
**
2
311
11
**
**
**
5
**
8
**
12%
8%
**
7%
11%
19%
20%
13%
**
**
4%
20%
7%
**
**
**
6%
**
8%
**
k
k
hik
9%
3%
**
4%
17%
91%
9%
8%
**
**
1%
93%
3%
**
**
**
1%
**
2%
**
Using Twitter (browsing/ reading site)
31
2
**
2
55
295
36
16
**
**
2
317
2
**
**
**
2
**
1
**
12%
1%
**
1%
11%
18%
24%
8%
**
**
4%
20%
1%
**
**
**
2%
**
1%
**
bcd
hk
9%
1%
**
1%
16%
89%
11%
5%
**
**
1%
95%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
*%
**
Watch news programmes
38
12
**
16
52
289
38
28
**
**
5
301
15
**
**
**
9
**
13
**
15%
9%
**
9%
10%
18%
24%
14%
**
**
9%
19%
9%
**
**
**
10%
**
13%
**
d
k
t
12%
4%
**
5%
16%
88%
12%
8%
**
**
2%
92%
4%
**
**
**
3%
**
4%
**
Downloading films (Video on Demand)
9
3
**
6
42
204
26
17
**
**
2
213
6
**
**
**
4
**
5
**
4%
2%
**
3%
8%
13%
17%
9%
**
**
3%
13%
4%
**
**
**
5%
**
5%
**
k
k
4%
1%
**
3%
18%
89%
11%
8%
**
**
1%
93%
3%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
Using Twitter (account holder, posting on site)
14
2
**
2
30
177
18
10
**
**
1
186
1
**
**
**
1
**
1
**
6%
1%
**
1%
6%
11%
12%
5%
**
**
2%
12%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
bd
hk
7%
1%
**
1%
15%
91%
9%
5%
**
**
*%
95%
*%
**
**
**
*%
**
*%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe13 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Or Members Of Your Household Use The Internet For Whilst At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Streamed audio services (free)
14
3
**
4
23
147
18
14
**
**
2
150
3
**
**
**
3
**
3
**
5%
2%
**
2%
4%
9%
12%
8%
**
**
3%
9%
2%
**
**
**
4%
**
3%
**
8%
2%
**
2%
14%
90%
11%
9%
**
**
1%
92%
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
Streamed audio services (subscription)
4
-
**
-
7
42
13
3
**
**
-
53
-
**
**
**
-
**
-
**
1%
-%
**
-%
1%
3%
9%
1%
**
**
-%
3%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
f
6%
-%
**
-%
12%
77%
24%
5%
**
**
-%
95%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
Other
1
2
**
4
6
10
1
1
**
**
1
10
4
**
**
**
3
**
3
**
*%
1%
**
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
**
**
2%
1%
3%
**
**
**
4%
**
3%
**
a
a
8%
17%
**
39%
55%
86%
10%
10%
**
**
9%
90%
37%
**
**
**
28%
**
28%
**
USE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES
109
32
**
39
267
1037
94
106
**
**
20
1033
33
**
**
**
19
**
22
**
42%
24%
**
21%
51%
64%
61%
55%
**
**
36%
65%
20%
**
**
**
23%
**
22%
**
bcd
k
hk
m
10%
3%
**
3%
24%
91%
8%
9%
**
**
2%
91%
3%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
TV/ VIDEO VIEWING
128
43
**
51
214
909
91
95
**
**
19
910
47
**
**
**
30
**
34
**
50%
33%
**
28%
41%
56%
59%
50%
**
**
34%
57%
28%
**
**
**
35%
**
34%
**
bcd
c
k
hk
t
t
13%
4%
**
5%
21%
91%
9%
10%
**
**
2%
91%
5%
**
**
**
3%
**
3%
**
USE TWITTER
33
2
**
3
59
311
39
19
**
**
2
333
2
**
**
**
2
**
2
**
13%
2%
**
2%
11%
19%
25%
10%
**
**
4%
21%
1%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
bcd
hk
10%
1%
**
1%
17%
89%
11%
5%
**
**
1%
95%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
*%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe13 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Or Members Of Your Household Use The Internet For Whilst At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
STREAMED AUDIO SERVICES
14
3
**
4
25
150
20
15
**
**
2
155
3
**
**
**
3
**
3
**
5%
2%
**
2%
5%
9%
13%
8%
**
**
3%
10%
2%
**
**
**
4%
**
3%
**
k
8%
2%
**
2%
15%
88%
12%
9%
**
**
1%
92%
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
None of these
3
3
**
5
14
19
1
7
**
**
5
13
4
**
**
**
2
**
1
**
1%
2%
**
3%
3%
1%
1%
3%
**
**
9%
1%
3%
**
**
**
2%
**
1%
**
l
l
l
s
17%
16%
**
23%
72%
96%
5%
34%
**
**
23%
66%
21%
**
**
**
10%
**
3%
**
Don't know
1
1
**
5
7
7
1
4
**
**
2
4
5
**
**
**
1
**
1
**
*%
1%
**
3%
1%
*%
1%
2%
**
**
3%
*%
3%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
ab
a
l
l
7%
16%
**
67%
98%
88%
19%
52%
**
**
21%
48%
63%
**
**
**
12%
**
12%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe13 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Or Members Of Your Household Use The Internet For Whilst At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Sending and receiving e-mail
223
107
40
147
405
1429
134
156
17
22
39
1414
135
5
5
**
73
63
88
47
64%
53%
21%
37%
47%
70%
69%
47%
40%
42%
34%
74%
41%
15%
29%
**
49%
34%
55%
27%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
np
rt
rt
14%
7%
3%
9%
26%
91%
9%
10%
1%
1%
2%
90%
9%
*%
*%
**
5%
4%
6%
3%
General surfing/ browsing the internet
221
107
36
143
408
1418
128
152
17
22
38
1403
129
6
6
**
72
57
84
46
64%
52%
19%
36%
47%
69%
66%
46%
39%
42%
34%
73%
39%
19%
30%
**
49%
31%
52%
26%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
np
rt
rt
14%
7%
2%
9%
26%
91%
8%
10%
1%
1%
2%
90%
8%
*%
*%
**
5%
4%
5%
3%
Purchasing goods/services/ tickets etc.
195
82
17
99
303
1198
96
128
14
16
31
1172
88
6
3
**
51
37
59
29
56%
40%
9%
25%
35%
58%
49%
38%
32%
30%
27%
61%
26%
20%
18%
**
35%
20%
37%
17%
bcd
cd
c
g
k
hijk
p
rt
rt
15%
6%
1%
8%
23%
92%
7%
10%
1%
1%
2%
90%
7%
*%
*%
**
4%
3%
5%
2%
Banking
150
58
12
71
207
1022
88
98
9
14
20
1018
64
3
2
**
36
28
48
17
43%
28%
7%
18%
24%
50%
45%
29%
22%
26%
18%
53%
19%
9%
11%
**
25%
15%
30%
10%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
rt
rt
13%
5%
1%
6%
19%
92%
8%
9%
1%
1%
2%
91%
6%
*%
*%
**
3%
3%
4%
2%
Using social networking sites (such as MySpace, Facebook or Bebo)
106
32
7
38
261
1012
86
106
11
15
19
1000
33
2
3
**
19
14
22
12
30%
15%
3%
10%
30%
49%
44%
32%
26%
28%
17%
52%
10%
5%
14%
**
13%
7%
14%
7%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
t
t
10%
3%
1%
3%
24%
92%
8%
10%
1%
1%
2%
91%
3%
*%
*%
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe13 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Or Members Of Your Household Use The Internet For Whilst At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Finding/ downloading information
for personal reasons e.g.
information, news, weather
184
66
27
93
236
967
102
107
10
15
26
964
85
4
3
**
47
37
63
22
53%
33%
14%
24%
27%
47%
52%
32%
24%
28%
23%
50%
25%
13%
18%
**
32%
20%
39%
12%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
np
rt
t
rt
17%
6%
2%
9%
22%
90%
10%
10%
1%
1%
2%
90%
8%
*%
*%
**
4%
4%
6%
2%
Finding/ downloading information for work/ business
120
28
3
30
114
732
85
64
7
9
6
759
28
*
2
**
19
9
21
7
35%
14%
1%
8%
13%
36%
43%
19%
17%
18%
5%
39%
8%
1%
9%
**
13%
5%
13%
4%
bcd
cd
c
f
k
k
k
hijk
n
n
rt
rt
15%
3%
*%
4%
14%
89%
10%
8%
1%
1%
1%
93%
3%
*%
*%
**
2%
1%
3%
1%
Watching video clips/ webcasts (e.g. YouTube or Big Brother)
79
16
4
19
152
689
74
63
7
9
13
704
18
*
1
**
16
2
13
5
23%
8%
2%
5%
17%
34%
38%
19%
16%
16%
12%
37%
5%
2%
4%
**
11%
1%
8%
3%
bcd
c
k
hijk
rt
rt
10%
2%
*%
3%
20%
90%
10%
8%
1%
1%
2%
92%
2%
*%
*%
**
2%
*%
2%
1%
Playing games online/ interactively
64
26
7
33
190
644
64
74
8
10
17
637
30
1
1
**
15
15
17
13
18%
13%
4%
8%
22%
31%
33%
22%
19%
19%
15%
33%
9%
3%
7%
**
10%
8%
11%
8%
bcd
c
c
k
hijk
p
9%
4%
1%
5%
27%
91%
9%
10%
1%
1%
2%
90%
4%
*%
*%
**
2%
2%
2%
2%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe13 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Or Members Of Your Household Use The Internet For Whilst At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Using local council/ Government
sites, e.g. to find information, to
complete processes such as tax returns, to contact local MP
120
51
12
63
143
633
65
70
5
15
17
632
59
2
2
**
31
28
46
13
35%
25%
6%
16%
16%
31%
33%
21%
12%
28%
15%
33%
18%
5%
9%
**
21%
15%
28%
8%
bcd
cd
c
ik
hik
np
t
t
rt
17%
7%
2%
9%
20%
90%
9%
10%
1%
2%
2%
90%
8%
*%
*%
**
4%
4%
7%
2%
Downloading music files, movies or video clips
72
18
2
20
129
633
63
63
8
9
7
638
19
1
*
**
14
5
13
5
21%
9%
1%
5%
15%
31%
32%
19%
19%
17%
6%
33%
6%
4%
1%
**
9%
3%
8%
3%
bcd
c
c
k
k
k
hijk
rt
rt
10%
3%
*%
3%
18%
91%
9%
9%
1%
1%
1%
91%
3%
*%
*%
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
To find information on health related issues e.g. NHS Direct/ NHS 24
106
35
14
48
142
610
66
61
5
11
13
618
45
1
1
**
30
15
32
13
31%
17%
7%
12%
16%
30%
34%
18%
11%
20%
11%
32%
14%
4%
7%
**
21%
8%
20%
8%
bcd
c
c
k
hijk
np
rt
rt
16%
5%
2%
7%
21%
90%
10%
9%
1%
2%
2%
91%
7%
*%
*%
**
4%
2%
5%
2%
Finding/ downloading information for school/ college/ university/ homework
58
9
1
10
103
583
73
50
4
7
7
612
9
*
*
**
6
3
6
3
17%
4%
*%
2%
12%
28%
37%
15%
10%
14%
6%
32%
3%
1%
1%
**
4%
2%
4%
2%
bcd
c
f
k
k
hijk
9%
1%
*%
1%
16%
89%
11%
8%
1%
1%
1%
93%
1%
*%
*%
**
1%
*%
1%
*%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe13 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Or Members Of Your Household Use The Internet For Whilst At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Watching catch-up TV (such as
BBC iPlayer, Sky Player, ITV
Player)
82
29
5
34
121
588
61
62
4
6
13
591
30
2
1
**
18
12
23
7
24%
14%
3%
9%
14%
29%
31%
19%
8%
12%
11%
31%
9%
5%
5%
**
13%
6%
15%
4%
bcd
cd
c
ik
hijk
rt
rt
13%
4%
1%
5%
19%
90%
9%
9%
1%
1%
2%
91%
5%
*%
*%
**
3%
2%
4%
1%
Communicating via instant messaging, SMS messaging, chat rooms, voice calls
51
16
2
18
112
507
54
46
2
6
4
521
16
1
1
**
10
6
12
4
15%
8%
1%
4%
13%
25%
28%
14%
4%
11%
3%
27%
5%
3%
3%
**
7%
3%
8%
2%
bcd
c
c
ik
k
hijk
t
t
9%
3%
*%
3%
20%
90%
10%
8%
*%
1%
1%
92%
3%
*%
*%
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
Watching live TV programmes
49
19
3
21
94
457
47
42
5
5
7
462
20
*
1
**
14
5
14
6
14%
9%
1%
5%
11%
22%
24%
13%
12%
9%
6%
24%
6%
1%
4%
**
10%
3%
9%
3%
cd
c
c
k
hijk
rt
rt
10%
4%
1%
4%
19%
91%
9%
8%
1%
1%
1%
92%
4%
*%
*%
**
3%
1%
3%
1%
Real time gambling/ trading/ auctions
42
10
2
11
55
335
21
24
2
2
3
334
9
2
*
**
6
3
6
2
12%
5%
1%
3%
6%
16%
11%
7%
5%
4%
3%
17%
3%
7%
2%
**
4%
1%
4%
1%
bcd
c
k
hijk
p
12%
3%
*%
3%
15%
94%
6%
7%
1%
1%
1%
94%
2%
1%
*%
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
Listening to radio
46
13
1
14
58
322
28
26
2
5
4
329
13
*
*
**
8
5
10
3
13%
7%
1%
4%
7%
16%
14%
8%
5%
9%
4%
17%
4%
1%
3%
**
5%
3%
6%
2%
bcd
c
c
hik
t
t
13%
4%
*%
4%
17%
91%
8%
7%
1%
1%
1%
93%
4%
*%
*%
**
2%
2%
3%
1%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe13 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Or Members Of Your Household Use The Internet For Whilst At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Uploading/ adding content to the
internet
30
11
1
12
58
305
30
25
1
6
2
311
11
*
1
**
5
6
8
3
9%
5%
1%
3%
7%
15%
16%
8%
2%
11%
2%
16%
3%
1%
3%
**
3%
3%
5%
2%
cd
c
k
ik
hik
9%
3%
*%
4%
17%
91%
9%
8%
*%
2%
1%
93%
3%
*%
*%
**
1%
2%
2%
1%
Using Twitter (browsing/ reading site)
31
2
1
2
55
295
36
16
1
3
2
317
2
*
*
**
2
-
1
1
9%
1%
*%
1%
6%
14%
19%
5%
3%
6%
2%
16%
1%
1%
1%
**
1%
-%
1%
*%
bcd
hijk
9%
1%
*%
1%
16%
89%
11%
5%
*%
1%
1%
95%
1%
*%
*%
**
1%
-%
*%
*%
Watch news programmes
38
12
4
16
52
289
38
28
2
5
5
301
15
1
1
**
9
6
13
2
11%
6%
2%
4%
6%
14%
19%
8%
5%
9%
4%
16%
4%
2%
4%
**
6%
3%
8%
1%
bcd
hik
t
t
12%
4%
1%
5%
16%
88%
12%
8%
1%
1%
2%
92%
4%
*%
*%
**
3%
2%
4%
1%
Downloading films (Video on Demand)
9
3
3
6
42
204
26
17
3
3
2
213
6
-
-
**
4
2
5
1
3%
1%
2%
1%
5%
10%
14%
5%
7%
6%
2%
11%
2%
-%
-%
**
3%
1%
3%
*%
k
k
hk
t
4%
1%
1%
3%
18%
89%
11%
8%
1%
1%
1%
93%
3%
-%
-%
**
2%
1%
2%
*%
Using Twitter (account holder, posting on site)
14
2
-
2
30
177
18
10
1
2
1
186
1
*
*
**
1
-
1
-
4%
1%
-%
*%
3%
9%
9%
3%
3%
4%
1%
10%
*%
1%
1%
**
1%
-%
1%
-%
bcd
hk
7%
1%
-%
1%
15%
91%
9%
5%
1%
1%
*%
95%
*%
*%
*%
**
*%
-%
*%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe13 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Or Members Of Your Household Use The Internet For Whilst At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Streamed audio services (free)
14
3
1
4
23
147
18
14
1
*
2
150
3
-
*
**
3
-
3
1
4%
2%
*%
1%
3%
7%
9%
4%
2%
1%
2%
8%
1%
-%
2%
**
2%
-%
2%
1%
cd
hjk
r
8%
2%
*%
2%
14%
90%
11%
9%
1%
*%
1%
92%
2%
-%
*%
**
2%
-%
2%
1%
Streamed audio services (subscription)
4
-
-
-
7
42
13
3
-
1
-
53
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
1%
-%
-%
-%
1%
2%
7%
1%
-%
1%
-%
3%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
d
f
hk
6%
-%
-%
-%
12%
77%
24%
5%
-%
1%
-%
95%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Other
1
2
3
4
6
10
1
1
*
*
1
10
4
-
-
**
3
1
3
1
*%
1%
1%
1%
1%
*%
1%
*%
*%
*%
1%
1%
1%
-%
-%
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
8%
17%
23%
39%
55%
86%
10%
10%
1%
1%
9%
90%
37%
-%
-%
**
28%
9%
28%
9%
USE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES
109
32
7
39
267
1037
94
106
11
15
20
1033
33
2
3
**
19
14
22
12
31%
16%
3%
10%
31%
50%
48%
32%
26%
28%
17%
54%
10%
7%
14%
**
13%
7%
14%
7%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
t
t
10%
3%
1%
3%
24%
91%
8%
9%
1%
1%
2%
91%
3%
*%
*%
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
TV/ VIDEO VIEWING
128
43
9
51
214
909
91
95
11
11
19
910
47
2
2
**
30
17
34
13
37%
21%
5%
13%
25%
44%
47%
29%
25%
21%
17%
47%
14%
8%
9%
**
20%
9%
21%
7%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
rt
rt
13%
4%
1%
5%
21%
91%
9%
10%
1%
1%
2%
91%
5%
*%
*%
**
3%
2%
3%
1%
USE TWITTER
33
2
1
3
59
311
39
19
1
3
2
333
2
1
*
**
2
-
2
1
10%
1%
*%
1%
7%
15%
20%
6%
3%
6%
2%
17%
1%
2%
1%
**
1%
-%
1%
*%
bcd
hijk
10%
1%
*%
1%
17%
89%
11%
5%
*%
1%
1%
95%
1%
*%
*%
**
1%
-%
*%
*%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe13 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Or Members Of Your Household Use The Internet For Whilst At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
STREAMED AUDIO SERVICES
14
3
1
4
25
150
20
15
1
1
2
155
3
-
*
**
3
-
3
1
4%
2%
*%
1%
3%
7%
10%
5%
2%
2%
2%
8%
1%
-%
2%
**
2%
-%
2%
1%
cd
hjk
r
8%
2%
*%
2%
15%
88%
12%
9%
1%
1%
1%
92%
2%
-%
*%
**
2%
-%
2%
1%
None of these
3
3
1
5
14
19
1
7
*
2
5
13
4
-
*
**
2
2
1
4
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
*%
3%
4%
1%
1%
-%
1%
**
1%
1%
*%
2%
l
l
l
17%
16%
7%
23%
72%
96%
5%
34%
*%
8%
23%
66%
21%
-%
1%
**
10%
10%
3%
18%
Don't know
1
1
4
5
7
7
1
4
-
-
2
4
5
-
*
**
1
4
1
4
*%
1%
2%
1%
1%
*%
1%
1%
-%
-%
1%
*%
1%
-%
2%
**
1%
2%
1%
2%
a
l
l
7%
16%
52%
67%
98%
88%
19%
52%
-%
-%
21%
48%
63%
-%
4%
**
12%
51%
12%
51%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe14 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Or Members Of Your Household Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Sending and receiving e-mail
196
89
**
119
339
1267
119
137
**
**
31
1257
110
**
**
**
59
**
72
**
76%
68%
**
65%
65%
78%
77%
71%
**
**
56%
79%
67%
**
**
**
69%
**
73%
**
cd
k
k
hk
n
t
14%
6%
**
9%
24%
91%
9%
10%
**
**
2%
90%
8%
**
**
**
4%
**
5%
**
General surfing/ browsing the internet
191
84
**
110
345
1258
113
132
**
**
31
1247
100
**
**
**
59
**
65
**
74%
64%
**
60%
66%
78%
74%
69%
**
**
58%
79%
61%
**
**
**
68%
**
65%
**
bcd
hk
n
r
14%
6%
**
8%
25%
91%
8%
10%
**
**
2%
91%
7%
**
**
**
4%
**
5%
**
Using social networking sites (such as MySpace, Facebook or Bebo)
76
24
**
29
233
860
74
96
**
**
16
846
25
**
**
**
14
**
14
**
29%
19%
**
16%
45%
53%
48%
50%
**
**
29%
53%
15%
**
**
**
17%
**
14%
**
bcd
k
k
k
m
8%
3%
**
3%
25%
92%
8%
10%
**
**
2%
90%
3%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
Banking
116
44
**
52
149
789
69
77
**
**
14
787
48
**
**
**
27
**
39
**
45%
33%
**
28%
29%
49%
44%
40%
**
**
26%
50%
29%
**
**
**
31%
**
39%
**
bcd
c
k
hik
t
t
13%
5%
**
6%
17%
92%
8%
9%
**
**
2%
91%
6%
**
**
**
3%
**
5%
**
Finding/ downloading information for personal reasons e.g. information, news, weather
124
41
**
58
151
672
72
79
**
**
17
665
53
**
**
**
30
**
40
**
48%
31%
**
32%
29%
42%
47%
41%
**
**
31%
42%
32%
**
**
**
34%
**
40%
**
bd
k
k
t
17%
5%
**
8%
20%
90%
10%
11%
**
**
2%
90%
7%
**
**
**
4%
**
5%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe14 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Or Members Of Your Household Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Purchasing goods/ services/
tickets etc.
113
40
**
45
153
667
53
82
**
**
15
642
39
**
**
**
25
**
28
**
44%
31%
**
24%
29%
41%
34%
43%
**
**
28%
40%
24%
**
**
**
29%
**
28%
**
bcd
c
c
k
k
k
16%
6%
**
6%
21%
93%
7%
11%
**
**
2%
89%
5%
**
**
**
3%
**
4%
**
Finding/ downloading information for work/ business
79
17
**
19
65
489
53
49
**
**
5
498
17
**
**
**
12
**
13
**
30%
13%
**
10%
12%
30%
35%
25%
**
**
9%
31%
11%
**
**
**
14%
**
13%
**
bcd
c
k
k
k
14%
3%
**
3%
12%
90%
10%
9%
**
**
1%
91%
3%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
Watching video clips/ webcasts (e.g. YouTube or Big Brother)
40
8
**
10
102
447
51
42
**
**
8
459
10
**
**
**
9
**
7
**
16%
6%
**
6%
20%
28%
33%
22%
**
**
14%
29%
6%
**
**
**
11%
**
7%
**
bcd
k
hk
r
8%
2%
**
2%
20%
90%
10%
8%
**
**
2%
92%
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
1%
**
Playing games online/ interactively
41
16
**
19
143
430
34
59
**
**
13
406
17
**
**
**
11
**
7
**
16%
12%
**
10%
28%
27%
22%
30%
**
**
24%
26%
11%
**
**
**
13%
**
8%
**
9%
3%
**
4%
31%
93%
7%
13%
**
**
3%
88%
4%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
Finding/ downloading information for school/ college/ university/ homework
31
6
**
7
73
409
51
38
**
**
5
423
7
**
**
**
5
**
5
**
12%
5%
**
4%
14%
25%
33%
20%
**
**
9%
27%
4%
**
**
**
6%
**
5%
**
bcd
f
k
hk
7%
1%
**
2%
16%
89%
11%
8%
**
**
1%
92%
2%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe14 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Or Members Of Your Household Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Communicating via instant
messaging, SMS messaging,
chat rooms, voice calls
29
7
**
8
74
343
35
37
**
**
3
345
7
**
**
**
5
**
5
**
11%
5%
**
4%
14%
21%
23%
19%
**
**
6%
22%
4%
**
**
**
6%
**
5%
**
bcd
k
k
8%
2%
**
2%
20%
90%
9%
10%
**
**
1%
91%
2%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
Downloading music files, movies or video clips
29
8
**
8
76
348
26
43
**
**
4
332
7
**
**
**
6
**
5
**
11%
6%
**
4%
15%
22%
17%
23%
**
**
7%
21%
5%
**
**
**
7%
**
5%
**
cd
k
k
k
k
8%
2%
**
2%
20%
93%
7%
12%
**
**
1%
89%
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
1%
**
Watching catch-up TV (such as BBC iPlayer, Sky Player, ITV Player)
43
17
**
20
77
341
24
39
**
**
6
329
18
**
**
**
12
**
12
**
17%
13%
**
11%
15%
21%
16%
20%
**
**
12%
21%
11%
**
**
**
13%
**
12%
**
12%
5%
**
5%
21%
93%
7%
11%
**
**
2%
90%
5%
**
**
**
3%
**
3%
**
Watching live TV programmes
27
6
**
8
59
271
28
29
**
**
3
270
7
**
**
**
6
**
5
**
10%
5%
**
4%
11%
17%
18%
15%
**
**
6%
17%
4%
**
**
**
7%
**
5%
**
bd
k
k
9%
2%
**
3%
20%
91%
10%
10%
**
**
1%
91%
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe14 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Or Members Of Your Household Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Using local council/ Government
sites, e.g. to find information, to
complete processes such as tax returns, to contact local MP
44
17
**
20
58
253
19
39
**
**
4
235
19
**
**
**
8
**
16
**
17%
13%
**
11%
11%
16%
13%
20%
**
**
7%
15%
12%
**
**
**
9%
**
16%
**
c
kl
kl
k
t
16%
6%
**
7%
21%
93%
7%
14%
**
**
1%
86%
7%
**
**
**
3%
**
6%
**
To find information on health related issues e.g. NHS Direct/ NHS 24
37
12
**
14
47
222
26
28
**
**
4
220
13
**
**
**
9
**
9
**
14%
9%
**
8%
9%
14%
17%
14%
**
**
7%
14%
8%
**
**
**
11%
**
9%
**
d
k
15%
5%
**
6%
19%
90%
10%
11%
**
**
2%
89%
5%
**
**
**
4%
**
4%
**
Using Twitter (browsing/ reading site)
23
1
**
2
43
210
20
13
**
**
1
218
1
**
**
**
1
**
1
**
9%
1%
**
1%
8%
13%
13%
7%
**
**
2%
14%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
bd
hk
10%
*%
**
1%
18%
91%
9%
6%
**
**
1%
95%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
*%
**
Listening to radio
24
6
**
7
35
190
15
17
**
**
2
190
6
**
**
**
3
**
5
**
9%
5%
**
4%
7%
12%
10%
9%
**
**
4%
12%
4%
**
**
**
4%
**
5%
**
cd
k
12%
3%
**
3%
17%
92%
7%
8%
**
**
1%
92%
3%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe14 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Or Members Of Your Household Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Watch news programmes
21
7
**
9
31
170
22
17
**
**
3
174
8
**
**
**
5
**
8
**
8%
5%
**
5%
6%
10%
14%
9%
**
**
5%
11%
5%
**
**
**
6%
**
8%
**
11%
3%
**
5%
16%
89%
12%
9%
**
**
1%
91%
4%
**
**
**
3%
**
4%
**
Uploading/ adding content to the internet
21
6
**
7
35
167
14
16
**
**
1
165
6
**
**
**
3
**
5
**
8%
5%
**
4%
7%
10%
9%
8%
**
**
2%
10%
4%
**
**
**
4%
**
5%
**
d
k
k
k
12%
4%
**
4%
19%
93%
8%
9%
**
**
1%
92%
4%
**
**
**
2%
**
3%
**
Real time gambling/ trading/ auctions
20
5
**
5
28
171
9
15
**
**
2
165
5
**
**
**
5
**
5
**
8%
4%
**
3%
5%
11%
6%
8%
**
**
3%
10%
3%
**
**
**
5%
**
5%
**
cd
k
11%
3%
**
3%
16%
95%
5%
9%
**
**
1%
92%
3%
**
**
**
3%
**
3%
**
Using Twitter (account holder, posting on site)
10
1
**
1
22
120
9
7
**
**
1
121
1
**
**
**
1
**
1
**
4%
1%
**
1%
4%
7%
6%
4%
**
**
2%
8%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
d
hk
8%
1%
**
1%
17%
94%
7%
6%
**
**
1%
94%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
Downloading films (Video on Demand)
5
1
**
1
23
95
16
12
**
**
*
98
1
**
**
**
1
**
1
**
2%
1%
**
1%
4%
6%
10%
6%
**
**
*%
6%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
f
k
k
5%
1%
**
1%
21%
87%
15%
11%
**
**
*%
90%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe14 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Or Members Of Your Household Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Streamed audio services (free)
8
2
**
2
14
79
10
10
**
**
1
79
2
**
**
**
2
**
1
**
3%
2%
**
1%
3%
5%
7%
5%
**
**
3%
5%
1%
**
**
**
3%
**
1%
**
9%
3%
**
3%
15%
89%
11%
11%
**
**
2%
89%
3%
**
**
**
3%
**
2%
**
Streamed audio services (subscription)
2
-
**
-
2
19
5
1
**
**
-
22
-
**
**
**
-
**
-
**
1%
-%
**
-%
*%
1%
3%
1%
**
**
-%
1%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
f
10%
-%
**
-%
10%
82%
22%
6%
**
**
-%
94%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
Other
*
2
**
3
4
6
-
1
**
**
1
6
3
**
**
**
2
**
2
**
*%
1%
**
2%
1%
*%
-%
*%
**
**
1%
*%
2%
**
**
**
3%
**
2%
**
a
a
1%
27%
**
55%
60%
100%
-%
10%
**
**
9%
90%
55%
**
**
**
39%
**
39%
**
USE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES
80
25
**
30
240
896
80
96
**
**
16
887
25
**
**
**
14
**
14
**
31%
19%
**
16%
46%
55%
52%
50%
**
**
30%
56%
15%
**
**
**
17%
**
14%
**
bcd
k
k
k
m
8%
3%
**
3%
24%
91%
8%
10%
**
**
2%
90%
3%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
TV/ VIDEO VIEWING
67
23
**
26
137
567
47
68
**
**
10
550
23
**
**
**
15
**
14
**
26%
17%
**
14%
26%
35%
31%
35%
**
**
18%
35%
14%
**
**
**
17%
**
14%
**
bcd
k
k
k
11%
4%
**
4%
22%
92%
8%
11%
**
**
2%
89%
4%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
USE TWITTER
24
2
**
2
48
226
23
14
**
**
1
235
2
**
**
**
2
**
1
**
9%
1%
**
1%
9%
14%
15%
7%
**
**
2%
15%
1%
**
**
**
2%
**
1%
**
bcd
hk
10%
1%
**
1%
19%
91%
9%
6%
**
**
1%
94%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
*%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe14 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Or Members Of Your Household Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
431
253
77
330
900
2656
162
362
43
51
112
2461
224
33
42
31
146
78
144
80
Effective Weighted Sample
301
153
52
205
597
1814
141
239
28
33
81
1709
172
19
25
25
129
61
113
61
Total
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
3
86
78
99
65
15%
7%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
STREAMED AUDIO SERVICES
8
2
**
2
14
81
10
11
**
**
1
80
2
**
**
**
2
**
1
**
3%
2%
**
1%
3%
5%
7%
6%
**
**
3%
5%
1%
**
**
**
3%
**
1%
**
9%
2%
**
2%
16%
89%
11%
12%
**
**
2%
88%
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
1%
**
None of these
10
11
**
15
32
50
3
10
**
**
6
43
14
**
**
**
7
**
7
**
4%
8%
**
8%
6%
3%
2%
5%
**
**
11%
3%
9%
**
**
**
8%
**
7%
**
a
l
l
18%
20%
**
29%
60%
93%
6%
20%
**
**
12%
80%
27%
**
**
**
12%
**
13%
**
Don't know
1
3
**
8
11
14
2
5
**
**
2
10
6
**
**
**
1
**
2
**
1%
2%
**
4%
2%
1%
1%
2%
**
**
3%
1%
4%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
ab
a
l
l
9%
17%
**
52%
70%
93%
10%
30%
**
**
11%
68%
40%
**
**
**
9%
**
14%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe14 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Or Members Of Your Household Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Sending and receiving e-mail
196
89
31
119
339
1267
119
137
17
20
31
1257
110
4
5
**
59
51
72
38
56%
44%
16%
30%
39%
62%
61%
41%
39%
38%
27%
65%
33%
11%
25%
**
40%
27%
45%
22%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
np
n
rt
rt
14%
6%
2%
9%
24%
91%
9%
10%
1%
1%
2%
90%
8%
*%
*%
**
4%
4%
5%
3%
General surfing/ browsing the internet
191
84
26
110
345
1258
113
132
14
18
31
1247
100
4
5
**
59
41
65
35
55%
41%
14%
28%
40%
61%
58%
40%
33%
35%
28%
65%
30%
12%
27%
**
40%
22%
40%
20%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
np
n
rt
rt
14%
6%
2%
8%
25%
91%
8%
10%
1%
1%
2%
91%
7%
*%
*%
**
4%
3%
5%
3%
Using social networking sites (such as MySpace, Facebook or Bebo)
76
24
5
29
233
860
74
96
11
13
16
846
25
2
2
**
14
10
14
11
22%
12%
2%
7%
27%
42%
38%
29%
26%
24%
14%
44%
7%
5%
12%
**
10%
6%
9%
6%
bcd
cd
c
k
k
k
hijk
8%
3%
*%
3%
25%
92%
8%
10%
1%
1%
2%
90%
3%
*%
*%
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
Banking
116
44
8
52
149
789
69
77
6
11
14
787
48
1
2
**
27
21
39
9
33%
21%
4%
13%
17%
38%
35%
23%
14%
20%
13%
41%
14%
3%
10%
**
18%
11%
24%
5%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
n
t
t
rt
13%
5%
1%
6%
17%
92%
8%
9%
1%
1%
2%
91%
6%
*%
*%
**
3%
2%
5%
1%
Finding/ downloading information for personal reasons e.g. information, news, weather
124
41
18
58
151
672
72
79
9
14
17
665
53
2
3
**
30
23
40
13
36%
20%
9%
15%
17%
33%
37%
24%
21%
26%
15%
35%
16%
6%
14%
**
20%
13%
25%
8%
bcd
c
c
k
k
hik
n
rt
rt
17%
5%
2%
8%
20%
90%
10%
11%
1%
2%
2%
90%
7%
*%
*%
**
4%
3%
5%
2%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe14 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Or Members Of Your Household Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Purchasing goods/ services/
tickets etc.
113
40
4
45
153
667
53
82
11
9
15
642
39
2
2
**
25
15
28
12
33%
20%
2%
11%
18%
32%
27%
25%
26%
17%
14%
33%
12%
8%
13%
**
17%
8%
17%
7%
bcd
cd
c
k
k
hjk
rt
rt
16%
6%
1%
6%
21%
93%
7%
11%
2%
1%
2%
89%
5%
*%
*%
**
3%
2%
4%
2%
Finding/ downloading information for work/ business
79
17
1
19
65
489
53
49
6
6
5
498
17
-
1
**
12
6
13
4
23%
9%
1%
5%
7%
24%
27%
15%
13%
12%
4%
26%
5%
-%
6%
**
8%
3%
8%
3%
bcd
cd
c
k
k
k
hijk
n
rt
rt
14%
3%
*%
3%
12%
90%
10%
9%
1%
1%
1%
91%
3%
-%
*%
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
Watching video clips/ webcasts (e.g. YouTube or Big Brother)
40
8
2
10
102
447
51
42
7
5
8
459
10
-
1
**
9
1
7
2
12%
4%
1%
3%
12%
22%
26%
13%
16%
10%
7%
24%
3%
-%
3%
**
6%
*%
5%
1%
bcd
c
k
k
hjk
rt
r
8%
2%
*%
2%
20%
90%
10%
8%
1%
1%
2%
92%
2%
-%
*%
**
2%
*%
1%
*%
Playing games online/ interactively
41
16
3
19
143
430
34
59
6
7
13
406
17
*
1
**
11
6
7
10
12%
8%
2%
5%
17%
21%
17%
18%
13%
13%
11%
21%
5%
2%
5%
**
7%
3%
5%
6%
cd
c
c
k
9%
3%
1%
4%
31%
93%
7%
13%
1%
1%
3%
88%
4%
*%
*%
**
2%
1%
2%
2%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe14 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Or Members Of Your Household Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Finding/ downloading information
for school/ college/ university/
homework
31
6
1
7
73
409
51
38
3
5
5
423
7
-
*
**
5
2
5
2
9%
3%
*%
2%
8%
20%
26%
11%
6%
10%
4%
22%
2%
-%
*%
**
3%
1%
3%
1%
bcd
c
f
k
hijk
7%
1%
*%
2%
16%
89%
11%
8%
1%
1%
1%
92%
2%
-%
*%
**
1%
*%
1%
*%
Communicating via instant messaging, SMS messaging, chat rooms, voice calls
29
7
*
8
74
343
35
37
2
5
3
345
7
*
*
**
5
2
5
2
9%
3%
*%
2%
9%
17%
18%
11%
4%
9%
3%
18%
2%
*%
2%
**
4%
1%
3%
1%
bcd
c
k
k
hijk
8%
2%
*%
2%
20%
90%
9%
10%
*%
1%
1%
91%
2%
*%
*%
**
1%
*%
1%
1%
Downloading music files, movies or video clips
29
8
*
8
76
348
26
43
5
6
4
332
7
*
*
**
6
2
5
2
8%
4%
*%
2%
9%
17%
14%
13%
12%
12%
4%
17%
2%
*%
1%
**
4%
1%
3%
1%
bcd
c
c
k
k
k
hk
r
8%
2%
*%
2%
20%
93%
7%
12%
1%
2%
1%
89%
2%
*%
*%
**
2%
*%
1%
1%
Watching catch-up TV (such as BBC iPlayer, Sky Player, ITV Player)
43
17
3
20
77
341
24
39
3
4
6
329
18
1
1
**
12
6
12
6
13%
8%
2%
5%
9%
17%
12%
12%
7%
7%
6%
17%
5%
3%
5%
**
8%
3%
8%
3%
cd
c
c
k
hijk
t
12%
5%
1%
5%
21%
93%
7%
11%
1%
1%
2%
90%
5%
*%
*%
**
3%
2%
3%
2%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe14 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Or Members Of Your Household Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Watching live TV programmes
27
6
1
8
59
271
28
29
4
4
3
270
7
-
1
**
6
1
5
2
8%
3%
1%
2%
7%
13%
15%
9%
8%
7%
3%
14%
2%
-%
4%
**
4%
*%
3%
1%
bcd
k
hk
r
9%
2%
*%
3%
20%
91%
10%
10%
1%
1%
1%
91%
2%
-%
*%
**
2%
*%
2%
1%
Using local council/ Government sites, e.g. to find information, to complete processes such as tax returns, to contact local MP
44
17
3
20
58
253
19
39
4
9
4
235
19
-
1
**
8
11
16
3
13%
8%
2%
5%
7%
12%
10%
12%
9%
17%
3%
12%
6%
-%
6%
**
5%
6%
10%
2%
cd
c
c
k
k
k
n
n
t
t
t
16%
6%
1%
7%
21%
93%
7%
14%
1%
3%
1%
86%
7%
-%
*%
**
3%
4%
6%
1%
To find information on health related issues e.g. NHS Direct/ NHS 24
37
12
2
14
47
222
26
28
2
7
4
220
13
-
1
**
9
4
9
4
11%
6%
1%
4%
5%
11%
13%
8%
4%
13%
4%
11%
4%
-%
4%
**
6%
2%
6%
2%
bcd
c
k
k
hk
r
15%
5%
1%
6%
19%
90%
10%
11%
1%
3%
2%
89%
5%
-%
*%
**
4%
2%
4%
2%
Using Twitter (browsing/ reading site)
23
1
1
2
43
210
20
13
1
3
1
218
1
*
-
**
1
-
1
1
7%
*%
*%
*%
5%
10%
10%
4%
2%
6%
1%
11%
*%
1%
-%
**
1%
-%
*%
*%
bcd
k
hik
10%
*%
*%
1%
18%
91%
9%
6%
*%
1%
1%
95%
1%
*%
-%
**
1%
-%
*%
*%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe14 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Or Members Of Your Household Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Listening to radio
24
6
*
7
35
190
15
17
1
4
2
190
6
*
*
**
3
3
5
1
7%
3%
*%
2%
4%
9%
8%
5%
2%
7%
2%
10%
2%
*%
1%
**
2%
2%
3%
1%
bcd
c
k
hik
12%
3%
*%
3%
17%
92%
7%
8%
*%
2%
1%
92%
3%
*%
*%
**
2%
2%
2%
1%
Watch news programmes
21
7
3
9
31
170
22
17
1
4
3
174
8
*
1
**
5
3
8
1
6%
3%
1%
2%
4%
8%
11%
5%
3%
7%
2%
9%
2%
1%
3%
**
3%
2%
5%
*%
cd
hk
t
t
11%
3%
1%
5%
16%
89%
12%
9%
1%
2%
1%
91%
4%
*%
*%
**
3%
2%
4%
*%
Uploading/ adding content to the internet
21
6
1
7
35
167
14
16
1
4
1
165
6
*
1
**
3
3
5
2
6%
3%
*%
2%
4%
8%
7%
5%
2%
8%
1%
9%
2%
*%
3%
**
2%
2%
3%
1%
cd
c
k
k
hk
12%
4%
*%
4%
19%
93%
8%
9%
1%
2%
1%
92%
4%
*%
*%
**
2%
2%
3%
1%
Real time gambling/ trading/ auctions
20
5
-
5
28
171
9
15
2
2
2
165
5
*
*
**
5
-
5
-
6%
2%
-%
1%
3%
8%
5%
5%
4%
4%
1%
9%
1%
1%
1%
**
3%
-%
3%
-%
bcd
c
hk
rt
rt
11%
3%
-%
3%
16%
95%
5%
9%
1%
1%
1%
92%
3%
*%
*%
**
3%
-%
3%
-%
Using Twitter (account holder, posting on site)
10
1
-
1
22
120
9
7
1
2
1
121
1
*
-
**
1
-
1
-
3%
1%
-%
*%
3%
6%
5%
2%
2%
4%
1%
6%
*%
1%
-%
**
1%
-%
1%
-%
bcd
hk
8%
1%
-%
1%
17%
94%
7%
6%
1%
2%
1%
94%
1%
*%
-%
**
1%
-%
1%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe14 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Or Members Of Your Household Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Downloading films (Video on
Demand)
5
1
1
1
23
95
16
12
1
1
*
98
1
-
-
**
1
-
1
-
1%
*%
*%
*%
3%
5%
8%
3%
3%
2%
*%
5%
*%
-%
-%
**
1%
-%
1%
-%
f
k
k
k
5%
1%
1%
1%
21%
87%
15%
11%
1%
1%
*%
90%
1%
-%
-%
**
1%
-%
1%
-%
Streamed audio services (free)
8
2
-
2
14
79
10
10
-
*
1
79
2
-
-
**
2
-
1
1
2%
1%
-%
1%
2%
4%
5%
3%
-%
1%
1%
4%
1%
-%
-%
**
2%
-%
1%
1%
cd
9%
3%
-%
3%
15%
89%
11%
11%
-%
*%
2%
89%
3%
-%
-%
**
3%
-%
2%
1%
Streamed audio services (subscription)
2
-
-
-
2
19
5
1
-
1
-
22
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
1%
-%
-%
-%
*%
1%
3%
*%
-%
1%
-%
1%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
10%
-%
-%
-%
10%
82%
22%
6%
-%
3%
-%
94%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Other
*
2
2
3
4
6
-
1
-
-
1
6
3
-
-
**
2
1
2
1
*%
1%
1%
1%
*%
*%
-%
*%
-%
-%
1%
*%
1%
-%
-%
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
27%
28%
55%
60%
100%
-%
10%
-%
-%
9%
90%
55%
-%
-%
**
39%
17%
39%
17%
USE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES
80
25
5
30
240
896
80
96
11
13
16
887
25
2
2
**
14
10
14
11
23%
12%
2%
8%
28%
44%
41%
29%
26%
24%
14%
46%
7%
7%
12%
**
10%
6%
9%
6%
bcd
cd
c
k
k
hijk
8%
3%
*%
3%
24%
91%
8%
10%
1%
1%
2%
90%
3%
*%
*%
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
TV/ VIDEO VIEWING
67
23
3
26
137
567
47
68
8
7
10
550
23
1
2
**
15
8
14
9
19%
11%
2%
7%
16%
28%
24%
20%
19%
14%
9%
29%
7%
3%
9%
**
10%
4%
8%
5%
bcd
cd
c
k
k
hjk
r
11%
4%
1%
4%
22%
92%
8%
11%
1%
1%
2%
89%
4%
*%
*%
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe14 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Or Members Of Your Household Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
USE TWITTER
24
2
1
2
48
226
23
14
1
3
1
235
2
1
-
**
2
-
1
1
7%
1%
*%
1%
6%
11%
12%
4%
2%
6%
1%
12%
*%
2%
-%
**
1%
-%
1%
*%
bcd
k
hik
10%
1%
*%
1%
19%
91%
9%
6%
*%
1%
1%
94%
1%
*%
-%
**
1%
-%
*%
*%
STREAMED AUDIO SERVICES
8
2
-
2
14
81
10
11
-
1
1
80
2
-
-
**
2
-
1
1
2%
1%
-%
1%
2%
4%
5%
3%
-%
2%
1%
4%
1%
-%
-%
**
2%
-%
1%
1%
cd
9%
2%
-%
2%
16%
89%
11%
12%
-%
1%
2%
88%
2%
-%
-%
**
2%
-%
1%
1%
None of these
10
11
5
15
32
50
3
10
1
2
6
43
14
1
*
**
7
8
7
7
3%
5%
3%
4%
4%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
5%
2%
4%
2%
2%
**
5%
4%
4%
4%
l
18%
20%
9%
29%
60%
93%
6%
20%
3%
3%
12%
80%
27%
1%
1%
**
12%
14%
13%
14%
Don't know
1
3
5
8
11
14
2
5
-
*
2
10
6
1
*
**
1
5
2
4
*%
1%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
-%
*%
1%
1%
2%
4%
2%
**
1%
2%
1%
2%
a
a
9%
17%
36%
52%
70%
93%
10%
30%
-%
*%
11%
68%
40%
8%
3%
**
9%
31%
14%
25%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe15 (Qenew11) Showcard What Was The Advertised Speed Of Your Main Home Internet Connection When You Took Up Your Service? (Single Code)
Base : Those who use broadband to connect to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
422
249
74
323
853
2565
156
353
42
48
109
2373
222
33
39
29
144
78
143
79
Effective Weighted Sample
294
151
51
201
566
1755
135
234
28
32
79
1649
171
19
23
23
127
61
112
60
Total
253
130
50
180
494
1567
148
189
21
27
52
1537
162
9
6
2
85
78
98
64
15%
8%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Up to 512kb
1
*
**
*
3
11
-
*
**
**
-
11
*
**
**
**
-
**
*
**
*%
*%
**
*%
1%
1%
-%
*%
**
**
-%
1%
*%
**
**
**
-%
**
*%
**
10%
3%
**
3%
29%
100%
-%
1%
**
**
-%
99%
3%
**
**
**
-%
**
3%
**
Up to 1MB
6
1
**
1
2
13
2
1
**
**
1
13
1
**
**
**
1
**
1
**
2%
1%
**
1%
*%
1%
1%
1%
**
**
1%
1%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
39%
7%
**
7%
13%
89%
12%
8%
**
**
5%
92%
6%
**
**
**
6%
**
6%
**
Up to 2MB
10
7
**
7
18
42
8
8
**
**
2
43
7
**
**
**
4
**
1
**
4%
5%
**
4%
4%
3%
6%
4%
**
**
4%
3%
4%
**
**
**
4%
**
1%
**
l
s
20%
14%
**
14%
36%
84%
16%
15%
**
**
4%
85%
13%
**
**
**
7%
**
3%
**
Up to 4MB
9
6
**
8
12
43
3
9
**
**
1
37
7
**
**
**
5
**
6
**
4%
5%
**
4%
2%
3%
2%
5%
**
**
1%
2%
5%
**
**
**
6%
**
6%
**
l
21%
13%
**
18%
27%
94%
7%
20%
**
**
1%
80%
16%
**
**
**
11%
**
13%
**
Up to 8MB
16
10
**
11
26
113
8
11
**
**
3
110
11
**
**
**
8
**
7
**
6%
8%
**
6%
5%
7%
5%
6%
**
**
7%
7%
7%
**
**
**
10%
**
8%
**
13%
8%
**
9%
22%
94%
7%
9%
**
**
3%
91%
9%
**
**
**
7%
**
6%
**
Up to 10MB
14
4
**
4
16
90
8
10
**
**
4
87
3
**
**
**
3
**
2
**
6%
3%
**
2%
3%
6%
5%
6%
**
**
8%
6%
2%
**
**
**
3%
**
2%
**
m
14%
4%
**
4%
16%
93%
8%
11%
**
**
4%
89%
3%
**
**
**
3%
**
2%
**
Up to 16MB
3
1
**
2
6
23
2
3
**
**
-
23
2
**
**
**
2
**
2
**
1%
1%
**
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
**
**
-%
1%
1%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
11%
4%
**
9%
24%
90%
9%
11%
**
**
-%
89%
8%
**
**
**
8%
**
8%
**
Up to 20MB
18
7
**
7
27
113
12
17
**
**
5
108
6
**
**
**
4
**
3
**
7%
5%
**
4%
5%
7%
8%
9%
**
**
10%
7%
4%
**
**
**
5%
**
3%
**
14%
5%
**
5%
21%
90%
10%
14%
**
**
4%
86%
5%
**
**
**
3%
**
2%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe15 (Qenew11) Showcard What Was The Advertised Speed Of Your Main Home Internet Connection When You Took Up Your Service? (Single Code)
Base : Those who use broadband to connect to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
422
249
74
323
853
2565
156
353
42
48
109
2373
222
33
39
29
144
78
143
79
Effective Weighted Sample
294
151
51
201
566
1755
135
234
28
32
79
1649
171
19
23
23
127
61
112
60
Total
253
130
50
180
494
1567
148
189
21
27
52
1537
162
9
6
2
85
78
98
64
15%
8%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Up to 30MB
4
*
**
*
7
22
1
2
**
**
-
22
*
**
**
**
*
**
*
**
2%
*%
**
*%
1%
1%
1%
1%
**
**
-%
1%
*%
**
**
**
*%
**
*%
**
18%
2%
**
2%
28%
95%
5%
9%
**
**
-%
91%
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
Up to 40MB
1
1
**
1
1
7
-
2
**
**
*
5
1
**
**
**
1
**
-
**
1%
*%
**
*%
*%
*%
-%
1%
**
**
1%
*%
*%
**
**
**
1%
**
-%
**
19%
8%
**
8%
20%
100%
-%
22%
**
**
7%
77%
8%
**
**
**
8%
**
-%
**
Up to 50MB
2
1
**
1
3
16
2
3
**
**
1
15
*
**
**
**
*
**
*
**
1%
1%
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
**
**
2%
1%
*%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
m
13%
4%
**
6%
19%
88%
11%
15%
**
**
5%
84%
3%
**
**
**
3%
**
3%
**
Up to 100MB
1
1
**
1
5
9
3
-
**
**
-
12
1
**
**
**
1
**
1
**
*%
1%
**
*%
1%
1%
2%
-%
**
**
-%
1%
*%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
5%
5%
**
5%
40%
73%
20%
-%
**
**
-%
100%
5%
**
**
**
5%
**
5%
**
Over 100MB
2
-
**
1
3
7
-
1
**
**
-
6
1
**
**
**
1
**
-
**
1%
-%
**
*%
1%
*%
-%
*%
**
**
-%
*%
*%
**
**
**
1%
**
-%
**
26%
-%
**
10%
49%
100%
-%
9%
**
**
-%
91%
10%
**
**
**
10%
**
-%
**
SUPERFAST BROADBAND (30MB AND ABOVE)
10
2
**
3
19
61
6
7
**
**
1
60
3
**
**
**
3
**
2
**
4%
2%
**
2%
4%
4%
4%
4%
**
**
3%
4%
2%
**
**
**
3%
**
2%
**
15%
4%
**
5%
29%
90%
8%
10%
**
**
2%
90%
4%
**
**
**
4%
**
2%
**
Don't know
167
92
**
136
364
1058
99
122
**
**
35
1045
122
**
**
**
55
**
74
**
66%
71%
**
76%
74%
68%
67%
65%
**
**
67%
68%
75%
**
**
**
65%
**
75%
**
abd
a
q
14%
8%
**
12%
31%
91%
8%
10%
**
**
3%
90%
10%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe16 (Qe11A). Showcard What Is The Actual Speed Of Your Main Home Internet Connection? (Single Code)
Base : Those who use broadband to connect to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
422
249
74
323
853
2565
156
353
42
48
109
2373
222
33
39
29
144
78
143
79
Effective Weighted Sample
294
151
51
201
566
1755
135
234
28
32
79
1649
171
19
23
23
127
61
112
60
Total
253
130
50
180
494
1567
148
189
21
27
52
1537
162
9
6
2
85
78
98
64
15%
8%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
512K
4
1
**
1
4
14
-
2
**
**
1
12
1
**
**
**
*
**
1
**
2%
1%
**
1%
1%
1%
-%
1%
**
**
2%
1%
1%
**
**
**
*%
**
1%
**
l
l
31%
7%
**
7%
27%
100%
-%
16%
**
**
6%
85%
7%
**
**
**
2%
**
7%
**
750K
1
-
**
-
-
3
-
*
**
**
-
3
-
**
**
**
-
**
-
**
*%
-%
**
-%
-%
*%
-%
*%
**
**
-%
*%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
29%
-%
**
-%
-%
100%
-%
7%
**
**
-%
93%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
1MB
*
-
**
-
1
10
-
2
**
**
*
8
-
**
**
**
-
**
-
**
*%
-%
**
-%
*%
1%
-%
1%
**
**
1%
1%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
3%
-%
**
-%
13%
100%
-%
22%
**
**
3%
79%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
1.5MB
2
1
**
2
5
12
2
3
**
**
*
12
2
**
**
**
2
**
2
**
1%
1%
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
**
**
*%
1%
1%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
l
13%
10%
**
14%
37%
82%
13%
19%
**
**
1%
82%
13%
**
**
**
13%
**
13%
**
2MB
9
6
**
6
18
51
3
7
**
**
2
46
6
**
**
**
4
**
3
**
3%
4%
**
4%
4%
3%
2%
4%
**
**
5%
3%
3%
**
**
**
4%
**
3%
**
16%
11%
**
12%
33%
96%
5%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
10%
**
**
**
7%
**
5%
**
3MB
5
8
**
9
15
40
1
6
**
**
1
35
8
**
**
**
4
**
5
**
2%
6%
**
5%
3%
3%
1%
3%
**
**
3%
2%
5%
**
**
**
5%
**
5%
**
a
11%
19%
**
21%
38%
97%
3%
15%
**
**
4%
85%
20%
**
**
**
11%
**
12%
**
4MB
7
2
**
3
15
59
4
6
**
**
*
57
3
**
**
**
3
**
3
**
3%
2%
**
2%
3%
4%
3%
3%
**
**
*%
4%
2%
**
**
**
4%
**
3%
**
11%
4%
**
6%
24%
94%
6%
9%
**
**
*%
91%
5%
**
**
**
5%
**
5%
**
8MB
12
7
**
7
22
78
11
12
**
**
3
76
7
**
**
**
4
**
4
**
5%
6%
**
4%
4%
5%
8%
6%
**
**
6%
5%
4%
**
**
**
5%
**
4%
**
l
13%
8%
**
8%
25%
89%
13%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
8%
**
**
**
5%
**
5%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe16 (Qe11A). Showcard What Is The Actual Speed Of Your Main Home Internet Connection? (Single Code)
Base : Those who use broadband to connect to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
422
249
74
323
853
2565
156
353
42
48
109
2373
222
33
39
29
144
78
143
79
Effective Weighted Sample
294
151
51
201
566
1755
135
234
28
32
79
1649
171
19
23
23
127
61
112
60
Total
253
130
50
180
494
1567
148
189
21
27
52
1537
162
9
6
2
85
78
98
64
15%
8%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
10MB
8
3
**
3
9
55
5
10
**
**
1
49
2
**
**
**
2
**
*
**
3%
2%
**
2%
2%
4%
3%
6%
**
**
3%
3%
1%
**
**
**
2%
**
*%
**
13%
4%
**
5%
14%
93%
8%
18%
**
**
2%
83%
4%
**
**
**
3%
**
1%
**
16MB
6
1
**
2
5
28
-
6
**
**
2
23
2
**
**
**
2
**
2
**
2%
*%
**
1%
1%
2%
-%
3%
**
**
4%
1%
1%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
l
22%
2%
**
7%
17%
100%
-%
20%
**
**
8%
82%
7%
**
**
**
7%
**
7%
**
20MB
8
3
**
3
14
54
5
8
**
**
1
51
3
**
**
**
2
**
1
**
3%
3%
**
2%
3%
3%
3%
4%
**
**
2%
3%
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
1%
**
14%
6%
**
6%
23%
92%
8%
14%
**
**
2%
86%
6%
**
**
**
3%
**
2%
**
24MB
2
*
**
*
3
14
1
1
**
**
*
15
*
**
**
**
*
**
*
**
1%
*%
**
*%
1%
1%
1%
*%
**
**
1%
1%
*%
**
**
**
*%
**
*%
**
14%
2%
**
2%
22%
93%
6%
4%
**
**
3%
95%
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
50MB
2
2
**
2
5
18
2
2
**
**
1
18
1
**
**
**
1
**
1
**
1%
1%
**
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
**
**
2%
1%
1%
**
**
**
2%
**
1%
**
10%
8%
**
8%
25%
88%
12%
12%
**
**
4%
87%
7%
**
**
**
7%
**
7%
**
100MB
1
-
**
1
4
8
3
1
**
**
-
11
1
**
**
**
1
**
-
**
*%
-%
**
*%
1%
1%
2%
*%
**
**
-%
1%
*%
**
**
**
1%
**
-%
**
6%
-%
**
6%
35%
71%
22%
5%
**
**
-%
95%
6%
**
**
**
6%
**
-%
**
Over 100MB
2
-
**
-
2
4
-
1
**
**
-
3
-
**
**
**
-
**
-
**
1%
-%
**
-%
*%
*%
-%
1%
**
**
-%
*%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
37%
-%
**
-%
37%
100%
-%
23%
**
**
-%
79%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
Other
3
2
**
2
5
22
1
2
**
**
1
21
2
**
**
**
1
**
*
**
1%
1%
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
**
**
1%
1%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
*%
**
13%
8%
**
8%
21%
96%
4%
7%
**
**
3%
94%
8%
**
**
**
3%
**
2%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe16 (Qe11A). Showcard What Is The Actual Speed Of Your Main Home Internet Connection? (Single Code)
Base : Those who use broadband to connect to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
422
249
74
323
853
2565
156
353
42
48
109
2373
222
33
39
29
144
78
143
79
Effective Weighted Sample
294
151
51
201
566
1755
135
234
28
32
79
1649
171
19
23
23
127
61
112
60
Total
253
130
50
180
494
1567
148
189
21
27
52
1537
162
9
6
2
85
78
98
64
15%
8%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
TOTAL 512K+
68
34
**
39
121
449
37
67
**
**
15
418
37
**
**
**
25
**
23
**
27%
26%
**
22%
24%
29%
25%
35%
**
**
29%
27%
23%
**
**
**
29%
**
24%
**
c
c
l
kl
r
14%
7%
**
8%
25%
93%
8%
14%
**
**
3%
86%
8%
**
**
**
5%
**
5%
**
TOTAL 2MB+
61
31
**
36
110
409
35
59
**
**
14
383
34
**
**
**
23
**
20
**
24%
24%
**
20%
22%
26%
24%
31%
**
**
26%
25%
21%
**
**
**
27%
**
21%
**
c
c
l
l
14%
7%
**
8%
25%
93%
8%
13%
**
**
3%
87%
8%
**
**
**
5%
**
5%
**
Don't know
182
94
**
139
368
1097
110
120
**
**
36
1097
124
**
**
**
59
**
74
**
72%
73%
**
77%
75%
70%
74%
64%
**
**
70%
71%
76%
**
**
**
70%
**
76%
**
ab
j
hj
15%
8%
**
11%
30%
90%
9%
10%
**
**
3%
90%
10%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe17 (Qe11C). Do You Know How To Find Out What Speeds You Are Getting On Your Computer At Home? (Single Code)
Base : Those who use broadband to connect to the internet at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
422
249
74
323
853
2565
156
353
42
48
109
2373
222
33
39
29
144
78
143
79
Effective Weighted Sample
294
151
51
201
566
1755
135
234
28
32
79
1649
171
19
23
23
127
61
112
60
Total
253
130
50
180
494
1567
148
189
21
27
52
1537
162
9
6
2
85
78
98
64
15%
8%
**
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Yes
82
31
**
37
122
525
50
67
**
**
14
510
34
**
**
**
25
**
23
**
32%
24%
**
21%
25%
34%
34%
36%
**
**
27%
33%
21%
**
**
**
29%
**
23%
**
cd
k
mn
r
14%
5%
**
6%
21%
91%
9%
12%
**
**
2%
89%
6%
**
**
**
4%
**
4%
**
No
139
76
**
111
273
801
68
94
**
**
30
783
101
**
**
**
44
**
61
**
55%
58%
**
62%
55%
51%
46%
50%
**
**
58%
51%
62%
**
**
**
52%
**
62%
**
a
j
j
o
o
q
16%
9%
**
13%
31%
91%
8%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
12%
**
**
**
5%
**
7%
**
Don't know
32
23
**
32
98
241
29
28
**
**
8
244
28
**
**
**
16
**
14
**
13%
18%
**
18%
20%
15%
20%
15%
**
**
15%
16%
17%
**
**
**
18%
**
15%
**
12%
9%
**
12%
36%
89%
11%
10%
**
**
3%
90%
10%
**
**
**
6%
**
5%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe18 (Qe12X). Showcard You Said You Use A Mobile Usb Stick Or Dongle To Access The Internet, Thinking About The Speed Of Your Mobile Broadband, Is This Faster, Slower Or About The Same As You Expected It To Be When You First Got It? (Single Code)
Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
*g
*h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
39
19
3
22
125
399
31
50
5
4
14
381
13
3
2
4
11
2
8
5
Effective Weighted Sample
27
13
1
12
83
279
26
33
4
2
10
271
10
2
2
3
10
2
6
4
Total
24
8
2
10
70
258
31
30
4
1
6
260
9
1
*
*
6
3
6
3
**
**
**
**
24%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
A lot faster
**
**
**
**
2
6
**
**
**
**
**
8
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
2%
**
**
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
f
**
**
**
**
25%
68%
**
**
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
A little faster
**
**
**
**
5
24
**
**
**
**
**
21
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
9%
**
**
**
**
**
8%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
21%
96%
**
**
**
**
**
85%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
TOTAL FASTER
**
**
**
**
7
30
**
**
**
**
**
29
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
10%
12%
**
**
**
**
**
11%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
22%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
87%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
About the same
**
**
**
**
36
137
**
**
**
**
**
142
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
51%
53%
**
**
**
**
**
54%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
23%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
A little slower
**
**
**
**
10
37
**
**
**
**
**
36
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
14%
14%
**
**
**
**
**
14%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
23%
87%
**
**
**
**
**
84%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
A lot slower
**
**
**
**
5
16
**
**
**
**
**
15
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
6%
**
**
**
**
**
6%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
31%
93%
**
**
**
**
**
87%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
TOTAL SLOWER
**
**
**
**
15
53
**
**
**
**
**
51
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
22%
21%
**
**
**
**
**
20%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
25%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
84%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
12
38
**
**
**
**
**
38
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
17%
15%
**
**
**
**
**
15%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
28%
92%
**
**
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe19A (Qe8Aa). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider? (Single Code)
Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
*g
*h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
39
19
3
22
125
399
31
50
5
4
14
381
13
3
2
4
11
2
8
5
Effective Weighted Sample
27
13
1
12
83
279
26
33
4
2
10
271
10
2
2
3
10
2
6
4
Total
24
8
2
10
70
258
31
30
4
1
6
260
9
1
*
*
6
3
6
3
**
**
**
**
24%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Base for %
24
7
2
9
68
244
28
28
4
1
6
245
8
*
*
*
5
3
5
3
**
**
**
**
25%
90%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Very satisfied
**
**
**
**
28
101
**
**
**
**
**
96
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
42%
42%
**
**
**
**
**
39%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
26%
94%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Fairly satisfied
**
**
**
**
29
99
**
**
**
**
**
107
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
42%
41%
**
**
**
**
**
44%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
24%
84%
**
**
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
TOTAL SATISFIED
**
**
**
**
57
201
**
**
**
**
**
204
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
84%
82%
**
**
**
**
**
83%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
25%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Neither
**
**
**
**
6
30
**
**
**
**
**
28
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
12%
**
**
**
**
**
11%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
19%
97%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Fairly dissatisfied
**
**
**
**
4
10
**
**
**
**
**
11
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
6%
4%
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
32%
85%
**
**
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Very dissatisfied
**
**
**
**
1
3
**
**
**
**
**
3
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
44%
100%
**
**
**
**
**
98%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
TOTAL DISSATISFIED
**
**
**
**
5
13
**
**
**
**
**
14
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
5%
**
**
**
**
**
6%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
35%
88%
**
**
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe19A (Qe8Aa). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider? (Single Code)
Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
*g
*h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
39
19
3
22
125
399
31
50
5
4
14
381
13
3
2
4
11
2
8
5
Effective Weighted Sample
27
13
1
12
83
279
26
33
4
2
10
271
10
2
2
3
10
2
6
4
Total
24
8
2
10
70
258
31
30
4
1
6
260
9
1
*
*
6
3
6
3
**
**
**
**
24%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
2
14
**
**
**
**
**
15
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe19B (Qe8Ab). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code)
Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
*g
*h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
39
19
3
22
125
399
31
50
5
4
14
381
13
3
2
4
11
2
8
5
Effective Weighted Sample
27
13
1
12
83
279
26
33
4
2
10
271
10
2
2
3
10
2
6
4
Total
24
8
2
10
70
258
31
30
4
1
6
260
9
1
*
*
6
3
6
3
**
**
**
**
24%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Base for %
24
7
2
9
68
244
28
28
4
1
6
245
8
*
*
*
5
3
5
3
**
**
**
**
25%
90%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Very satisfied
**
**
**
**
25
91
**
**
**
**
**
88
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
37%
37%
**
**
**
**
**
36%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
26%
95%
**
**
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Fairly satisfied
**
**
**
**
28
97
**
**
**
**
**
106
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
41%
40%
**
**
**
**
**
43%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
24%
84%
**
**
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
TOTAL SATISFIED
**
**
**
**
53
189
**
**
**
**
**
194
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
78%
77%
**
**
**
**
**
79%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
25%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Neither
**
**
**
**
8
34
**
**
**
**
**
31
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
12%
14%
**
**
**
**
**
13%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
23%
94%
**
**
**
**
**
86%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Fairly dissatisfied
**
**
**
**
3
16
**
**
**
**
**
16
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
6%
**
**
**
**
**
7%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
15%
90%
**
**
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Very dissatisfied
**
**
**
**
4
5
**
**
**
**
**
4
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
6%
2%
**
**
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
71%
100%
**
**
**
**
**
77%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
TOTAL DISSATISFIED
**
**
**
**
6
21
**
**
**
**
**
20
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
10%
9%
**
**
**
**
**
8%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
28%
92%
**
**
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe19B (Qe8Ab). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code)
Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
*g
*h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
39
19
3
22
125
399
31
50
5
4
14
381
13
3
2
4
11
2
8
5
Effective Weighted Sample
27
13
1
12
83
279
26
33
4
2
10
271
10
2
2
3
10
2
6
4
Total
24
8
2
10
70
258
31
30
4
1
6
260
9
1
*
*
6
3
6
3
**
**
**
**
24%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
2
14
**
**
**
**
**
15
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe19C (Qe8Ac). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code)
Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
*g
*h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
39
19
3
22
125
399
31
50
5
4
14
381
13
3
2
4
11
2
8
5
Effective Weighted Sample
27
13
1
12
83
279
26
33
4
2
10
271
10
2
2
3
10
2
6
4
Total
24
8
2
10
70
258
31
30
4
1
6
260
9
1
*
*
6
3
6
3
**
**
**
**
24%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Base for %
24
7
2
9
68
244
28
28
4
1
6
245
8
*
*
*
5
3
5
3
**
**
**
**
25%
90%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Very satisfied
**
**
**
**
28
101
**
**
**
**
**
96
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
41%
41%
**
**
**
**
**
39%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
26%
94%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Fairly satisfied
**
**
**
**
26
93
**
**
**
**
**
100
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
39%
38%
**
**
**
**
**
41%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
24%
84%
**
**
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
TOTAL SATISFIED
**
**
**
**
54
194
**
**
**
**
**
196
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
79%
79%
**
**
**
**
**
80%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
25%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Neither
**
**
**
**
9
32
**
**
**
**
**
31
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
13%
13%
**
**
**
**
**
13%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
26%
94%
**
**
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Fairly dissatisfied
**
**
**
**
4
14
**
**
**
**
**
14
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5%
6%
**
**
**
**
**
6%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
24%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Very dissatisfied
**
**
**
**
1
4
**
**
**
**
**
4
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
2%
**
**
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
34%
100%
**
**
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
TOTAL DISSATISFIED
**
**
**
**
5
18
**
**
**
**
**
18
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
7%
**
**
**
**
**
7%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
26%
91%
**
**
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe19C (Qe8Ac). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code)
Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
*g
*h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
39
19
3
22
125
399
31
50
5
4
14
381
13
3
2
4
11
2
8
5
Effective Weighted Sample
27
13
1
12
83
279
26
33
4
2
10
271
10
2
2
3
10
2
6
4
Total
24
8
2
10
70
258
31
30
4
1
6
260
9
1
*
*
6
3
6
3
**
**
**
**
24%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
2
14
**
**
**
**
**
15
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe20 (Qe12). Showcard Thinking About The Speed Of Your Household'S Fixed Broadband Internet, Is This Faster, Slower Or About The Same As You Expected It To Be When You First Got It? (Single Code)
Base : Those with fixed broadband at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
406
241
72
313
776
2406
146
329
40
47
101
2227
217
32
38
26
140
77
139
78
Effective Weighted Sample
281
146
50
196
514
1641
126
217
26
31
73
1544
167
18
22
21
123
61
110
60
Total
243
127
48
175
450
1476
136
177
20
26
49
1444
158
8
6
2
83
76
94
64
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
91%
8%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
10%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
A lot faster
18
8
**
10
24
78
7
12
**
**
5
75
10
**
**
**
6
**
3
**
7%
7%
**
6%
5%
5%
5%
7%
**
**
9%
5%
6%
**
**
**
8%
**
3%
**
21%
10%
**
12%
28%
90%
8%
14%
**
**
5%
86%
11%
**
**
**
7%
**
4%
**
A little faster
26
11
**
12
35
146
15
23
**
**
4
136
11
**
**
**
7
**
6
**
11%
8%
**
7%
8%
10%
11%
13%
**
**
8%
9%
7%
**
**
**
8%
**
6%
**
16%
7%
**
7%
22%
91%
9%
15%
**
**
2%
85%
7%
**
**
**
4%
**
3%
**
TOTAL FASTER
44
19
**
22
59
224
21
36
**
**
8
211
20
**
**
**
13
**
9
**
18%
15%
**
12%
13%
15%
16%
20%
**
**
17%
15%
13%
**
**
**
16%
**
9%
**
c
l
18%
8%
**
9%
24%
91%
9%
14%
**
**
3%
86%
8%
**
**
**
5%
**
4%
**
About the same
126
55
**
85
236
799
79
72
**
**
21
809
76
**
**
**
43
**
50
**
52%
43%
**
48%
53%
54%
58%
41%
**
**
44%
56%
48%
**
**
**
52%
**
53%
**
b
hjk
14%
6%
**
10%
27%
91%
9%
8%
**
**
2%
92%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
A little slower
31
20
**
22
58
199
17
26
**
**
5
192
20
**
**
**
11
**
14
**
13%
15%
**
12%
13%
13%
12%
15%
**
**
10%
13%
13%
**
**
**
13%
**
15%
**
c
14%
9%
**
10%
27%
92%
8%
12%
**
**
2%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
A lot slower
21
15
**
18
39
136
6
22
**
**
5
121
16
**
**
**
7
**
9
**
9%
12%
**
10%
9%
9%
5%
13%
**
**
10%
8%
10%
**
**
**
9%
**
10%
**
l
mn
14%
11%
**
12%
27%
95%
4%
16%
**
**
3%
85%
11%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
TOTAL SLOWER
52
35
**
39
97
334
23
48
**
**
10
313
36
**
**
**
18
**
23
**
21%
27%
**
22%
21%
23%
17%
27%
**
**
21%
22%
23%
**
**
**
22%
**
24%
**
c
c
14%
10%
**
11%
27%
93%
6%
13%
**
**
3%
87%
10%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe20 (Qe12). Showcard Thinking About The Speed Of Your Household'S Fixed Broadband Internet, Is This Faster, Slower Or About The Same As You Expected It To Be When You First Got It? (Single Code)
Base : Those with fixed broadband at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
406
241
72
313
776
2406
146
329
40
47
101
2227
217
32
38
26
140
77
139
78
Effective Weighted Sample
281
146
50
196
514
1641
126
217
26
31
73
1544
167
18
22
21
123
61
110
60
Total
243
127
48
175
450
1476
136
177
20
26
49
1444
158
8
6
2
83
76
94
64
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
91%
8%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
10%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Don't know
21
19
**
29
57
118
13
21
**
**
9
111
27
**
**
**
9
**
13
**
9%
15%
**
17%
13%
8%
10%
12%
**
**
19%
8%
17%
**
**
**
11%
**
14%
**
a
a
l
l
l
q
16%
14%
**
22%
44%
90%
10%
16%
**
**
7%
84%
20%
**
**
**
7%
**
10%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe21A (Qe8A). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider. (Single Code)
Base : Those with fixed broadband at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
406
241
72
313
776
2406
146
329
40
47
101
2227
217
32
38
26
140
77
139
78
Effective Weighted Sample
281
146
50
196
514
1641
126
217
26
31
73
1544
167
18
22
21
123
61
110
60
Total
243
127
48
175
450
1476
136
177
20
26
49
1444
158
8
6
2
83
76
94
64
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
91%
8%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
10%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Base for %
240
121
43
164
435
1456
135
170
20
26
45
1430
148
8
6
2
80
69
93
56
15%
8%
**
10%
27%
91%
8%
11%
**
**
**
90%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Very satisfied
104
53
**
76
191
652
42
69
**
**
**
627
70
**
**
**
41
**
44
**
43%
44%
**
47%
44%
45%
31%
40%
**
**
**
44%
47%
**
**
**
51%
**
47%
**
g
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
94%
6%
10%
**
**
**
90%
10%
**
**
**
6%
**
6%
**
Fairly satisfied
107
57
**
74
197
614
82
72
**
**
**
627
66
**
**
**
30
**
40
**
44%
47%
**
45%
45%
42%
61%
43%
**
**
**
44%
44%
**
**
**
38%
**
43%
**
f
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
88%
12%
10%
**
**
**
90%
9%
**
**
**
4%
**
6%
**
TOTAL SATISFIED
210
110
**
150
389
1266
124
141
**
**
**
1254
136
**
**
**
71
**
84
**
88%
91%
**
91%
89%
87%
92%
83%
**
**
**
88%
92%
**
**
**
89%
**
91%
**
j
o
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
91%
9%
10%
**
**
**
90%
10%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Neither
17
6
**
8
25
88
4
9
**
**
**
84
6
**
**
**
3
**
5
**
7%
5%
**
5%
6%
6%
3%
5%
**
**
**
6%
4%
**
**
**
4%
**
5%
**
m
19%
7%
**
8%
27%
95%
4%
9%
**
**
**
91%
7%
**
**
**
3%
**
5%
**
Fairly dissatisfied
6
2
**
3
9
65
6
12
**
**
**
60
3
**
**
**
3
**
2
**
3%
2%
**
2%
2%
4%
4%
7%
**
**
**
4%
2%
**
**
**
3%
**
2%
**
l
l
9%
3%
**
4%
13%
90%
8%
17%
**
**
**
84%
4%
**
**
**
4%
**
3%
**
Very dissatisfied
6
3
**
3
12
38
1
8
**
**
**
32
3
**
**
**
3
**
2
**
3%
2%
**
2%
3%
3%
1%
5%
**
**
**
2%
2%
**
**
**
4%
**
2%
**
l
l
16%
7%
**
9%
31%
96%
3%
19%
**
**
**
82%
8%
**
**
**
8%
**
5%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe21A (Qe8A). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider. (Single Code)
Base : Those with fixed broadband at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
406
241
72
313
776
2406
146
329
40
47
101
2227
217
32
38
26
140
77
139
78
Effective Weighted Sample
281
146
50
196
514
1641
126
217
26
31
73
1544
167
18
22
21
123
61
110
60
Total
243
127
48
175
450
1476
136
177
20
26
49
1444
158
8
6
2
83
76
94
64
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
91%
8%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
10%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
TOTAL DISSATISFIED
12
5
**
6
22
102
7
20
**
**
**
92
6
**
**
**
6
**
4
**
5%
4%
**
4%
5%
7%
5%
12%
**
**
**
6%
4%
**
**
**
7%
**
4%
**
l
kl
11%
5%
**
6%
20%
92%
6%
18%
**
**
**
83%
5%
**
**
**
5%
**
4%
**
Don't know
3
6
**
11
14
19
1
7
**
**
**
14
10
**
**
**
3
**
2
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe21B (Qe8B). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code)
Base : Those with fixed broadband at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
406
241
72
313
776
2406
146
329
40
47
101
2227
217
32
38
26
140
77
139
78
Effective Weighted Sample
281
146
50
196
514
1641
126
217
26
31
73
1544
167
18
22
21
123
61
110
60
Total
243
127
48
175
450
1476
136
177
20
26
49
1444
158
8
6
2
83
76
94
64
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
91%
8%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
10%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Base for %
239
121
42
163
433
1452
135
168
20
26
45
1428
147
8
6
2
79
69
91
56
15%
8%
**
10%
27%
91%
8%
11%
**
**
**
90%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Very satisfied
91
43
**
62
168
581
42
60
**
**
**
565
57
**
**
**
31
**
34
**
38%
36%
**
38%
39%
40%
31%
36%
**
**
**
40%
38%
**
**
**
40%
**
37%
**
15%
7%
**
10%
27%
93%
7%
10%
**
**
**
91%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
5%
**
Fairly satisfied
98
53
**
70
189
575
74
66
**
**
**
587
63
**
**
**
32
**
41
**
41%
44%
**
43%
44%
40%
55%
39%
**
**
**
41%
43%
**
**
**
40%
**
45%
**
f
15%
8%
**
11%
29%
88%
11%
10%
**
**
**
90%
10%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
TOTAL SATISFIED
189
96
**
132
358
1156
116
126
**
**
**
1152
120
**
**
**
63
**
75
**
79%
79%
**
81%
83%
80%
86%
75%
**
**
**
81%
81%
**
**
**
80%
**
82%
**
o
15%
8%
**
10%
28%
91%
9%
10%
**
**
**
90%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Neither
22
8
**
11
29
127
5
12
**
**
**
120
10
**
**
**
6
**
7
**
9%
6%
**
7%
7%
9%
4%
7%
**
**
**
8%
7%
**
**
**
8%
**
7%
**
g
h
17%
6%
**
8%
22%
96%
4%
9%
**
**
**
91%
8%
**
**
**
5%
**
5%
**
Fairly dissatisfied
19
12
**
13
27
111
11
19
**
**
**
106
12
**
**
**
6
**
6
**
8%
10%
**
8%
6%
8%
8%
11%
**
**
**
7%
8%
**
**
**
7%
**
6%
**
m
15%
9%
**
11%
22%
89%
9%
15%
**
**
**
85%
9%
**
**
**
4%
**
4%
**
Very dissatisfied
9
6
**
7
20
58
2
12
**
**
**
51
6
**
**
**
4
**
4
**
4%
5%
**
4%
5%
4%
2%
7%
**
**
**
4%
4%
**
**
**
5%
**
4%
**
l
l
15%
9%
**
11%
31%
94%
4%
19%
**
**
**
82%
9%
**
**
**
7%
**
6%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe21B (Qe8B). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code)
Base : Those with fixed broadband at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
406
241
72
313
776
2406
146
329
40
47
101
2227
217
32
38
26
140
77
139
78
Effective Weighted Sample
281
146
50
196
514
1641
126
217
26
31
73
1544
167
18
22
21
123
61
110
60
Total
243
127
48
175
450
1476
136
177
20
26
49
1444
158
8
6
2
83
76
94
64
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
91%
8%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
10%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
TOTAL DISSATISFIED
28
17
**
20
47
169
14
30
**
**
**
156
17
**
**
**
10
**
9
**
12%
14%
**
12%
11%
12%
10%
18%
**
**
**
11%
12%
**
**
**
12%
**
10%
**
l
kl
m
15%
9%
**
11%
25%
91%
7%
16%
**
**
**
84%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
5%
**
Don't know
4
6
**
12
16
23
1
9
**
**
**
16
11
**
**
**
4
**
3
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe21C (Qe8C). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code)
Base : Those with fixed broadband at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
406
241
72
313
776
2406
146
329
40
47
101
2227
217
32
38
26
140
77
139
78
Effective Weighted Sample
281
146
50
196
514
1641
126
217
26
31
73
1544
167
18
22
21
123
61
110
60
Total
243
127
48
175
450
1476
136
177
20
26
49
1444
158
8
6
2
83
76
94
64
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
91%
8%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
10%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Base for %
240
123
43
166
437
1458
135
170
20
26
45
1432
150
8
6
2
80
71
93
57
15%
8%
**
10%
27%
91%
8%
11%
**
**
**
90%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Very satisfied
104
50
**
70
186
644
46
66
**
**
**
625
65
**
**
**
35
**
40
**
43%
40%
**
42%
43%
44%
34%
39%
**
**
**
44%
43%
**
**
**
44%
**
43%
**
g
o
15%
7%
**
10%
27%
93%
7%
10%
**
**
**
91%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Fairly satisfied
98
59
**
78
189
596
75
73
**
**
**
603
70
**
**
**
33
**
41
**
41%
48%
**
47%
43%
41%
56%
43%
**
**
**
42%
46%
**
**
**
41%
**
44%
**
f
14%
9%
**
12%
28%
88%
11%
11%
**
**
**
89%
10%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
TOTAL SATISFIED
201
108
**
148
376
1240
121
139
**
**
**
1228
135
**
**
**
68
**
81
**
84%
88%
**
89%
86%
85%
90%
82%
**
**
**
86%
89%
**
**
**
85%
**
87%
**
o
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
91%
9%
10%
**
**
**
90%
10%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Neither
18
9
**
10
31
105
5
11
**
**
**
99
9
**
**
**
5
**
8
**
7%
7%
**
6%
7%
7%
4%
6%
**
**
**
7%
6%
**
**
**
7%
**
8%
**
16%
8%
**
9%
28%
96%
4%
10%
**
**
**
90%
8%
**
**
**
5%
**
7%
**
Fairly dissatisfied
16
4
**
5
21
77
6
12
**
**
**
72
4
**
**
**
4
**
3
**
7%
3%
**
3%
5%
5%
4%
7%
**
**
**
5%
3%
**
**
**
5%
**
3%
**
19%
5%
**
6%
25%
92%
7%
14%
**
**
**
86%
5%
**
**
**
5%
**
3%
**
Very dissatisfied
5
2
**
3
10
36
3
8
**
**
**
33
2
**
**
**
2
**
1
**
2%
2%
**
2%
2%
2%
2%
5%
**
**
**
2%
2%
**
**
**
3%
**
1%
**
l
l
13%
5%
**
6%
26%
89%
8%
19%
**
**
**
81%
6%
**
**
**
6%
**
3%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe21C (Qe8C). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code)
Base : Those with fixed broadband at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
406
241
72
313
776
2406
146
329
40
47
101
2227
217
32
38
26
140
77
139
78
Effective Weighted Sample
281
146
50
196
514
1641
126
217
26
31
73
1544
167
18
22
21
123
61
110
60
Total
243
127
48
175
450
1476
136
177
20
26
49
1444
158
8
6
2
83
76
94
64
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
91%
8%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
10%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
TOTAL DISSATISFIED
21
6
**
8
31
113
9
20
**
**
**
105
7
**
**
**
6
**
4
**
9%
5%
**
5%
7%
8%
7%
12%
**
**
**
7%
4%
**
**
**
8%
**
4%
**
l
l
m
r
17%
5%
**
6%
25%
91%
7%
16%
**
**
**
85%
5%
**
**
**
5%
**
3%
**
Don't know
3
4
**
9
12
18
1
7
**
**
**
12
8
**
**
**
3
**
2
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe22 (Qe35). Read Out Description Of Wireless Router. Do You Or Anyone In Your Household Use A Fixed Wireless Internet Connection At Home (Wi-Fi)? (Single Code)
Base : Those with fixed broadband at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
406
241
72
313
776
2406
146
329
40
47
101
2227
217
32
38
26
140
77
139
78
Effective Weighted Sample
281
146
50
196
514
1641
126
217
26
31
73
1544
167
18
22
21
123
61
110
60
Total
243
127
48
175
450
1476
136
177
20
26
49
1444
158
8
6
2
83
76
94
64
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
91%
8%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
10%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
Yes
194
87
**
109
332
1244
123
138
**
**
34
1236
100
**
**
**
57
**
61
**
80%
68%
**
62%
74%
84%
90%
78%
**
**
71%
86%
63%
**
**
**
69%
**
65%
**
bcd
c
c
hk
14%
6%
**
8%
24%
91%
9%
10%
**
**
2%
90%
7%
**
**
**
4%
**
4%
**
No
38
31
**
47
90
185
11
27
**
**
11
170
41
**
**
**
19
**
25
**
16%
25%
**
27%
20%
13%
8%
15%
**
**
22%
12%
26%
**
**
**
23%
**
27%
**
a
a
a
l
19%
16%
**
24%
46%
94%
5%
14%
**
**
5%
87%
21%
**
**
**
10%
**
13%
**
Don't know
11
9
**
19
27
46
3
12
**
**
4
38
17
**
**
**
6
**
8
**
4%
7%
**
11%
6%
3%
2%
7%
**
**
8%
3%
11%
**
**
**
8%
**
9%
**
ab
a
l
l
22%
19%
**
38%
56%
94%
7%
24%
**
**
8%
77%
35%
**
**
**
13%
**
17%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe23 (Qe11D). Showcard How Many Of These Devices Does Your Household Connect To The Fixed Wireless Internet Connection (Wi-Fi) At Least Once A Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those using a wireless internet connection at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
*j
*k
l
m
~n
~o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
323
160
38
198
567
1974
130
254
29
37
76
1854
139
23
25
11
98
41
91
48
Effective Weighted Sample
223
97
25
122
373
1350
112
164
19
23
54
1293
105
12
14
10
87
32
70
36
Total
194
87
22
109
332
1244
123
138
16
19
34
1236
100
5
3
1
57
43
61
39
14%
6%
**
8%
24%
91%
9%
10%
**
**
**
90%
7%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Laptop
145
55
**
69
240
998
99
111
**
**
**
991
62
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
75%
64%
**
63%
72%
80%
81%
81%
**
**
**
80%
62%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
bd
13%
5%
**
6%
22%
91%
9%
10%
**
**
**
90%
6%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Desktop PC
99
41
**
51
135
542
50
55
**
**
**
542
48
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
51%
47%
**
47%
41%
44%
41%
40%
**
**
**
44%
48%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
17%
7%
**
9%
23%
91%
8%
9%
**
**
**
91%
8%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Smartphone
29
5
**
5
50
362
32
35
**
**
**
356
4
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
15%
5%
**
4%
15%
29%
26%
26%
**
**
**
29%
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
bcd
k
8%
1%
**
1%
13%
92%
8%
9%
**
**
**
91%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Games console
18
1
**
1
56
278
17
30
**
**
**
265
1
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
9%
1%
**
1%
17%
22%
14%
22%
**
**
**
21%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
bd
g
k
k
6%
*%
**
*%
19%
94%
6%
10%
**
**
**
90%
*%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Tablet computer (e.g. iPad)
18
4
**
6
20
173
15
12
**
**
**
177
5
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
9%
4%
**
6%
6%
14%
12%
9%
**
**
**
14%
5%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
q
9%
2%
**
3%
11%
92%
8%
6%
**
**
**
94%
3%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Netbook
11
4
**
4
17
104
4
11
**
**
**
97
4
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
6%
4%
**
3%
5%
8%
4%
8%
**
**
**
8%
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
10%
3%
**
3%
15%
96%
4%
10%
**
**
**
90%
3%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
E-reader (e.g. Kindle)
23
3
**
3
9
95
3
7
**
**
**
90
2
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
12%
3%
**
2%
3%
8%
2%
5%
**
**
**
7%
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
bd
g
23%
3%
**
3%
10%
97%
3%
8%
**
**
**
92%
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe23 (Qe11D). Showcard How Many Of These Devices Does Your Household Connect To The Fixed Wireless Internet Connection (Wi-Fi) At Least Once A Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those using a wireless internet connection at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
*j
*k
l
m
~n
~o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
323
160
38
198
567
1974
130
254
29
37
76
1854
139
23
25
11
98
41
91
48
Effective Weighted Sample
223
97
25
122
373
1350
112
164
19
23
54
1293
105
12
14
10
87
32
70
36
Total
194
87
22
109
332
1244
123
138
16
19
34
1236
100
5
3
1
57
43
61
39
14%
6%
**
8%
24%
91%
9%
10%
**
**
**
90%
7%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Other portable/ handheld device
(e.g. portable games console/
iPod Touch)
7
-
**
-
8
89
1
8
**
**
**
82
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
-%
**
-%
3%
7%
1%
6%
**
**
**
7%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
d
g
8%
-%
**
-%
9%
99%
2%
9%
**
**
**
92%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
TV set
14
5
**
5
17
78
8
10
**
**
**
76
5
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
7%
6%
**
4%
5%
6%
6%
7%
**
**
**
6%
5%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
s
16%
6%
**
6%
19%
91%
9%
12%
**
**
**
89%
5%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
None of these
3
7
**
7
12
22
1
5
**
**
**
18
7
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
8%
**
7%
4%
2%
1%
3%
**
**
**
1%
7%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
a
a
l
12%
30%
**
31%
52%
95%
3%
21%
**
**
**
80%
30%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
1
*
**
*
1
4
-
-
**
**
**
4
*
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
*%
**
*%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
**
**
*%
*%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
40%
8%
**
8%
36%
100%
-%
-%
**
**
**
100%
8%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Mean number of types of devices
1.9
1.3
**
1.3
1.7
2.2
1.9
2.0
**
**
**
2.2
1.3
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
bcd
g
k
k
Standard deviation
1.33
.77
**
.71
1.06
1.45
1.12
1.46
**
**
**
1.43
.72
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Standard error
.07
.06
**
.05
.04
.03
.10
.09
**
**
**
.03
.06
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe24 (Qe11E). Showcard How Many Of These Devices Has Your Household Connected To The Fixed Wireless Internet Connection (Wi-Fi) In The Last 12 Months? (Multi Code)
Base : Those using a wireless internet connection at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
*j
*k
l
m
~n
~o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
323
160
38
198
567
1974
130
254
29
37
76
1854
139
23
25
11
98
41
91
48
Effective Weighted Sample
223
97
25
122
373
1350
112
164
19
23
54
1293
105
12
14
10
87
32
70
36
Total
194
87
22
109
332
1244
123
138
16
19
34
1236
100
5
3
1
57
43
61
39
14%
6%
**
8%
24%
91%
9%
10%
**
**
**
90%
7%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Laptop
148
55
**
69
240
1013
101
112
**
**
**
1007
62
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
76%
64%
**
63%
72%
81%
82%
81%
**
**
**
81%
62%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
bd
k
13%
5%
**
6%
21%
91%
9%
10%
**
**
**
90%
6%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Desktop PC
101
41
**
51
135
553
51
56
**
**
**
553
48
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
52%
47%
**
47%
41%
44%
41%
40%
**
**
**
45%
48%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
17%
7%
**
8%
22%
91%
8%
9%
**
**
**
91%
8%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Smartphone
31
5
**
5
50
374
32
36
**
**
**
368
4
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
16%
6%
**
4%
15%
30%
26%
26%
**
**
**
30%
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
bcd
k
8%
1%
**
1%
12%
93%
8%
9%
**
**
**
91%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Games console
18
1
**
1
58
284
17
30
**
**
**
271
1
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
9%
1%
**
1%
17%
23%
14%
22%
**
**
**
22%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
bd
g
k
k
6%
*%
**
*%
19%
95%
6%
10%
**
**
**
90%
*%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Tablet computer (e.g. iPad)
18
4
**
6
20
174
15
12
**
**
**
177
5
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
9%
4%
**
6%
6%
14%
12%
9%
**
**
**
14%
5%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
q
9%
2%
**
3%
10%
92%
8%
6%
**
**
**
94%
3%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Netbook
12
4
**
4
17
110
4
12
**
**
**
102
4
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
6%
4%
**
3%
5%
9%
4%
9%
**
**
**
8%
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
11%
3%
**
3%
15%
96%
4%
11%
**
**
**
90%
3%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
E-reader (e.g. Kindle)
23
3
**
3
9
98
3
7
**
**
**
94
2
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
12%
3%
**
2%
3%
8%
3%
5%
**
**
**
8%
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
bd
g
22%
3%
**
3%
9%
97%
3%
7%
**
**
**
93%
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe24 (Qe11E). Showcard How Many Of These Devices Has Your Household Connected To The Fixed Wireless Internet Connection (Wi-Fi) In The Last 12 Months? (Multi Code)
Base : Those using a wireless internet connection at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
*j
*k
l
m
~n
~o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
323
160
38
198
567
1974
130
254
29
37
76
1854
139
23
25
11
98
41
91
48
Effective Weighted Sample
223
97
25
122
373
1350
112
164
19
23
54
1293
105
12
14
10
87
32
70
36
Total
194
87
22
109
332
1244
123
138
16
19
34
1236
100
5
3
1
57
43
61
39
14%
6%
**
8%
24%
91%
9%
10%
**
**
**
90%
7%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Other portable/ handheld device
(e.g. portable games console/
iPod Touch)
7
-
**
-
8
91
1
8
**
**
**
85
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
-%
**
-%
3%
7%
1%
6%
**
**
**
7%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
d
g
7%
-%
**
-%
9%
99%
1%
9%
**
**
**
92%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
TV set
14
5
**
5
17
78
8
10
**
**
**
76
5
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
7%
6%
**
4%
5%
6%
6%
7%
**
**
**
6%
5%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
s
16%
6%
**
6%
19%
91%
9%
12%
**
**
**
89%
5%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
None of these
3
7
**
7
12
22
1
5
**
**
**
18
7
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
8%
**
7%
4%
2%
1%
3%
**
**
**
1%
7%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
a
a
l
12%
30%
**
31%
52%
95%
3%
21%
**
**
**
80%
30%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
1
*
**
*
1
4
-
-
**
**
**
4
*
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
*%
**
*%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
**
**
*%
*%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
40%
8%
**
8%
36%
100%
-%
-%
**
**
**
100%
8%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Mean number of types of devices
1.9
1.3
**
1.3
1.7
2.2
1.9
2.1
**
**
**
2.2
1.3
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
bcd
g
k
k
Standard deviation
1.34
.77
**
.71
1.06
1.48
1.11
1.46
**
**
**
1.45
.72
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Standard error
.07
.06
**
.05
.04
.03
.10
.09
**
**
**
.03
.06
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe25 (Qe24). Showcard How Likely Are You To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code)
Base : Those without internet access at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
*g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
158
191
260
451
713
881
43
317
59
70
130
608
252
70
66
63
107
145
89
163
Effective Weighted Sample
111
115
172
283
466
608
37
210
37
43
89
422
204
44
40
53
92
117
69
135
Total
85
72
136
208
343
428
41
137
22
26
57
328
167
23
12
6
60
107
59
108
18%
15%
29%
44%
73%
91%
**
29%
**
**
12%
70%
36%
**
**
**
13%
23%
**
23%
Certain to
-
-
2
2
5
10
**
2
**
**
*
13
2
**
**
**
-
2
**
-
-%
-%
1%
1%
1%
2%
**
1%
**
**
1%
4%
1%
**
**
**
-%
2%
**
-%
f
-%
-%
11%
11%
32%
71%
**
14%
**
**
3%
88%
11%
**
**
**
-%
11%
**
-%
Very likely
2
1
*
1
12
17
**
3
**
**
1
22
1
**
**
**
-
1
**
-
2%
1%
*%
*%
3%
4%
**
2%
**
**
2%
7%
*%
**
**
**
-%
1%
**
-%
f
h
8%
2%
2%
4%
48%
69%
**
12%
**
**
5%
89%
2%
**
**
**
-%
2%
**
-%
Likely
6
*
1
1
21
34
**
7
**
**
1
35
1
**
**
**
1
-
**
-
7%
*%
1%
1%
6%
8%
**
5%
**
**
2%
11%
*%
**
**
**
1%
-%
**
-%
bcd
hk
m
15%
*%
2%
3%
52%
84%
**
16%
**
**
3%
85%
1%
**
**
**
1%
-%
**
-%
TOTAL LIKELY
8
1
3
4
38
62
**
12
**
**
3
70
3
**
**
**
1
2
**
-
10%
1%
2%
2%
11%
14%
**
9%
**
**
5%
21%
2%
**
**
**
1%
2%
**
-%
bcd
f
hijk
t
10%
1%
4%
5%
47%
77%
**
14%
**
**
3%
86%
3%
**
**
**
1%
3%
**
-%
Unlikely
9
5
8
13
25
36
**
10
**
**
4
29
11
**
**
**
3
8
**
4
10%
7%
6%
6%
7%
8%
**
7%
**
**
8%
9%
7%
**
**
**
5%
8%
**
4%
t
22%
13%
20%
33%
64%
93%
**
26%
**
**
11%
74%
29%
**
**
**
8%
21%
**
11%
Very unlikely
17
9
15
24
48
59
**
18
**
**
6
43
18
**
**
**
6
11
**
12
20%
13%
11%
12%
14%
14%
**
14%
**
**
10%
13%
11%
**
**
**
10%
11%
**
11%
cd
27%
14%
24%
39%
77%
95%
**
30%
**
**
9%
70%
28%
**
**
**
10%
18%
**
19%
Certain not to
43
54
101
155
205
232
**
89
**
**
40
150
125
**
**
**
48
77
**
87
51%
74%
74%
74%
60%
54%
**
65%
**
**
71%
46%
75%
**
**
**
79%
72%
**
81%
a
a
a
g
l
l
l
l
s
s
18%
22%
42%
64%
85%
96%
**
37%
**
**
17%
62%
51%
**
**
**
20%
32%
**
36%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe25 (Qe24). Showcard How Likely Are You To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code)
Base : Those without internet access at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
*g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
158
191
260
451
713
881
43
317
59
70
130
608
252
70
66
63
107
145
89
163
Effective Weighted Sample
111
115
172
283
466
608
37
210
37
43
89
422
204
44
40
53
92
117
69
135
Total
85
72
136
208
343
428
41
137
22
26
57
328
167
23
12
6
60
107
59
108
18%
15%
29%
44%
73%
91%
**
29%
**
**
12%
70%
36%
**
**
**
13%
23%
**
23%
TOTAL UNLIKELY
68
68
124
192
278
328
**
118
**
**
50
222
154
**
**
**
57
97
**
103
80%
94%
91%
92%
81%
77%
**
86%
**
**
88%
68%
92%
**
**
**
95%
91%
**
95%
a
a
a
g
l
l
l
l
mo
s
20%
20%
36%
56%
81%
95%
**
34%
**
**
15%
65%
45%
**
**
**
17%
28%
**
30%
Don't know
8
3
9
12
27
38
**
7
**
**
4
35
10
**
**
**
3
8
**
5
10%
5%
7%
6%
8%
9%
**
5%
**
**
7%
11%
6%
**
**
**
5%
7%
**
5%
h
p
19%
8%
21%
29%
64%
89%
**
17%
**
**
10%
83%
25%
**
**
**
6%
18%
**
11%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe26A (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
~g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
*s
t
Unweighted total
130
181
240
421
584
690
19
274
52
64
116
436
233
66
59
63
100
133
77
156
Effective Weighted Sample
92
107
159
264
382
475
16
180
33
39
78
305
190
41
36
53
86
108
60
130
Total
68
68
124
192
278
328
18
118
20
24
50
222
154
21
10
6
57
97
51
103
20%
20%
36%
56%
81%
95%
**
34%
**
**
15%
65%
45%
**
**
**
17%
28%
**
30%
No need
37
41
73
115
153
180
**
71
**
**
32
117
90
**
**
**
38
52
**
57
55%
61%
59%
60%
55%
55%
**
60%
**
**
63%
53%
59%
**
**
**
67%
54%
**
55%
l
m
19%
22%
38%
60%
81%
95%
**
37%
**
**
17%
62%
47%
**
**
**
20%
27%
**
30%
Don't want a computer
25
26
44
70
95
115
**
44
**
**
21
73
52
**
**
**
25
27
**
35
37%
38%
36%
37%
34%
35%
**
37%
**
**
41%
33%
34%
**
**
**
43%
28%
**
34%
i
i
p
mp
mp
r
21%
22%
38%
60%
81%
98%
**
37%
**
**
18%
62%
44%
**
**
**
21%
23%
**
30%
Don't know how you use computers
21
18
29
47
77
78
**
34
**
**
18
50
32
**
**
**
11
20
**
27
31%
26%
23%
24%
28%
24%
**
29%
**
**
36%
22%
21%
**
**
**
20%
21%
**
27%
l
m
m
s
s
24%
21%
33%
54%
89%
90%
**
40%
**
**
21%
58%
37%
**
**
**
13%
24%
**
32%
Too old to use the internet
6
16
61
77
82
76
**
37
**
**
22
44
60
**
**
**
25
36
**
45
9%
24%
49%
40%
29%
23%
**
32%
**
**
43%
20%
39%
**
**
**
43%
37%
**
43%
a
ab
ab
l
l
l
l
8%
20%
74%
94%
100%
93%
**
46%
**
**
27%
53%
74%
**
**
**
30%
44%
**
55%
Too expensive to set up
12
7
10
17
47
52
**
15
**
**
8
40
13
**
**
**
5
8
**
11
18%
10%
8%
9%
17%
16%
**
13%
**
**
15%
18%
9%
**
**
**
9%
8%
**
11%
cd
22%
12%
18%
30%
84%
93%
**
27%
**
**
14%
72%
24%
**
**
**
10%
14%
**
20%
Charges are too expensive
9
8
3
11
28
33
**
11
**
**
4
23
9
**
**
**
2
6
**
6
14%
11%
3%
6%
10%
10%
**
10%
**
**
7%
10%
6%
**
**
**
4%
7%
**
6%
cd
c
27%
22%
9%
32%
80%
97%
**
33%
**
**
11%
66%
25%
**
**
**
7%
18%
**
17%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe26A (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
~g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
*s
t
Unweighted total
130
181
240
421
584
690
19
274
52
64
116
436
233
66
59
63
100
133
77
156
Effective Weighted Sample
92
107
159
264
382
475
16
180
33
39
78
305
190
41
36
53
86
108
60
130
Total
68
68
124
192
278
328
18
118
20
24
50
222
154
21
10
6
57
97
51
103
20%
20%
36%
56%
81%
95%
**
34%
**
**
15%
65%
45%
**
**
**
17%
28%
**
30%
Computer is too expensive to
buy
8
4
4
8
20
25
**
7
**
**
3
17
7
**
**
**
3
4
**
7
11%
6%
3%
4%
7%
7%
**
6%
**
**
6%
8%
5%
**
**
**
5%
4%
**
7%
cd
31%
17%
17%
35%
82%
100%
**
28%
**
**
13%
71%
29%
**
**
**
11%
17%
**
27%
Friends/ family member checks things on the internet for me
4
6
6
12
14
17
**
8
**
**
5
11
9
**
**
**
4
6
**
6
6%
9%
4%
6%
5%
5%
**
7%
**
**
10%
5%
6%
**
**
**
6%
6%
**
6%
22%
33%
30%
63%
77%
90%
**
43%
**
**
28%
58%
50%
**
**
**
19%
31%
**
35%
Don't have a phone line
3
1
-
1
9
14
**
*
**
**
*
14
1
**
**
**
-
1
**
1
4%
2%
-%
1%
3%
4%
**
*%
**
**
*%
6%
1%
**
**
**
-%
1%
**
1%
cd
hk
18%
9%
-%
9%
66%
99%
**
1%
**
**
1%
99%
8%
**
**
**
-%
8%
**
8%
Concerned about security/ fraud
4
1
3
4
5
5
**
3
**
**
1
5
4
**
**
**
1
3
**
2
6%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
**
2%
**
**
2%
2%
2%
**
**
**
2%
3%
**
2%
53%
12%
40%
52%
65%
76%
**
37%
**
**
12%
63%
52%
**
**
**
15%
37%
**
27%
Worries/ concerns about privacy issues
2
-
3
3
5
6
**
2
**
**
1
4
3
**
**
**
1
2
**
-
3%
-%
2%
1%
2%
2%
**
1%
**
**
2%
2%
2%
**
**
**
2%
2%
**
-%
t
30%
-%
48%
48%
87%
100%
**
26%
**
**
19%
74%
48%
**
**
**
17%
30%
**
-%
Satisfied with using the internet at work
-
-
-
-
-
4
**
-
**
**
-
6
-
**
**
**
-
-
**
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
1%
**
-%
**
**
-%
3%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
-%
h
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
78%
**
-%
**
**
-%
100%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe26A (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
~g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
*s
t
Unweighted total
130
181
240
421
584
690
19
274
52
64
116
436
233
66
59
63
100
133
77
156
Effective Weighted Sample
92
107
159
264
382
475
16
180
33
39
78
305
190
41
36
53
86
108
60
130
Total
68
68
124
192
278
328
18
118
20
24
50
222
154
21
10
6
57
97
51
103
20%
20%
36%
56%
81%
95%
**
34%
**
**
15%
65%
45%
**
**
**
17%
28%
**
30%
Satisfied with using the internet
elsewhere
*
-
-
-
1
3
**
*
**
**
-
3
-
**
**
**
-
-
**
-
*%
-%
-%
-%
*%
1%
**
*%
**
**
-%
1%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
-%
6%
-%
-%
-%
19%
97%
**
3%
**
**
-%
98%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
-%
Other
1
1
10
11
12
16
**
11
**
**
3
5
9
**
**
**
3
7
**
5
1%
2%
8%
6%
4%
5%
**
9%
**
**
6%
2%
6%
**
**
**
5%
7%
**
5%
ab
l
kl
l
6%
7%
60%
67%
78%
100%
**
67%
**
**
20%
33%
58%
**
**
**
17%
41%
**
29%
ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS
39
37
84
122
185
197
**
77
**
**
37
130
94
**
**
**
33
61
**
69
58%
55%
68%
64%
67%
60%
**
65%
**
**
73%
58%
61%
**
**
**
58%
63%
**
67%
b
l
s
19%
18%
40%
58%
88%
94%
**
37%
**
**
17%
62%
45%
**
**
**
16%
29%
**
33%
ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS
50
56
95
151
203
242
**
91
**
**
42
162
118
**
**
**
48
69
**
78
74%
82%
77%
79%
73%
74%
**
77%
**
**
83%
73%
77%
**
**
**
85%
72%
**
76%
r
20%
22%
37%
59%
79%
95%
**
35%
**
**
16%
63%
46%
**
**
**
19%
27%
**
31%
ONLY VOLUNTARY REASONS
26
30
36
66
85
119
**
36
**
**
13
86
55
**
**
**
22
33
**
32
39%
44%
29%
34%
30%
36%
**
30%
**
**
26%
39%
36%
**
**
**
39%
34%
**
31%
c
k
t
22%
24%
29%
54%
69%
97%
**
29%
**
**
11%
70%
45%
**
**
**
18%
27%
**
26%
Don't know
2
1
-
1
3
5
**
1
**
**
-
4
1
**
**
**
1
-
**
1
3%
1%
-%
*%
1%
1%
**
1%
**
**
-%
2%
*%
**
**
**
1%
-%
**
1%
cd
40%
13%
-%
13%
72%
100%
**
16%
**
**
-%
83%
13%
**
**
**
13%
-%
**
13%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe26B (Qe25B). And, Which One Of These Reasons Is Your Main Reason For Not Getting Internet Access At Home? (Single Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
~g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
*s
t
Unweighted total
130
181
240
421
584
690
19
274
52
64
116
436
233
66
59
63
100
133
77
156
Effective Weighted Sample
92
107
159
264
382
475
16
180
33
39
78
305
190
41
36
53
86
108
60
130
Total
68
68
124
192
278
328
18
118
20
24
50
222
154
21
10
6
57
97
51
103
20%
20%
36%
56%
81%
95%
**
34%
**
**
15%
65%
45%
**
**
**
17%
28%
**
30%
No need
26
29
40
69
94
111
**
40
**
**
17
76
57
**
**
**
24
33
**
33
39%
42%
33%
36%
34%
34%
**
34%
**
**
34%
34%
37%
**
**
**
41%
34%
**
32%
n
n
t
22%
25%
34%
59%
80%
94%
**
34%
**
**
15%
65%
48%
**
**
**
20%
28%
**
28%
Don't want a computer
15
13
18
31
44
59
**
18
**
**
10
42
25
**
**
**
10
15
**
15
22%
18%
15%
16%
16%
18%
**
15%
**
**
19%
19%
16%
**
**
**
17%
16%
**
14%
i
i
i
p
p
25%
21%
30%
51%
73%
99%
**
30%
**
**
16%
69%
41%
**
**
**
16%
25%
**
24%
Too old to use the internet
1
10
43
53
54
49
**
23
**
**
12
30
41
**
**
**
15
26
**
33
2%
14%
35%
27%
19%
15%
**
20%
**
**
23%
14%
27%
**
**
**
27%
27%
**
32%
a
ab
ab
l
l
s
3%
18%
80%
97%
100%
91%
**
43%
**
**
21%
56%
76%
**
**
**
29%
47%
**
61%
Don't know how you use computers
10
8
10
18
34
35
**
13
**
**
6
24
12
**
**
**
2
10
**
11
14%
12%
8%
9%
12%
11%
**
11%
**
**
12%
11%
8%
**
**
**
3%
11%
**
10%
m
25%
21%
26%
47%
88%
91%
**
34%
**
**
16%
63%
32%
**
**
**
5%
27%
**
28%
Too expensive to set up
6
1
2
3
19
23
**
6
**
**
2
17
3
**
**
**
*
2
**
1
9%
1%
2%
2%
7%
7%
**
5%
**
**
3%
8%
2%
**
**
**
1%
2%
**
1%
bcd
26%
3%
9%
13%
80%
96%
**
26%
**
**
6%
72%
11%
**
**
**
2%
9%
**
4%
Charges are too expensive
4
4
2
6
10
13
**
5
**
**
1
8
6
**
**
**
2
4
**
3
5%
6%
2%
3%
4%
4%
**
4%
**
**
2%
4%
4%
**
**
**
3%
4%
**
3%
28%
30%
15%
45%
81%
98%
**
35%
**
**
9%
65%
45%
**
**
**
14%
30%
**
24%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe26B (Qe25B). And, Which One Of These Reasons Is Your Main Reason For Not Getting Internet Access At Home? (Single Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
~g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
*s
t
Unweighted total
130
181
240
421
584
690
19
274
52
64
116
436
233
66
59
63
100
133
77
156
Effective Weighted Sample
92
107
159
264
382
475
16
180
33
39
78
305
190
41
36
53
86
108
60
130
Total
68
68
124
192
278
328
18
118
20
24
50
222
154
21
10
6
57
97
51
103
20%
20%
36%
56%
81%
95%
**
34%
**
**
15%
65%
45%
**
**
**
17%
28%
**
30%
Friends/family member checks
things on the internet for me
-
3
*
3
4
6
**
2
**
**
1
4
2
**
**
**
-
2
**
2
-%
4%
*%
2%
1%
2%
**
2%
**
**
1%
2%
1%
**
**
**
-%
2%
**
2%
c
-%
49%
2%
51%
62%
100%
**
39%
**
**
11%
64%
39%
**
**
**
-%
39%
**
39%
Computer is too expensive to buy
1
*
1
1
3
5
**
1
**
**
-
3
1
**
**
**
1
-
**
1
2%
*%
1%
*%
1%
1%
**
1%
**
**
-%
2%
*%
**
**
**
1%
-%
**
1%
26%
2%
15%
17%
70%
100%
**
23%
**
**
-%
77%
15%
**
**
**
15%
-%
**
15%
Satisfied with using the internet at work
-
-
-
-
-
3
**
-
**
**
-
3
-
**
**
**
-
-
**
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
1%
**
-%
**
**
-%
1%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
**
-%
**
**
-%
100%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
-%
Don't have a phone line
1
*
-
*
1
2
**
*
**
**
*
2
-
**
**
**
-
-
**
-
1%
*%
-%
*%
*%
1%
**
*%
**
**
*%
1%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
-%
38%
4%
-%
4%
57%
100%
**
4%
**
**
4%
96%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
-%
Satisfied with using the internet elsewhere
*
-
-
-
*
2
**
-
**
**
-
2
-
**
**
**
-
-
**
-
*%
-%
-%
-%
*%
1%
**
-%
**
**
-%
1%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
-%
11%
-%
-%
-%
18%
100%
**
-%
**
**
-%
100%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
-%
Other
2
1
7
8
10
15
**
9
**
**
2
6
6
**
**
**
3
4
**
4
3%
1%
6%
4%
4%
4%
**
7%
**
**
5%
3%
4%
**
**
**
5%
4%
**
4%
b
l
hkl
12%
5%
49%
54%
71%
100%
**
59%
**
**
16%
41%
43%
**
**
**
19%
25%
**
25%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe26B (Qe25B). And, Which One Of These Reasons Is Your Main Reason For Not Getting Internet Access At Home? (Single Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
~g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
*s
t
Unweighted total
130
181
240
421
584
690
19
274
52
64
116
436
233
66
59
63
100
133
77
156
Effective Weighted Sample
92
107
159
264
382
475
16
180
33
39
78
305
190
41
36
53
86
108
60
130
Total
68
68
124
192
278
328
18
118
20
24
50
222
154
21
10
6
57
97
51
103
20%
20%
36%
56%
81%
95%
**
34%
**
**
15%
65%
45%
**
**
**
17%
28%
**
30%
ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS
23
22
58
80
121
126
**
48
**
**
20
85
62
**
**
**
20
42
**
48
34%
33%
47%
42%
44%
39%
**
41%
**
**
41%
38%
41%
**
**
**
36%
43%
**
47%
ab
s
s
17%
16%
43%
59%
90%
93%
**
36%
**
**
15%
63%
46%
**
**
**
15%
31%
**
36%
ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS
42
44
59
103
142
181
**
60
**
**
28
126
84
**
**
**
33
51
**
50
61%
65%
47%
54%
51%
55%
**
51%
**
**
55%
57%
55%
**
**
**
58%
52%
**
48%
c
cd
t
22%
23%
31%
55%
75%
96%
**
32%
**
**
15%
67%
45%
**
**
**
18%
27%
**
26%
Don't know
2
1
-
1
4
6
**
1
**
**
-
5
1
**
**
**
1
*
**
1
3%
1%
-%
1%
2%
2%
**
1%
**
**
-%
2%
1%
**
**
**
1%
*%
**
1%
c
32%
17%
-%
17%
73%
100%
**
12%
**
**
-%
86%
17%
**
**
**
10%
7%
**
17%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe27 (Qeni1). Explain Satellite Broadband Were You Aware That Satellite Broadband Is Available? (Single Code)
Base : All respondents in Scotland and Wales
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
~g
h
~i
*j
*k
l
~m
n
o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
169
122
91
213
447
997
16
222
29
46
79
791
-
104
109
-
-
-
-
-
Effective Weighted Sample
110
67
54
120
289
647
13
146
20
27
54
516
-
63
66
-
-
-
-
-
Total
48
25
26
50
128
302
8
56
8
12
19
247
-
32
19
-
-
-
-
-
16%
8%
**
16%
42%
98%
**
18%
**
**
**
80%
-%
10%
6%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
Yes
12
3
**
3
20
90
**
11
**
**
**
81
-
2
2
-
-
-
-
-
25%
11%
**
7%
16%
30%
**
19%
**
**
**
33%
-%
5%
9%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
hjk
13%
3%
**
4%
22%
98%
**
12%
**
**
**
87%
-%
2%
2%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
No
30
19
**
42
96
184
**
42
**
**
**
142
-
28
13
-
-
-
-
-
62%
79%
**
83%
75%
61%
**
74%
**
**
**
57%
-%
90%
72%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
a
a
a
l
l
l
o
16%
10%
**
22%
52%
98%
**
22%
**
**
**
76%
-%
15%
7%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
Don't know
6
3
**
5
12
28
**
4
**
**
**
24
-
2
4
-
-
-
-
-
12%
10%
**
10%
9%
9%
**
7%
**
**
**
10%
-%
5%
19%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
n
20%
9%
**
18%
41%
98%
**
13%
**
**
**
84%
-%
5%
12%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe28 (Qe30). Have You Or Anyone In Your Household Ever Used One Of These Services To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet At Home? (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Yes & currently using
58
30
7
37
93
411
53
40
2
8
11
428
34
1
1
**
20
14
22
12
17%
15%
4%
9%
11%
20%
27%
12%
4%
15%
10%
22%
10%
3%
6%
**
14%
8%
14%
7%
cd
cd
c
f
i
i
hik
rt
t
12%
6%
1%
8%
20%
88%
11%
9%
*%
2%
2%
92%
7%
*%
*%
**
4%
3%
5%
3%
Yes but stopped using
13
10
2
11
36
115
11
19
-
1
3
106
9
1
1
**
4
5
5
4
4%
5%
1%
3%
4%
6%
6%
6%
-%
2%
2%
6%
3%
2%
7%
**
3%
3%
3%
2%
c
c
i
11%
8%
1%
9%
28%
91%
9%
15%
-%
1%
2%
85%
7%
*%
1%
**
3%
4%
4%
3%
TOTAL YES
72
40
8
48
128
525
65
59
2
9
14
534
44
1
2
**
24
19
27
16
21%
20%
4%
12%
15%
26%
33%
18%
4%
17%
12%
28%
13%
4%
13%
**
16%
10%
17%
9%
cd
cd
c
f
i
i
i
hijk
n
t
t
12%
7%
1%
8%
22%
89%
11%
10%
*%
2%
2%
90%
7%
*%
*%
**
4%
3%
5%
3%
No never used
271
159
176
335
727
1508
127
273
40
43
99
1365
282
30
15
**
120
162
129
153
78%
78%
93%
85%
84%
73%
65%
82%
93%
81%
87%
71%
85%
95%
83%
**
82%
87%
80%
88%
abd
ab
g
l
hjl
l
mop
s
17%
10%
11%
20%
44%
92%
8%
17%
2%
3%
6%
83%
17%
2%
1%
**
7%
10%
8%
9%
Don't know
4
5
5
10
13
22
3
2
2
1
1
23
8
*
1
**
3
6
4
4
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
1%
4%
2%
1%
1%
2%
*%
4%
**
2%
3%
3%
2%
h
15%
19%
18%
37%
51%
86%
12%
8%
6%
4%
3%
91%
32%
*%
3%
**
10%
22%
17%
15%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe29 (Qe31). Showcard Which Supplier Does/ Did Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
*b
~c
d
e
f
*g
h
~i
~j
*k
l
*m
~n
~o
~p
*q
~r
*s
~t
Unweighted total
120
74
17
91
224
842
69
105
4
18
32
808
63
6
11
11
41
22
45
18
Effective Weighted Sample
83
46
12
57
148
577
57
66
2
10
22
563
48
4
7
9
37
16
35
15
Total
72
40
8
48
128
525
65
59
2
9
14
534
44
1
2
1
24
19
27
16
12%
**
**
**
22%
89%
**
10%
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Skype
65
**
**
**
110
479
**
50
**
**
**
494
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
86%
91%
**
83%
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
h
12%
**
**
**
20%
88%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
MSN Messenger
1
**
**
**
8
33
**
5
**
**
**
31
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
6%
6%
**
8%
**
**
**
6%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
24%
94%
**
13%
**
**
**
87%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
FaceTime
1
**
**
**
*
9
**
-
**
**
**
9
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
*%
2%
**
-%
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
**
**
**
1%
100%
**
-%
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
BT Broadband voice/Home Hub
1
**
**
**
2
5
**
1
**
**
**
5
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
2%
1%
**
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
22%
**
**
**
39%
98%
**
16%
**
**
**
85%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
BT Communicator
1
**
**
**
1
5
**
-
**
**
**
5
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
1%
1%
**
-%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
30%
**
**
**
22%
100%
**
-%
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Orange broadband/ Wanadoo/ Livebox
-
**
**
**
2
4
**
1
**
**
**
3
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
2%
1%
**
2%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
53%
100%
**
30%
**
**
**
73%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Other
3
**
**
**
2
16
**
5
**
**
**
13
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
2%
3%
**
9%
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
l
16%
**
**
**
13%
87%
**
30%
**
**
**
71%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe29 (Qe31). Showcard Which Supplier Does/ Did Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
*b
~c
d
e
f
*g
h
~i
~j
*k
l
*m
~n
~o
~p
*q
~r
*s
~t
Unweighted total
120
74
17
91
224
842
69
105
4
18
32
808
63
6
11
11
41
22
45
18
Effective Weighted Sample
83
46
12
57
148
577
57
66
2
10
22
563
48
4
7
9
37
16
35
15
Total
72
40
8
48
128
525
65
59
2
9
14
534
44
1
2
1
24
19
27
16
12%
**
**
**
22%
89%
**
10%
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
3
**
**
**
6
11
**
4
**
**
**
8
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5%
**
**
**
5%
2%
**
7%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
l
27%
**
**
**
53%
87%
**
34%
**
**
**
65%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe30 (Qe33). Showcard Which Device Or Devices Does Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
*b
~c
d
e
f
*g
h
~i
~j
*k
l
*m
~n
~o
~p
*q
~r
*s
~t
Unweighted total
120
74
17
91
224
842
69
105
4
18
32
808
63
6
11
11
41
22
45
18
Effective Weighted Sample
83
46
12
57
148
577
57
66
2
10
22
563
48
4
7
9
37
16
35
15
Total
72
40
8
48
128
525
65
59
2
9
14
534
44
1
2
1
24
19
27
16
12%
**
**
**
22%
89%
**
10%
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Laptop
44
**
**
**
79
344
**
35
**
**
**
363
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
62%
**
**
**
62%
65%
**
59%
**
**
**
68%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
f
11%
**
**
**
20%
86%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Desktop PC
34
**
**
**
43
181
**
19
**
**
**
185
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
48%
**
**
**
34%
34%
**
32%
**
**
**
35%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
17%
**
**
**
21%
89%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Smartphone
5
**
**
**
8
59
**
6
**
**
**
62
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
7%
**
**
**
6%
11%
**
10%
**
**
**
12%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
d
7%
**
**
**
12%
88%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Tablet computer (e.g. iPad)
5
**
**
**
*
39
**
2
**
**
**
43
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
7%
**
**
**
*%
7%
**
3%
**
**
**
8%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
d
12%
**
**
**
*%
87%
**
5%
**
**
**
95%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Netbook
2
**
**
**
2
21
**
2
**
**
**
20
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
2%
4%
**
3%
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
7%
**
**
**
9%
100%
**
9%
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Dedicated handset
*
**
**
**
4
9
**
1
**
**
**
9
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*%
**
**
**
3%
2%
**
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
37%
93%
**
10%
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Standard landline phone
-
**
**
**
1
4
**
-
**
**
**
4
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
1%
1%
**
-%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
16%
97%
**
-%
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe30 (Qe33). Showcard Which Device Or Devices Does Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
*b
~c
d
e
f
*g
h
~i
~j
*k
l
*m
~n
~o
~p
*q
~r
*s
~t
Unweighted total
120
74
17
91
224
842
69
105
4
18
32
808
63
6
11
11
41
22
45
18
Effective Weighted Sample
83
46
12
57
148
577
57
66
2
10
22
563
48
4
7
9
37
16
35
15
Total
72
40
8
48
128
525
65
59
2
9
14
534
44
1
2
1
24
19
27
16
12%
**
**
**
22%
89%
**
10%
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Other
1
**
**
**
5
10
**
3
**
**
**
10
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
4%
2%
**
5%
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5%
**
**
**
40%
80%
**
24%
**
**
**
78%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
1
**
**
**
5
9
**
2
**
**
**
8
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
4%
2%
**
4%
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
10%
**
**
**
47%
89%
**
23%
**
**
**
78%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary - Access To/ Use Of Internet Across Any Connection/ Any Device/ Any Location
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
ACCESS TO INTERNET - ANY
CONNECTION/ ANY DEVICE/
ANY LOCATION
269
134
54
188
560
1698
172
207
21
28
56
1674
169
9
7
**
88
81
101
68
78%
66%
28%
48%
64%
83%
88%
62%
48%
53%
49%
87%
51%
28%
37%
**
60%
43%
63%
39%
bcd
cd
c
ik
hijk
nop
rt
rt
14%
7%
3%
10%
30%
90%
9%
11%
1%
1%
3%
89%
9%
*%
*%
**
5%
4%
5%
4%
USE INTERNET - ANY CONNECTION/ ANY DEVICE/ ANY LOCATION
263
125
47
172
535
1666
170
195
21
27
48
1652
156
8
6
**
83
72
97
58
76%
61%
25%
44%
62%
81%
87%
58%
48%
50%
43%
86%
47%
26%
35%
**
57%
39%
61%
34%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
np
rt
rt
14%
7%
3%
9%
29%
90%
9%
11%
1%
1%
3%
90%
8%
*%
*%
**
5%
4%
5%
3%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary - Access To Internet
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
ACCESS TO INTERNET AT
HOME
259
131
51
182
520
1618
154
193
21
27
55
1588
164
9
7
**
86
78
99
65
75%
64%
27%
46%
60%
79%
79%
58%
48%
51%
48%
83%
49%
28%
36%
**
59%
42%
62%
37%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
nop
rt
rt
15%
7%
3%
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
1%
2%
3%
89%
9%
*%
*%
**
5%
4%
6%
4%
ACCESS TO INTERNET AT HOME OR USES A MOBILE PHONE/ DEVICE TO CONNECT TO INTERNET
260
131
51
182
528
1637
157
197
21
27
55
1606
164
9
7
**
86
78
99
65
75%
64%
27%
46%
61%
80%
80%
59%
48%
51%
48%
84%
49%
28%
36%
**
59%
42%
62%
37%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
nop
rt
rt
14%
7%
3%
10%
29%
91%
9%
11%
1%
1%
3%
89%
9%
*%
*%
**
5%
4%
5%
4%
MOBILE INTERNET (MOBILE BROADBAND OR VIA MOBILE PHONE)
77
15
2
17
205
878
102
87
8
10
12
898
15
1
1
**
11
5
9
7
22%
7%
1%
4%
24%
43%
52%
26%
18%
20%
11%
47%
5%
2%
5%
**
7%
3%
5%
4%
bcd
c
c
f
k
hijk
r
8%
2%
*%
2%
21%
89%
10%
9%
1%
1%
1%
91%
2%
*%
*%
**
1%
*%
1%
1%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Only terrestrial TV (Channels 1-
4/1-5)
8
6
21
27
37
50
6
16
3
2
5
39
23
1
*
**
5
18
8
15
2%
3%
11%
7%
4%
2%
3%
5%
8%
3%
4%
2%
7%
4%
2%
**
3%
10%
5%
9%
abd
ab
l
l
l
mno
q
q
14%
11%
39%
49%
66%
91%
10%
29%
6%
3%
9%
71%
42%
2%
1%
**
8%
33%
15%
27%
Terrestrial TV
30
20
19
38
62
177
9
36
3
8
13
149
34
2
1
**
17
17
19
15
9%
10%
10%
10%
7%
9%
5%
11%
7%
14%
12%
8%
10%
7%
3%
**
11%
9%
12%
9%
l
l
mno
16%
11%
10%
21%
33%
96%
5%
20%
2%
4%
7%
81%
18%
1%
*%
**
9%
9%
10%
8%
Cable TV (through Virgin Media - previously NTL and Telewest)
66
21
10
31
107
333
31
44
5
6
13
320
26
2
2
**
13
13
14
13
19%
10%
5%
8%
12%
16%
16%
13%
11%
12%
12%
17%
8%
5%
13%
**
9%
7%
9%
7%
bcd
c
18%
6%
3%
9%
30%
92%
9%
12%
1%
2%
4%
88%
7%
*%
1%
**
4%
4%
4%
3%
Satellite TV (Sky)
125
66
36
102
272
802
92
104
15
17
31
792
87
7
5
**
47
40
43
44
36%
32%
19%
26%
31%
39%
47%
31%
34%
31%
28%
41%
26%
22%
29%
**
32%
22%
27%
26%
cd
c
c
f
hk
r
14%
7%
4%
11%
30%
89%
10%
12%
2%
2%
3%
88%
10%
1%
1%
**
5%
4%
5%
5%
Satellite (Freesat)
10
10
1
11
20
44
2
10
1
3
4
36
11
-
-
**
7
4
8
3
3%
5%
1%
3%
2%
2%
1%
3%
2%
6%
4%
2%
3%
-%
-%
**
5%
2%
5%
2%
c
l
22%
22%
3%
24%
43%
95%
5%
22%
2%
7%
9%
79%
24%
-%
-%
**
16%
8%
17%
8%
Satellite TV (Other)
*
1
-
1
2
6
*
2
-
-
2
4
1
-
-
**
1
-
-
1
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
*%
*%
1%
-%
-%
2%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
*%
-%
-%
*%
l
5%
11%
-%
11%
29%
98%
2%
37%
-%
-%
37%
65%
11%
-%
-%
**
11%
-%
-%
11%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Freeview (through a set-top box
or digital television set) with
ONLY free channels
180
117
117
234
468
1013
61
181
22
33
61
896
196
22
10
**
82
114
98
98
52%
57%
62%
59%
54%
49%
31%
54%
51%
62%
54%
47%
59%
69%
53%
**
56%
61%
61%
57%
a
a
g
l
l
17%
11%
11%
22%
43%
94%
6%
17%
2%
3%
6%
83%
18%
2%
1%
**
8%
11%
9%
9%
Freeview (through a set-top box or digital television set) with free channels PLUS top-up channels such as ESPN, TV favourites, Picturebox films)
14
8
12
20
38
78
8
17
2
5
8
69
16
1
2
**
7
9
10
7
4%
4%
6%
5%
4%
4%
4%
5%
5%
10%
7%
4%
5%
4%
12%
**
5%
5%
6%
4%
l
l
mp
16%
10%
14%
23%
45%
90%
9%
20%
2%
6%
9%
80%
19%
2%
3%
**
8%
11%
11%
8%
Digital TV via a broadband DSL line (e.g. BT Vision, Tiscali)
2
1
1
2
8
36
3
7
-
2
*
32
2
1
*
**
2
-
2
-
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
-%
3%
*%
2%
*%
2%
*%
**
1%
-%
1%
-%
6%
3%
3%
6%
21%
92%
9%
18%
-%
4%
1%
82%
4%
2%
*%
**
4%
-%
4%
-%
No TV in household
4
1
3
4
12
32
5
7
2
1
2
30
4
-
-
**
4
1
3
1
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
3%
2%
4%
1%
2%
2%
1%
-%
-%
**
3%
*%
2%
1%
10%
4%
8%
12%
31%
85%
14%
19%
5%
2%
5%
81%
12%
-%
-%
**
10%
2%
8%
4%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Don't know
-
-
*
*
*
1
-
*
*
-
*
1
-
-
*
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
*%
*%
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
-%
-%
*%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
6%
6%
6%
100%
-%
5%
5%
-%
5%
93%
-%
-%
6%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
MAIN TV PLATFORM DIGITAL TOTAL
334
193
160
353
810
1956
184
306
37
49
102
1840
299
30
18
**
136
163
147
152
97%
94%
85%
90%
93%
95%
94%
92%
86%
92%
91%
96%
90%
95%
98%
**
92%
87%
92%
88%
cd
cd
hik
p
p
mp
16%
9%
7%
16%
38%
91%
9%
14%
2%
2%
5%
86%
14%
1%
1%
**
6%
8%
7%
7%
FREEVIEW TOTAL
140
102
114
215
416
783
59
151
18
23
55
694
181
21
11
**
74
107
89
92
40%
50%
60%
55%
48%
38%
30%
45%
41%
43%
48%
36%
54%
66%
57%
**
50%
57%
55%
53%
a
ab
a
g
l
l
p
p
p
17%
12%
13%
25%
49%
93%
7%
18%
2%
3%
6%
82%
21%
2%
1%
**
9%
13%
10%
11%
FREEVIEW ONLY
131
95
103
197
385
727
53
137
16
19
49
646
166
19
9
**
67
99
80
86
38%
46%
54%
50%
44%
35%
27%
41%
38%
36%
43%
34%
50%
62%
48%
**
46%
53%
50%
49%
a
a
a
g
l
l
p
p
p
17%
12%
13%
25%
49%
93%
7%
18%
2%
2%
6%
82%
21%
2%
1%
**
9%
13%
10%
11%
PAY DIGITAL
185
84
52
136
383
1136
123
154
20
24
47
1110
114
10
8
**
58
56
58
56
53%
41%
28%
34%
44%
55%
63%
46%
46%
46%
42%
58%
34%
33%
45%
**
39%
30%
36%
32%
bcd
c
f
hk
15%
7%
4%
11%
30%
90%
10%
12%
2%
2%
4%
88%
9%
1%
1%
**
5%
4%
5%
4%
CABLE
64
21
10
31
105
322
30
43
5
6
13
309
26
2
2
**
13
13
14
13
18%
10%
5%
8%
12%
16%
16%
13%
11%
12%
12%
16%
8%
5%
13%
**
9%
7%
9%
7%
bcd
c
18%
6%
3%
9%
30%
92%
9%
12%
1%
2%
4%
88%
7%
*%
1%
**
4%
4%
4%
4%
SATELLITE
129
70
36
106
283
822
93
107
15
18
34
811
92
7
5
**
49
43
45
47
37%
34%
19%
27%
33%
40%
47%
32%
34%
35%
30%
42%
27%
22%
28%
**
33%
23%
28%
27%
cd
cd
c
hk
r
14%
8%
4%
12%
31%
90%
10%
12%
2%
2%
4%
88%
10%
1%
1%
**
5%
5%
5%
5%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
TERRESTRIAL
8
10
26
36
47
67
6
21
4
4
8
50
31
2
*
**
8
23
11
20
2%
5%
14%
9%
5%
3%
3%
6%
9%
7%
7%
3%
9%
5%
2%
**
5%
12%
7%
12%
ab
ab
l
l
l
l
o
mno
q
q
12%
14%
36%
50%
65%
93%
8%
29%
6%
5%
12%
71%
43%
2%
*%
**
11%
32%
15%
28%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh1B. Showcard And Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Type Of Television? (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Only terrestrial TV (Channels 1-
4/1-5)
8
6
21
27
37
50
6
16
3
2
5
39
23
1
*
**
5
18
8
15
2%
3%
11%
7%
4%
2%
3%
5%
8%
3%
4%
2%
7%
4%
2%
**
3%
10%
5%
9%
abd
ab
l
l
l
mno
q
q
14%
11%
39%
49%
66%
91%
10%
29%
6%
3%
9%
71%
42%
2%
1%
**
8%
33%
15%
27%
Terrestrial TV
1
4
4
9
10
16
-
5
1
2
3
11
7
*
-
**
3
5
2
5
*%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
-%
1%
2%
3%
3%
1%
2%
1%
-%
**
2%
2%
2%
3%
a
a
a
l
l
mo
5%
25%
27%
52%
62%
100%
-%
29%
4%
11%
21%
70%
46%
2%
-%
**
18%
28%
15%
30%
Cable TV (through Virgin Media - previously NTL and Telewest)
64
21
10
31
105
322
30
43
5
6
13
309
26
2
2
**
13
13
14
13
18%
10%
5%
8%
12%
16%
16%
13%
11%
12%
12%
16%
8%
5%
13%
**
9%
7%
9%
7%
bcd
c
18%
6%
3%
9%
30%
92%
9%
12%
1%
2%
4%
88%
7%
*%
1%
**
4%
4%
4%
4%
Satellite TV (Sky)
119
65
35
100
267
785
90
99
15
15
30
779
85
7
5
**
45
40
41
44
34%
32%
19%
25%
31%
38%
46%
30%
34%
28%
27%
41%
26%
22%
28%
**
31%
22%
26%
26%
cd
c
c
f
hjk
r
14%
7%
4%
11%
30%
89%
10%
11%
2%
2%
3%
89%
10%
1%
1%
**
5%
5%
5%
5%
Satellite (Freesat)
10
4
1
6
14
31
2
6
*
3
2
28
6
-
-
**
3
3
4
2
3%
2%
1%
1%
2%
2%
1%
2%
*%
6%
1%
1%
2%
-%
-%
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
hikl
28%
13%
3%
17%
41%
93%
6%
17%
*%
10%
5%
83%
16%
-%
-%
**
9%
7%
11%
6%
Satellite TV (Other)
-
1
-
1
2
6
*
2
-
-
2
4
1
-
-
**
1
-
-
1
-%
*%
-%
*%
*%
*%
*%
1%
-%
-%
2%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
*%
-%
-%
*%
l
-%
11%
-%
11%
31%
98%
2%
34%
-%
-%
34%
68%
11%
-%
-%
**
11%
-%
-%
11%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh1B. Showcard And Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Type Of Television? (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Freeview (through a set-top box
or digital television set) with
ONLY free channels
131
95
103
197
385
727
53
137
16
19
49
646
166
19
9
**
67
99
80
86
38%
46%
54%
50%
44%
35%
27%
41%
38%
36%
43%
34%
50%
62%
48%
**
46%
53%
50%
49%
a
a
a
g
l
l
p
p
p
17%
12%
13%
25%
49%
93%
7%
18%
2%
2%
6%
82%
21%
2%
1%
**
9%
13%
10%
11%
Freeview (through a set-top box or digital television set) with free channels PLUS top-up channels such as ESPN, TV favourites, Picturebox films)
9
7
11
18
30
56
6
14
1
4
6
49
15
1
2
**
7
8
8
7
2%
4%
6%
5%
4%
3%
3%
4%
3%
7%
5%
3%
4%
4%
9%
**
5%
4%
5%
4%
a
l
l
14%
12%
17%
29%
49%
90%
10%
22%
2%
6%
9%
78%
24%
2%
3%
**
11%
13%
13%
11%
Digital TV via a broadband DSL line (e.g. BT Vision, Tiscali)
2
*
1
1
7
29
2
5
-
1
*
26
-
1
*
**
-
-
-
-
*%
*%
*%
*%
1%
1%
1%
1%
-%
3%
*%
1%
-%
2%
*%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
m
m
5%
1%
2%
3%
21%
93%
7%
16%
-%
5%
1%
85%
-%
2%
*%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
No TV in household
4
1
3
4
12
32
5
7
2
1
2
30
4
-
-
**
4
1
3
1
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
3%
2%
4%
1%
2%
2%
1%
-%
-%
**
3%
*%
2%
1%
10%
4%
8%
12%
31%
85%
14%
19%
5%
2%
5%
81%
12%
-%
-%
**
10%
2%
8%
4%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh1B. Showcard And Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Type Of Television? (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Don't know
-
-
*
*
*
1
-
*
*
-
*
1
-
-
*
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
*%
*%
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
-%
-%
*%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
6%
6%
6%
100%
-%
5%
5%
-%
5%
93%
-%
-%
6%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Tv Multi-Platform Ownership
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
ANALOGUE TERRESTRIAL
ONLY
8
6
21
27
37
50
6
16
3
2
5
39
23
1
*
**
5
18
8
15
2%
3%
11%
7%
4%
2%
3%
5%
8%
3%
4%
2%
7%
4%
2%
**
3%
10%
5%
9%
abd
ab
l
l
l
mno
q
q
14%
11%
39%
49%
66%
91%
10%
29%
6%
3%
9%
71%
42%
2%
1%
**
8%
33%
15%
27%
CABLE ONLY
43
15
7
22
80
245
28
31
4
3
9
242
19
1
2
**
9
10
7
13
12%
7%
4%
6%
9%
12%
14%
9%
9%
6%
8%
13%
6%
4%
9%
**
6%
5%
4%
7%
bcd
h
p
p
16%
6%
3%
8%
30%
90%
10%
11%
1%
1%
3%
89%
7%
*%
1%
**
3%
4%
2%
5%
CABLE AND FREEVIEW
20
5
3
8
25
74
3
11
1
3
3
65
6
1
1
**
2
3
6
-
6%
2%
2%
2%
3%
4%
1%
3%
2%
6%
3%
3%
2%
2%
4%
**
2%
2%
4%
-%
bcd
m
t
26%
6%
4%
10%
32%
97%
3%
14%
1%
4%
4%
86%
8%
1%
1%
**
3%
4%
8%
-%
FREEVIEW ONLY
136
102
117
219
418
779
58
152
17
24
57
688
184
21
10
**
73
112
89
96
39%
50%
62%
56%
48%
38%
30%
45%
40%
46%
50%
36%
55%
67%
55%
**
49%
60%
55%
55%
a
ab
a
g
l
l
p
p
q
16%
12%
14%
26%
50%
93%
7%
18%
2%
3%
7%
82%
22%
3%
1%
**
9%
13%
11%
11%
SATELLITE AND FREEVIEW
36
17
8
25
58
216
9
32
5
8
8
194
21
2
1
**
14
8
12
9
10%
9%
4%
6%
7%
11%
5%
10%
12%
16%
7%
10%
6%
5%
6%
**
9%
4%
7%
5%
cd
g
k
mno
r
16%
8%
4%
11%
26%
96%
4%
14%
2%
4%
3%
86%
9%
1%
1%
**
6%
3%
5%
4%
SATELLITE ONLY
95
55
29
84
229
613
83
77
11
10
28
621
74
5
4
**
39
35
34
39
28%
27%
15%
21%
26%
30%
42%
23%
25%
19%
25%
32%
22%
17%
23%
**
26%
19%
21%
23%
cd
c
f
hjk
p
p
p
14%
8%
4%
12%
33%
88%
12%
11%
2%
1%
4%
89%
11%
1%
1%
**
6%
5%
5%
6%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Tv Multi-Platform Ownership
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
NO TV
4
1
3
4
12
32
5
7
2
1
2
30
4
-
-
**
4
1
3
1
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
3%
2%
4%
1%
2%
2%
1%
-%
-%
**
3%
*%
2%
1%
10%
4%
8%
12%
31%
85%
14%
19%
5%
2%
5%
81%
12%
-%
-%
**
10%
2%
8%
4%
OTHER
5
3
1
3
9
46
4
9
-
2
1
41
2
1
*
**
2
-
2
-
1%
1%
*%
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
-%
3%
1%
2%
1%
2%
*%
**
2%
-%
1%
-%
10%
5%
1%
6%
19%
92%
9%
17%
-%
3%
3%
83%
5%
1%
*%
**
5%
-%
5%
-%
Mean TV platforms
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
**
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
cd
c
g
hikl
mno
t
rt
Standard deviation
.52
.49
.45
.47
.45
.52
.39
.58
.62
.68
.55
.50
.48
.35
.36
**
.57
.39
.55
.39
Standard error
.02
.02
.02
.02
.01
.01
.03
.02
.06
.06
.04
.01
.02
.03
.03
**
.04
.03
.04
.03
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Multichannel Tv Ownership
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
ALL MULTICHANNEL TV
335
197
165
362
820
1972
184
311
38
50
106
1852
306
30
18
**
139
168
149
157
97%
96%
87%
92%
94%
96%
94%
93%
88%
95%
94%
96%
92%
96%
98%
**
94%
90%
93%
90%
cd
cd
c
hi
p
p
p
16%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
14%
2%
2%
5%
86%
14%
1%
1%
**
6%
8%
7%
7%
DIGITAL TERRESTRIAL
193
124
128
253
501
1082
69
196
23
37
68
959
211
23
12
**
89
123
106
105
56%
61%
68%
64%
58%
53%
36%
59%
54%
70%
60%
50%
63%
73%
65%
**
60%
66%
66%
61%
a
a
g
l
l
l
17%
11%
11%
22%
43%
94%
6%
17%
2%
3%
6%
83%
18%
2%
1%
**
8%
11%
9%
9%
DIGITAL SATELLITE
134
75
37
112
291
845
94
113
16
18
36
829
97
7
5
**
54
43
49
49
39%
37%
20%
28%
33%
41%
48%
34%
37%
35%
32%
43%
29%
22%
29%
**
37%
23%
30%
28%
cd
cd
c
hk
rt
14%
8%
4%
12%
31%
90%
10%
12%
2%
2%
4%
88%
10%
1%
1%
**
6%
5%
5%
5%
PAY DIGITAL SATELLITE
112
56
31
87
243
738
85
94
14
13
29
734
74
7
4
**
39
35
37
37
32%
28%
16%
22%
28%
36%
44%
28%
33%
25%
26%
38%
22%
22%
22%
**
27%
19%
23%
21%
cd
c
f
hjk
14%
7%
4%
11%
29%
89%
10%
11%
2%
2%
4%
89%
9%
1%
1%
**
5%
4%
4%
4%
FREE DIGITAL SATELLITE
19
19
4
22
41
95
8
19
2
6
8
83
21
*
1
**
14
7
14
7
5%
9%
2%
6%
5%
5%
4%
6%
4%
11%
7%
4%
6%
1%
5%
**
9%
4%
9%
4%
c
c
c
l
rt
18%
18%
4%
22%
40%
93%
7%
19%
2%
6%
8%
81%
21%
*%
1%
**
14%
7%
13%
7%
CABLE
66
21
10
31
107
333
31
44
5
6
13
320
26
2
2
**
13
13
14
13
19%
10%
5%
8%
12%
16%
16%
13%
11%
12%
12%
17%
8%
5%
13%
**
9%
7%
9%
7%
bcd
c
18%
6%
3%
9%
30%
92%
9%
12%
1%
2%
4%
88%
7%
*%
1%
**
4%
4%
4%
3%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Multichannel Tv Ownership
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
NO MULTICHANNEL TV
11
7
24
32
48
83
11
23
5
2
7
70
27
1
*
**
8
19
11
17
3%
4%
13%
8%
6%
4%
6%
7%
12%
5%
6%
4%
8%
4%
2%
**
6%
10%
7%
10%
abd
ab
l
l
mno
12%
8%
26%
34%
51%
89%
12%
24%
6%
3%
8%
75%
29%
1%
*%
**
9%
20%
12%
18%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Multichannel Tv Ownership
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
ALL MULTICHANNEL TV
335
197
165
362
820
1972
184
311
38
50
106
1852
306
30
18
**
139
168
149
157
97%
96%
87%
92%
94%
96%
94%
93%
88%
95%
94%
96%
92%
96%
98%
**
94%
90%
93%
90%
cd
cd
c
hi
p
p
p
16%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
14%
2%
2%
5%
86%
14%
1%
1%
**
6%
8%
7%
7%
DIGITAL TERRESTRIAL
193
124
128
253
501
1082
69
196
23
37
68
959
211
23
12
**
89
123
106
105
56%
61%
68%
64%
58%
53%
36%
59%
54%
70%
60%
50%
63%
73%
65%
**
60%
66%
66%
61%
a
a
g
l
l
l
17%
11%
11%
22%
43%
94%
6%
17%
2%
3%
6%
83%
18%
2%
1%
**
8%
11%
9%
9%
DIGITAL SATELLITE
134
75
37
112
291
845
94
113
16
18
36
829
97
7
5
**
54
43
49
49
39%
37%
20%
28%
33%
41%
48%
34%
37%
35%
32%
43%
29%
22%
29%
**
37%
23%
30%
28%
cd
cd
c
hk
rt
14%
8%
4%
12%
31%
90%
10%
12%
2%
2%
4%
88%
10%
1%
1%
**
6%
5%
5%
5%
PAY DIGITAL SATELLITE
112
56
31
87
243
738
85
94
14
13
29
734
74
7
4
**
39
35
37
37
32%
28%
16%
22%
28%
36%
44%
28%
33%
25%
26%
38%
22%
22%
22%
**
27%
19%
23%
21%
cd
c
f
hjk
14%
7%
4%
11%
29%
89%
10%
11%
2%
2%
4%
89%
9%
1%
1%
**
5%
4%
4%
4%
FREE DIGITAL SATELLITE
19
19
4
22
41
95
8
19
2
6
8
83
21
*
1
**
14
7
14
7
5%
9%
2%
6%
5%
5%
4%
6%
4%
11%
7%
4%
6%
1%
5%
**
9%
4%
9%
4%
c
c
c
l
rt
18%
18%
4%
22%
40%
93%
7%
19%
2%
6%
8%
81%
21%
*%
1%
**
14%
7%
13%
7%
CABLE
66
21
10
31
107
333
31
44
5
6
13
320
26
2
2
**
13
13
14
13
19%
10%
5%
8%
12%
16%
16%
13%
11%
12%
12%
17%
8%
5%
13%
**
9%
7%
9%
7%
bcd
c
18%
6%
3%
9%
30%
92%
9%
12%
1%
2%
4%
88%
7%
*%
1%
**
4%
4%
4%
3%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Multichannel Tv Ownership
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
NO MULTICHANNEL TV
11
7
24
32
48
83
11
23
5
2
7
70
27
1
*
**
8
19
11
17
3%
4%
13%
8%
6%
4%
6%
7%
12%
5%
6%
4%
8%
4%
2%
**
6%
10%
7%
10%
abd
ab
l
l
mno
12%
8%
26%
34%
51%
89%
12%
24%
6%
3%
8%
75%
29%
1%
*%
**
9%
20%
12%
18%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh2 (Qh53). Is The Main Tv In Your Household An Hdtv Set Or Hd Ready? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a TV in the household
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
589
444
336
780
1605
3509
198
675
98
120
241
3038
474
104
108
94
248
226
231
243
Effective Weighted Sample
412
261
221
482
1046
2374
172
439
62
73
169
2095
372
63
65
78
216
176
180
192
Total
343
203
186
389
856
2023
190
327
41
52
111
1891
330
32
19
9
143
186
158
172
15%
9%
8%
18%
39%
91%
9%
15%
**
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
6%
8%
7%
8%
Yes, the main TV in the
household is an HDTV set or HD
ready
241
137
81
219
522
1459
122
199
**
28
61
1387
188
19
8
**
90
98
101
87
70%
68%
44%
56%
61%
72%
64%
61%
**
54%
55%
73%
57%
59%
41%
**
63%
53%
64%
50%
cd
cd
c
g
hjk
o
o
rt
rt
15%
9%
5%
14%
33%
92%
8%
13%
**
2%
4%
88%
12%
1%
*%
**
6%
6%
6%
5%
No
85
56
78
134
276
474
61
110
**
19
40
427
111
10
9
**
47
64
44
67
25%
27%
42%
34%
32%
23%
32%
34%
**
37%
36%
23%
34%
33%
51%
**
33%
34%
28%
39%
ab
a
f
l
l
l
mnp
s
16%
10%
14%
25%
51%
88%
11%
20%
**
4%
7%
79%
21%
2%
2%
**
9%
12%
8%
12%
Don't know
17
10
27
37
59
90
6
18
**
5
10
77
31
3
1
**
6
24
12
19
5%
5%
14%
9%
7%
4%
3%
6%
**
9%
9%
4%
9%
8%
8%
**
4%
13%
7%
11%
abd
ab
l
mno
q
q
17%
10%
28%
38%
62%
93%
6%
19%
**
5%
10%
80%
32%
3%
2%
**
6%
25%
12%
20%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh3 (Qh54) Although You Have An Hdtv Ready Set, To Actually Watch Tv Channels And Programmes That Are Broadcast In High Definition, You Need An Hd Set Top Box Or A Tv With Built-In Hdtv Receiver. For The Main Tv Set, Does Your Household Have An Hdtv Service - From Either Sky, Virgin Media, Freesat Or Freeview? (Single Code)
Base : Those whose main TV set is an HDTV or HD-ready
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
414
287
138
425
949
2461
128
390
58
58
127
2202
268
67
46
44
156
112
150
118
Effective Weighted Sample
287
168
96
264
622
1675
110
257
37
35
94
1521
208
40
26
37
136
87
119
90
Total
241
137
81
219
522
1459
122
199
26
28
61
1387
188
19
8
4
90
98
101
87
15%
9%
5%
14%
33%
92%
8%
13%
**
**
4%
88%
12%
**
**
**
6%
6%
6%
5%
Yes
139
71
35
106
270
864
73
113
**
**
32
828
89
**
**
**
46
43
49
40
58%
52%
43%
49%
52%
59%
59%
57%
**
**
53%
60%
47%
**
**
**
51%
43%
49%
46%
cd
i
i
15%
8%
4%
11%
29%
92%
8%
12%
**
**
3%
88%
9%
**
**
**
5%
5%
5%
4%
No
97
58
44
102
236
561
48
81
**
**
27
529
90
**
**
**
41
49
45
45
40%
42%
54%
47%
45%
38%
40%
41%
**
**
45%
38%
48%
**
**
**
45%
50%
45%
51%
a
16%
10%
7%
17%
39%
92%
8%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
15%
**
**
**
7%
8%
7%
7%
Don't know
5
8
2
10
15
34
1
5
**
**
1
30
9
**
**
**
3
6
7
3
2%
6%
3%
5%
3%
2%
1%
3%
**
**
2%
2%
5%
**
**
**
4%
6%
7%
3%
15%
22%
7%
29%
44%
96%
4%
14%
**
**
3%
85%
27%
**
**
**
9%
17%
19%
7%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh4 (Qh57). Is The Main Tv In Your Household 3D Ready? If Necessary - By This I Mean That The Tv Can Display Pictures In 3D From Specific Channels (Such As Sky 3D) Or When Watching 3D Dvds Or Blue Ray Disks Or When Playing 3D Video Games. (Single Code)
Base : Those with a TV in the household
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
589
444
336
780
1605
3509
198
675
98
120
241
3038
474
104
108
94
248
226
231
243
Effective Weighted Sample
412
261
221
482
1046
2374
172
439
62
73
169
2095
372
63
65
78
216
176
180
192
Total
343
203
186
389
856
2023
190
327
41
52
111
1891
330
32
19
9
143
186
158
172
15%
9%
8%
18%
39%
91%
9%
15%
**
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
6%
8%
7%
8%
Yes, the main TV in the
household is 3D ready
22
6
3
9
39
131
12
19
**
3
6
127
6
3
*
**
5
2
5
2
7%
3%
2%
2%
5%
6%
6%
6%
**
5%
6%
7%
2%
8%
1%
**
3%
1%
3%
1%
bcd
mo
15%
4%
2%
6%
27%
91%
8%
13%
**
2%
4%
87%
4%
2%
*%
**
3%
1%
3%
1%
No
303
189
165
354
777
1826
175
299
**
48
100
1706
300
29
17
**
133
167
141
159
88%
93%
89%
91%
91%
90%
92%
91%
**
91%
90%
90%
91%
92%
92%
**
93%
90%
90%
93%
a
15%
9%
8%
18%
39%
91%
9%
15%
**
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Don't know
18
8
17
25
40
66
2
10
**
2
5
58
23
*
1
**
5
18
12
11
5%
4%
9%
6%
5%
3%
1%
3%
**
4%
4%
3%
7%
*%
7%
**
4%
9%
7%
6%
ab
n
n
n
q
26%
11%
26%
37%
59%
96%
3%
14%
**
3%
7%
85%
33%
*%
2%
**
8%
26%
17%
16%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh5 (Qh58). Do You Or Anyone In Your Household Watch 3D Content On Your Tv - Whether From 3D Tv Channels, 3D Dvds Or Blu Ray Disks Or 3D Video Games? (Single Code)
Base : Those whose main TV set is 3D ready
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
*e
f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
32
13
6
19
60
192
13
30
4
4
10
175
11
4
1
3
8
3
9
2
Effective Weighted Sample
22
8
5
13
45
134
12
21
2
4
8
123
10
3
1
2
7
3
8
2
Total
22
6
3
9
39
131
12
19
1
3
6
127
6
3
*
*
5
2
5
2
**
**
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
87%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Yes
**
**
**
**
**
53
**
**
**
**
**
50
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
41%
**
**
**
**
**
39%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
86%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
No
**
**
**
**
**
75
**
**
**
**
**
74
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
57%
**
**
**
**
**
58%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
**
3
**
**
**
**
**
3
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
70%
**
**
**
**
**
72%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh6 (Qh59). Showcard How Often Do You Or Anyone In Your Household Watch 3D Content On Your Tv? (Single Code)
Base : Those whose main TV set is 3D ready
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
*e
f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
32
13
6
19
60
192
13
30
4
4
10
175
11
4
1
3
8
3
9
2
Effective Weighted Sample
22
8
5
13
45
134
12
21
2
4
8
123
10
3
1
2
7
3
8
2
Total
22
6
3
9
39
131
12
19
1
3
6
127
6
3
*
*
5
2
5
2
**
**
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
87%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Every day
**
**
**
**
**
8
**
**
**
**
**
7
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
6%
**
**
**
**
**
5%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
74%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Several times a week
**
**
**
**
**
13
**
**
**
**
**
14
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
10%
**
**
**
**
**
11%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
At least once a week
**
**
**
**
**
6
**
**
**
**
**
7
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5%
**
**
**
**
**
6%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
83%
**
**
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
At least once a month
**
**
**
**
**
16
**
**
**
**
**
12
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
12%
**
**
**
**
**
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
73%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
A few times a year
**
**
**
**
**
7
**
**
**
**
**
8
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
6%
**
**
**
**
**
6%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
86%
**
**
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Less than once a year
**
**
**
**
**
1
**
**
**
**
**
1
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Never
**
**
**
**
**
75
**
**
**
**
**
74
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
57%
**
**
**
**
**
59%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
**
4
**
**
**
**
**
4
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
73%
**
**
**
**
**
75%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh7 (Qh3). Showcard Which Of The Following Best Describes Your Satellite Tv Service/S? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with Satellite TV
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
*s
*t
Unweighted total
258
153
74
227
567
1569
97
258
37
40
81
1408
132
32
39
24
91
41
69
63
Effective Weighted Sample
170
83
46
128
337
991
83
161
23
23
58
907
102
15
24
18
81
33
57
46
Total
134
75
37
112
291
845
94
113
16
18
36
829
97
7
5
2
54
43
49
49
14%
8%
**
12%
31%
90%
**
12%
**
**
**
88%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Sky satellite dish to receive
subscription channels - you pay
a monthly subscription fee
112
56
**
87
242
733
**
93
**
**
**
729
74
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
83%
75%
**
78%
83%
87%
**
83%
**
**
**
88%
76%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
jk
14%
7%
**
11%
29%
89%
**
11%
**
**
**
89%
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Sky satellite dish for free to air services only - you pay no monthly subscription fee
10
8
**
11
23
59
**
10
**
**
**
53
10
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
11%
**
10%
8%
7%
**
9%
**
**
**
6%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
17%
13%
**
18%
36%
93%
**
15%
**
**
**
84%
16%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Freesat standard package with a dish and standard set top box - you do not pay a subscription fee
6
7
**
8
14
26
**
8
**
**
**
19
8
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5%
10%
**
7%
5%
3%
**
8%
**
**
**
2%
8%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
l
l
l
23%
26%
**
30%
53%
94%
**
31%
**
**
**
70%
30%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh7 (Qh3). Showcard Which Of The Following Best Describes Your Satellite Tv Service/S? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with Satellite TV
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
*s
*t
Unweighted total
258
153
74
227
567
1569
97
258
37
40
81
1408
132
32
39
24
91
41
69
63
Effective Weighted Sample
170
83
46
128
337
991
83
161
23
23
58
907
102
15
24
18
81
33
57
46
Total
134
75
37
112
291
845
94
113
16
18
36
829
97
7
5
2
54
43
49
49
14%
8%
**
12%
31%
90%
**
12%
**
**
**
88%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Freesat HD package with a dish
and high definition (HD) set top
box - you do not pay a subscription fee
3
3
**
3
4
12
**
1
**
**
**
12
3
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
4%
**
3%
1%
1%
**
1%
**
**
**
1%
3%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
21%
23%
**
23%
32%
94%
**
10%
**
**
**
90%
23%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Other satellite dish, showing mainly non-English programmes where you pay a monthly subscription fee
*
-
**
-
1
5
**
1
**
**
**
4
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*%
-%
**
-%
*%
1%
**
1%
**
**
**
1%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
l
6%
-%
**
-%
15%
97%
**
22%
**
**
**
80%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Other satellite dish, showing mainly non-English programmes where you do not pay a monthly subscription fee
-
1
**
1
1
2
**
1
**
**
**
1
1
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
1%
**
1%
*%
*%
**
1%
**
**
**
*%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
l
l
-%
30%
**
30%
48%
100%
**
54%
**
**
**
48%
30%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh7 (Qh3). Showcard Which Of The Following Best Describes Your Satellite Tv Service/S? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with Satellite TV
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
*s
*t
Unweighted total
258
153
74
227
567
1569
97
258
37
40
81
1408
132
32
39
24
91
41
69
63
Effective Weighted Sample
170
83
46
128
337
991
83
161
23
23
58
907
102
15
24
18
81
33
57
46
Total
134
75
37
112
291
845
94
113
16
18
36
829
97
7
5
2
54
43
49
49
14%
8%
**
12%
31%
90%
**
12%
**
**
**
88%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Broadband satellite - satellite
provided for the use of
broadband internet access but used to access free to air satellite programmes
-
-
**
-
-
*
**
-
**
**
**
*
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
*%
**
-%
**
**
**
*%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
100%
**
-%
**
**
**
100%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
PAY SATELLITE
112
56
**
87
243
738
**
94
**
**
**
734
74
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
84%
75%
**
78%
84%
87%
**
84%
**
**
**
88%
76%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
j
14%
7%
**
11%
29%
89%
**
11%
**
**
**
89%
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
4
2
**
4
9
17
**
3
**
**
**
15
4
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
2%
**
4%
3%
2%
**
2%
**
**
**
2%
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
21%
10%
**
22%
49%
95%
**
14%
**
**
**
85%
21%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh9 (Qh4). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Sky Satellite Service? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with paid for Sky Satellite TV
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
~j
*k
l
m
~n
~o
~p
*q
*r
*s
*t
Unweighted total
217
120
61
181
472
1368
88
215
34
29
63
1241
100
30
29
22
67
33
52
48
Effective Weighted Sample
143
59
41
99
278
859
76
133
21
15
45
797
76
14
17
17
59
26
43
35
Total
112
56
31
87
242
733
85
93
14
13
28
729
74
7
4
2
39
35
37
37
14%
7%
**
11%
29%
89%
**
11%
**
**
**
89%
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Sky Sports 1 only
3
3
**
3
6
18
**
2
**
**
**
18
3
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
5%
**
3%
3%
2%
**
2%
**
**
**
3%
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
12%
14%
**
14%
29%
88%
**
11%
**
**
**
89%
13%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Sky Sports 2 only
1
1
**
1
2
3
**
1
**
**
**
4
1
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
2%
**
1%
1%
*%
**
1%
**
**
**
1%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
f
21%
20%
**
20%
43%
56%
**
23%
**
**
**
79%
20%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Sky Sports Pack (Sky Sports 1, 2, 3 and 4)
38
23
**
32
77
280
**
30
**
**
**
268
27
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
34%
41%
**
37%
32%
38%
**
33%
**
**
**
37%
37%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
g
r
13%
8%
**
11%
26%
94%
**
10%
**
**
**
90%
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Sky Movies 1 only (Comedy, Family, Classics, Modern Greats, Drama & Romance)
3
1
**
2
8
27
**
2
**
**
**
31
1
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
2%
**
2%
3%
4%
**
3%
**
**
**
4%
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
3%
**
6%
24%
82%
**
7%
**
**
**
93%
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Sky Movies 2 only (Comedy, Indie, Sci-Fi & Horror, Crime & Thriller, Action & Adventure)
1
2
**
3
5
10
**
2
**
**
**
11
2
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
4%
**
3%
2%
1%
**
2%
**
**
**
2%
3%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
7%
16%
**
19%
41%
77%
**
14%
**
**
**
86%
19%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh9 (Qh4). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Sky Satellite Service? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with paid for Sky Satellite TV
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
~j
*k
l
m
~n
~o
~p
*q
*r
*s
*t
Unweighted total
217
120
61
181
472
1368
88
215
34
29
63
1241
100
30
29
22
67
33
52
48
Effective Weighted Sample
143
59
41
99
278
859
76
133
21
15
45
797
76
14
17
17
59
26
43
35
Total
112
56
31
87
242
733
85
93
14
13
28
729
74
7
4
2
39
35
37
37
14%
7%
**
11%
29%
89%
**
11%
**
**
**
89%
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Sky Movies Pack (All Sky
Movies channels in Sky Movies
1 and 2, plus Premiere and Disney Cinemagic)
27
14
**
20
71
233
**
22
**
**
**
228
17
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
24%
25%
**
23%
29%
32%
**
24%
**
**
**
31%
23%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
g
11%
6%
**
8%
29%
94%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
7%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Sky+ HD (High Definition channels through Sky+ HD box)
39
20
**
26
53
259
**
25
**
**
**
256
23
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
35%
36%
**
30%
22%
35%
**
26%
**
**
**
35%
32%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
g
14%
7%
**
9%
19%
93%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
8%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
ANY SKY SPORTS
41
27
**
36
85
301
**
34
**
**
**
291
31
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
37%
48%
**
41%
35%
41%
**
36%
**
**
**
40%
42%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
c
g
r
13%
8%
**
11%
26%
93%
**
10%
**
**
**
90%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
ANY SKY MOVIES
31
17
**
25
84
270
**
26
**
**
**
270
21
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
28%
31%
**
28%
35%
37%
**
28%
**
**
**
37%
29%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
g
10%
6%
**
8%
29%
92%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
7%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
SKY SPORTS AND SKY MOVIES
15
13
**
16
46
171
**
16
**
**
**
162
14
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
14%
22%
**
19%
19%
23%
**
17%
**
**
**
22%
19%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
g
9%
7%
**
9%
26%
96%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
8%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh9 (Qh4). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Sky Satellite Service? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with paid for Sky Satellite TV
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
~j
*k
l
m
~n
~o
~p
*q
*r
*s
*t
Unweighted total
217
120
61
181
472
1368
88
215
34
29
63
1241
100
30
29
22
67
33
52
48
Effective Weighted Sample
143
59
41
99
278
859
76
133
21
15
45
797
76
14
17
17
59
26
43
35
Total
112
56
31
87
242
733
85
93
14
13
28
729
74
7
4
2
39
35
37
37
14%
7%
**
11%
29%
89%
**
11%
**
**
**
89%
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Basic package only
35
18
**
31
94
215
**
38
**
**
**
208
25
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
32%
31%
**
35%
39%
29%
**
40%
**
**
**
29%
33%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
l
l
14%
7%
**
13%
38%
87%
**
15%
**
**
**
85%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
None of these
1
1
**
1
4
13
**
3
**
**
**
13
1
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
1%
**
2%
2%
2%
**
3%
**
**
**
2%
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
9%
3%
**
9%
25%
79%
**
17%
**
**
**
84%
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
1
1
**
1
6
18
**
1
**
**
**
19
1
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
2%
**
1%
2%
2%
**
1%
**
**
**
3%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
5%
**
5%
28%
90%
**
4%
**
**
**
96%
5%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh9 (Qh5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Cable Tv Service? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with Cable TV
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
*b
~c
*d
e
f
*g
*h
~i
~j
~k
l
*m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
94
45
16
61
177
461
34
69
9
12
21
427
40
5
8
8
23
17
23
17
Effective Weighted Sample
74
32
12
43
132
362
31
55
6
10
18
337
33
5
7
7
20
14
19
14
Total
66
21
10
31
107
333
31
44
5
6
13
320
26
2
2
1
13
13
14
13
**
**
**
**
30%
92%
**
**
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Sky Sports channels
**
**
**
**
17
74
**
**
**
**
**
72
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
16%
22%
**
**
**
**
**
22%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
bd
**
**
**
**
22%
94%
**
**
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Sky Movies channels
**
**
**
**
10
50
**
**
**
**
**
48
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
10%
15%
**
**
**
**
**
15%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
d
**
**
**
**
21%
98%
**
**
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
High Definition channel through V+ HD box
**
**
**
**
26
115
**
**
**
**
**
115
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
24%
35%
**
**
**
**
**
36%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
h
**
**
**
**
21%
94%
**
**
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Basic package only
**
**
**
**
61
151
**
**
**
**
**
138
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
56%
45%
**
**
**
**
**
43%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
a
l
**
**
**
**
36%
91%
**
**
**
**
**
83%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
None of these
**
**
**
**
7
17
**
**
**
**
**
18
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
6%
5%
**
**
**
**
**
6%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
33%
86%
**
**
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
4
14
**
**
**
**
**
12
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
4%
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
31%
94%
**
**
**
**
**
86%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh10A (Qr1A). Does Your Household Have Sky+? (Single Code)
Base : Those with Sky TV
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
*k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
*s
*t
Unweighted total
240
141
72
213
537
1495
94
241
35
38
71
1348
119
32
39
23
81
38
62
57
Effective Weighted Sample
158
72
45
117
315
938
81
150
22
21
51
864
90
15
24
18
72
30
51
41
Total
125
66
36
102
272
802
92
104
15
17
31
792
87
7
5
2
47
40
43
44
14%
7%
**
11%
30%
89%
**
12%
**
**
**
88%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Yes
90
44
**
62
175
608
**
72
**
**
**
593
55
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
72%
67%
**
61%
64%
76%
**
69%
**
**
**
75%
63%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
c
g
14%
7%
**
9%
26%
91%
**
11%
**
**
**
89%
8%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
No
32
18
**
33
84
162
**
30
**
**
**
156
27
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
26%
28%
**
32%
31%
20%
**
29%
**
**
**
20%
31%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
a
l
l
17%
10%
**
18%
45%
87%
**
16%
**
**
**
84%
15%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
3
3
**
6
13
32
**
3
**
**
**
43
5
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
5%
**
6%
5%
4%
**
2%
**
**
**
5%
6%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
a
f
6%
7%
**
14%
29%
70%
**
6%
**
**
**
95%
12%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh10B (Qr1B). Does Your Household Have V+? (Single Code)
Base : Those with Cable TV
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
*b
~c
*d
e
f
*g
*h
~i
~j
~k
l
*m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
94
45
16
61
177
461
34
69
9
12
21
427
40
5
8
8
23
17
23
17
Effective Weighted Sample
74
32
12
43
132
362
31
55
6
10
18
337
33
5
7
7
20
14
19
14
Total
66
21
10
31
107
333
31
44
5
6
13
320
26
2
2
1
13
13
14
13
**
**
**
**
30%
92%
**
**
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Yes
**
**
**
**
58
201
**
**
**
**
**
189
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
55%
60%
**
**
**
**
**
59%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
27%
93%
**
**
**
**
**
87%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
No
**
**
**
**
46
121
**
**
**
**
**
119
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
43%
36%
**
**
**
**
**
37%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
34%
90%
**
**
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
3
11
**
**
**
**
**
11
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
3%
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
26%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
95%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh10C (Qr1C). Does Your Freesat Set Top Box Allow You To Record And Store Tv Programmes, And Also Pause And Rewind Live Tv Programmes? (Single Code)
Base : Those with Freesat
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
*e
*f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
*l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
17
13
2
15
31
67
2
17
2
3
8
52
14
-
-
1
10
4
9
5
Effective Weighted Sample
13
12
1
13
21
47
2
11
1
3
5
37
13
-
-
1
9
4
8
4
Total
9
10
1
11
18
38
2
10
1
3
4
31
11
-
-
*
7
4
8
3
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
Yes
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
No
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh10D (Qr1D). Does Your Freeview Box Or Freeview Tv Set Allow To Record And Store Tv Programmes, And Also Pause And Rewind Live Tv Programmes (This Includes Freeview Playback And Freeview Plus Boxes)? (Single Code)
Base : Those with Freeview
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
*g
h
*i
j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
342
285
224
509
988
2010
80
409
56
84
148
1686
308
70
69
62
152
156
156
152
Effective Weighted Sample
232
174
154
325
638
1311
65
258
34
52
102
1113
248
46
42
51
134
124
122
126
Total
193
124
128
253
501
1082
69
196
23
37
68
959
211
23
12
6
89
123
106
105
17%
11%
11%
22%
43%
94%
**
17%
**
**
6%
83%
18%
**
**
**
8%
11%
9%
9%
Yes
39
24
18
42
64
172
**
27
**
**
14
147
37
**
**
**
18
19
23
14
20%
19%
14%
17%
13%
16%
**
14%
**
**
21%
15%
18%
**
**
**
20%
16%
21%
14%
g
o
o
22%
14%
10%
24%
37%
99%
**
16%
**
**
8%
84%
21%
**
**
**
10%
11%
13%
8%
No
141
95
100
195
408
852
**
158
**
**
47
761
162
**
**
**
66
96
76
86
73%
76%
78%
77%
81%
79%
**
81%
**
**
70%
79%
77%
**
**
**
75%
78%
72%
82%
f
k
k
mn
mn
15%
10%
11%
21%
44%
93%
**
17%
**
**
5%
83%
18%
**
**
**
7%
10%
8%
9%
Don't know
13
6
10
16
29
58
**
11
**
**
6
51
13
**
**
**
5
8
7
5
7%
5%
8%
6%
6%
5%
**
6%
**
**
9%
5%
6%
**
**
**
5%
6%
7%
5%
p
21%
9%
17%
26%
47%
94%
**
18%
**
**
10%
82%
20%
**
**
**
8%
12%
12%
8%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh10E (Qr1E). Does Your Broadband Tv Service Allow You To Record And Store Tv Programmes, And Also Pause And Rewind Live Tv Programmes? (Single Code)
Base : Those with Broadband TV
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
~e
*f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
*l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
9
4
2
6
17
76
3
14
-
3
2
65
2
2
1
1
2
-
2
-
Effective Weighted Sample
6
2
2
4
11
45
3
10
-
2
1
38
2
1
1
1
2
-
2
-
Total
2
1
1
2
8
36
3
7
-
2
*
32
2
1
*
*
2
-
2
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
Yes
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
No
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
Don't know
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Dvr Household Ownership
Base : Those with Sky TV/ Cable TV/ Freesat/ Freeview/ Broadband TV
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
573
422
287
709
1504
3367
193
620
83
110
220
2946
439
101
104
65
236
203
218
221
Effective Weighted Sample
401
253
198
450
997
2296
167
409
55
69
157
2042
348
62
63
53
207
160
172
176
Total
334
196
165
361
816
1963
184
309
38
50
104
1845
306
30
18
7
138
168
149
156
16%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
14%
**
2%
5%
86%
14%
1%
1%
**
6%
8%
7%
7%
DVR IN HOUSEHOLD
164
82
39
120
299
984
75
128
**
22
42
935
105
9
5
**
54
51
60
46
49%
42%
23%
33%
37%
50%
41%
42%
**
43%
40%
51%
34%
29%
26%
**
39%
30%
40%
29%
cd
cd
c
g
hk
t
t
15%
8%
4%
11%
28%
93%
7%
12%
**
2%
4%
88%
10%
1%
*%
**
5%
5%
6%
4%
NO DVR IN HOUSEHOLD
156
107
113
220
485
914
96
174
**
27
58
836
184
18
13
**
77
107
83
101
47%
55%
68%
61%
59%
47%
52%
56%
**
54%
56%
45%
60%
60%
72%
**
56%
63%
55%
65%
a
ab
a
l
l
15%
11%
11%
22%
48%
90%
9%
17%
**
3%
6%
83%
18%
2%
1%
**
8%
11%
8%
10%
UNSURE
14
7
13
20
33
65
14
6
**
2
4
74
17
3
*
**
7
10
7
9
4%
4%
8%
6%
4%
3%
7%
2%
**
3%
3%
4%
5%
10%
1%
**
5%
6%
5%
6%
ab
f
h
o
17%
9%
17%
26%
42%
82%
17%
8%
**
2%
4%
92%
21%
4%
*%
**
8%
13%
9%
12%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh11 (Qr5). Showcard How Often, If Ever, Do You Use Your Dvr To Watch Recorded Programmes? (Single Code)
Base : Those who own a DVR
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
*g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
280
165
65
230
549
1665
80
256
37
46
81
1490
148
31
33
18
91
57
90
58
Effective Weighted Sample
198
93
49
142
348
1122
70
170
24
27
62
1018
115
19
18
15
81
43
73
43
Total
164
82
39
120
299
984
75
128
17
22
42
935
105
9
5
1
54
51
60
46
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
93%
**
12%
**
**
**
88%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Every day
62
22
**
31
92
373
**
59
**
**
**
338
28
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
37%
27%
**
25%
31%
38%
**
46%
**
**
**
36%
26%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
d
l
16%
6%
**
8%
23%
94%
**
15%
**
**
**
86%
7%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
A few times a week
42
29
**
39
89
275
**
25
**
**
**
260
33
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
26%
35%
**
32%
30%
28%
**
20%
**
**
**
28%
31%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
g
h
15%
10%
**
14%
31%
96%
**
9%
**
**
**
91%
11%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Once a week
13
6
**
8
28
88
**
11
**
**
**
91
8
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
7%
**
7%
9%
9%
**
9%
**
**
**
10%
7%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
f
13%
6%
**
8%
27%
86%
**
11%
**
**
**
89%
8%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
A few times a month
12
5
**
7
19
61
**
6
**
**
**
59
6
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
7%
6%
**
6%
6%
6%
**
5%
**
**
**
6%
6%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
18%
8%
**
10%
29%
94%
**
10%
**
**
**
90%
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Once a month
5
3
**
4
9
22
**
4
**
**
**
20
4
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
3%
**
3%
3%
2%
**
3%
**
**
**
2%
3%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
19%
12%
**
16%
36%
93%
**
16%
**
**
**
84%
15%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Less often
8
6
**
9
15
49
**
8
**
**
**
44
8
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5%
8%
**
8%
5%
5%
**
6%
**
**
**
5%
8%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
15%
12%
**
18%
30%
96%
**
15%
**
**
**
85%
16%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Never
16
9
**
16
27
66
**
10
**
**
**
71
14
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
10%
11%
**
14%
9%
7%
**
8%
**
**
**
8%
13%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
a
f
q
19%
11%
**
20%
33%
81%
**
13%
**
**
**
87%
17%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh11 (Qr5). Showcard How Often, If Ever, Do You Use Your Dvr To Watch Recorded Programmes? (Single Code)
Base : Those who own a DVR
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
*g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
280
165
65
230
549
1665
80
256
37
46
81
1490
148
31
33
18
91
57
90
58
Effective Weighted Sample
198
93
49
142
348
1122
70
170
24
27
62
1018
115
19
18
15
81
43
73
43
Total
164
82
39
120
299
984
75
128
17
22
42
935
105
9
5
1
54
51
60
46
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
93%
**
12%
**
**
**
88%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
8
3
**
6
20
49
**
5
**
**
**
51
6
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5%
3%
**
5%
7%
5%
**
4%
**
**
**
6%
5%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
14%
5%
**
11%
35%
88%
**
8%
**
**
**
92%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh12 (Qr9). Showcard When You Watch Recordings You Have Made With Your Dvr, How Often, If At All, Do You Fast Forward Through The Adverts? (Single Code)
Base : Those who own a DVR
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
*g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
280
165
65
230
549
1665
80
256
37
46
81
1490
148
31
33
18
91
57
90
58
Effective Weighted Sample
198
93
49
142
348
1122
70
170
24
27
62
1018
115
19
18
15
81
43
73
43
Total
164
82
39
120
299
984
75
128
17
22
42
935
105
9
5
1
54
51
60
46
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
93%
**
12%
**
**
**
88%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
I always or almost always fast
forward through the adverts
116
57
**
78
202
730
**
93
**
**
**
673
70
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
70%
70%
**
65%
68%
74%
**
73%
**
**
**
72%
66%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
c
c
g
15%
8%
**
10%
26%
95%
**
12%
**
**
**
88%
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
I fast forward through the adverts about half the time
17
8
**
11
32
97
**
16
**
**
**
103
9
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
11%
10%
**
9%
11%
10%
**
12%
**
**
**
11%
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
f
15%
7%
**
9%
27%
81%
**
13%
**
**
**
87%
8%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
I never or hardly ever fast forward through the adverts
7
4
**
7
17
39
**
5
**
**
**
36
5
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
5%
**
6%
6%
4%
**
4%
**
**
**
4%
5%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
16%
10%
**
17%
40%
93%
**
13%
**
**
**
87%
13%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
I never play back programmes recorded from channels with adverts
4
5
**
8
11
29
**
4
**
**
**
31
7
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
6%
**
6%
4%
3%
**
3%
**
**
**
3%
6%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
k
12%
15%
**
23%
31%
85%
**
10%
**
**
**
90%
19%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
20
6
**
16
36
88
**
10
**
**
**
91
14
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
12%
8%
**
14%
12%
9%
**
8%
**
**
**
10%
14%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
abd
20%
6%
**
16%
36%
87%
**
10%
**
**
**
90%
14%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh13 (Qr14). Showcard When You Watch Television, Which, If Any, Of These Do You Usually Do First? (Single Code)
Base : Those who own a DVR
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
*g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
280
165
65
230
549
1665
80
256
37
46
81
1490
148
31
33
18
91
57
90
58
Effective Weighted Sample
198
93
49
142
348
1122
70
170
24
27
62
1018
115
19
18
15
81
43
73
43
Total
164
82
39
120
299
984
75
128
17
22
42
935
105
9
5
1
54
51
60
46
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
93%
**
12%
**
**
**
88%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Check live TV (what is being
broadcast at that time)
96
52
**
75
171
592
**
84
**
**
**
548
65
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
58%
64%
**
62%
57%
60%
**
65%
**
**
**
59%
62%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
15%
8%
**
12%
27%
94%
**
13%
**
**
**
87%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Check recorded TV (see what you have recorded on your DVR)
14
5
**
5
25
92
**
15
**
**
**
87
5
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
6%
**
4%
8%
9%
**
11%
**
**
**
9%
5%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
13%
5%
**
5%
24%
90%
**
14%
**
**
**
86%
5%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Check on-demand services such as BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, Sky Anytime+, Virgin on demand
1
-
**
-
4
10
**
2
**
**
**
9
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
-%
**
-%
1%
1%
**
1%
**
**
**
1%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
9%
-%
**
-%
40%
100%
**
16%
**
**
**
84%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
It depends/ no set routine
38
18
**
27
74
221
**
24
**
**
**
216
23
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
23%
22%
**
22%
25%
22%
**
19%
**
**
**
23%
22%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
16%
7%
**
11%
31%
92%
**
10%
**
**
**
90%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
16
7
**
14
25
69
**
4
**
**
**
75
12
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
10%
8%
**
11%
9%
7%
**
3%
**
**
**
8%
11%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
h
20%
9%
**
17%
32%
87%
**
5%
**
**
**
95%
15%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh14 (Qh42A). Do You Ever Watch Tv Programmes 'On Demand' Through Your Tv Service? (Read Explanation If Necessary)
Base : Those with multichannel TV
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
574
423
287
710
1509
3380
193
624
83
110
223
2955
440
101
104
65
237
203
218
222
Effective Weighted Sample
402
254
198
451
1002
2308
167
413
55
69
160
2050
349
62
63
53
208
160
172
177
Total
335
197
165
362
820
1972
184
311
38
50
106
1852
306
30
18
7
139
168
149
157
16%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
14%
**
2%
5%
86%
14%
1%
1%
**
6%
8%
7%
7%
Yes
67
22
12
35
119
477
42
48
**
9
14
474
31
2
2
**
15
16
18
12
20%
11%
8%
10%
14%
24%
23%
16%
**
18%
13%
26%
10%
7%
9%
**
11%
9%
12%
8%
bcd
hk
13%
4%
2%
7%
23%
91%
8%
9%
**
2%
3%
91%
6%
*%
*%
**
3%
3%
4%
2%
No
264
170
143
313
679
1458
140
254
**
38
89
1347
264
27
16
**
121
142
123
140
79%
86%
87%
87%
83%
74%
76%
82%
**
75%
84%
73%
86%
90%
88%
**
88%
85%
82%
89%
a
a
a
l
l
m
16%
11%
9%
20%
42%
91%
9%
16%
**
2%
6%
84%
16%
2%
1%
**
8%
9%
8%
9%
Don't know
5
4
9
14
23
38
2
9
**
4
3
31
12
1
1
**
2
10
8
4
1%
2%
6%
4%
3%
2%
1%
3%
**
7%
3%
2%
4%
3%
3%
**
2%
6%
5%
3%
a
a
l
l
q
12%
11%
24%
35%
57%
95%
4%
22%
**
9%
7%
79%
31%
2%
2%
**
6%
25%
20%
11%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh15 (Qh42B). How Often, If Ever, Do You Use Your 'On Demand' Tv Service To Watch Tv Programmes After They'Ve Been Shown?
Base : Those who ever watch TV programmes 'on demand' through their TV service
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
*b
~c
*d
e
f
*g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
*m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
105
43
18
61
200
719
44
94
13
18
26
671
42
8
8
3
26
16
27
15
Effective Weighted Sample
74
27
14
41
140
515
38
64
9
12
21
491
34
5
5
3
24
13
22
12
Total
67
22
12
35
119
477
42
48
7
9
14
474
31
2
2
*
15
16
18
12
13%
**
**
**
23%
91%
**
**
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Every day
10
**
**
**
16
55
**
**
**
**
**
52
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
15%
**
**
**
13%
12%
**
**
**
**
**
11%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
17%
**
**
**
28%
95%
**
**
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
A few times a week
20
**
**
**
40
150
**
**
**
**
**
154
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
31%
**
**
**
34%
31%
**
**
**
**
**
33%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
h
12%
**
**
**
25%
92%
**
**
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Once a week
7
**
**
**
17
75
**
**
**
**
**
77
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
10%
**
**
**
15%
16%
**
**
**
**
**
16%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
**
**
**
21%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
A few times a month
10
**
**
**
18
87
**
**
**
**
**
89
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
15%
**
**
**
16%
18%
**
**
**
**
**
19%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
11%
**
**
**
19%
92%
**
**
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Once a month
7
**
**
**
5
36
**
**
**
**
**
35
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
11%
**
**
**
4%
7%
**
**
**
**
**
7%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
18%
**
**
**
11%
90%
**
**
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Less often
12
**
**
**
18
69
**
**
**
**
**
61
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
18%
**
**
**
16%
14%
**
**
**
**
**
13%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
l
17%
**
**
**
25%
94%
**
**
**
**
**
83%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
*
**
**
**
3
4
**
**
**
**
**
7
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*%
**
**
**
3%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
f
2%
**
**
**
53%
65%
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh16 (Qh43A). Do You Ever Watch Tv Programmes Online Or Download Programmes From Uk Tv Broadcasters' Website (Such As Bbc Iplayer, Itv Player, Channel 4 On-Demand/ 4Od, Demand Five, Or Sky Player) After They'Ve Been Shown? I Don'T Mean Watching Live Programmes Online.
Base : Those with access to the internet at home or elsewhere
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
446
260
80
340
974
2780
179
385
44
54
114
2579
231
33
44
32
149
82
147
84
Effective Weighted Sample
310
157
55
212
644
1898
155
253
28
34
83
1789
179
19
27
26
131
65
115
65
Total
269
134
54
188
558
1691
172
206
21
28
56
1667
169
9
7
3
88
81
101
68
14%
7%
**
10%
30%
90%
9%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
9%
**
**
**
5%
**
5%
**
Yes
88
30
**
36
147
645
61
77
**
**
13
632
34
**
**
**
18
**
23
**
33%
23%
**
19%
26%
38%
35%
37%
**
**
23%
38%
20%
**
**
**
20%
**
22%
**
bcd
k
k
12%
4%
**
5%
21%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
2%
89%
5%
**
**
**
3%
**
3%
**
No
177
102
**
148
402
1015
111
128
**
**
43
1006
133
**
**
**
71
**
76
**
66%
76%
**
79%
72%
60%
65%
62%
**
**
77%
60%
79%
**
**
**
80%
**
75%
**
a
a
a
hl
16%
9%
**
13%
35%
90%
10%
11%
**
**
4%
89%
12%
**
**
**
6%
**
7%
**
Don't know
4
1
**
3
9
32
*
2
**
**
-
30
2
**
**
**
-
**
2
**
1%
1%
**
1%
2%
2%
*%
1%
**
**
-%
2%
1%
**
**
**
-%
**
2%
**
11%
4%
**
9%
28%
100%
1%
5%
**
**
-%
93%
8%
**
**
**
-%
**
8%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh17 (Qh43B). How Often, If Ever, Do You Watch Tv Programmes Online Or Download From Uk Tv Broadcasters' Websites After They'Ve Been Shown?
Base : Those who ever watch TV programmes online or download from UK TV broadcasters' websites
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
*b
~c
*d
e
f
*g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
*m
~n
~o
~p
*q
~r
*s
~t
Unweighted total
128
59
10
69
241
957
61
116
13
11
27
903
53
6
7
3
34
19
41
12
Effective Weighted Sample
96
38
7
45
166
684
52
81
9
8
19
650
39
4
4
3
30
14
32
9
Total
88
30
6
36
147
645
61
77
8
8
13
632
34
1
1
*
18
16
23
11
12%
**
**
**
21%
91%
**
11%
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Every day
3
**
**
**
10
28
**
2
**
**
**
28
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
**
**
**
7%
4%
**
3%
**
**
**
5%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
9%
**
**
**
33%
93%
**
7%
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
A few times a week
15
**
**
**
38
141
**
23
**
**
**
130
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
18%
**
**
**
26%
22%
**
29%
**
**
**
21%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
10%
**
**
**
25%
93%
**
15%
**
**
**
86%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Once a week
15
**
**
**
26
124
**
14
**
**
**
124
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
18%
**
**
**
18%
19%
**
19%
**
**
**
20%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
11%
**
**
**
19%
90%
**
10%
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
A few times a month
13
**
**
**
29
148
**
12
**
**
**
153
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
15%
**
**
**
20%
23%
**
15%
**
**
**
24%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
**
**
**
18%
90%
**
7%
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Once a month
13
**
**
**
16
84
**
11
**
**
**
77
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
15%
**
**
**
11%
13%
**
15%
**
**
**
12%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
15%
**
**
**
18%
95%
**
13%
**
**
**
87%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Less often
28
**
**
**
28
117
**
14
**
**
**
116
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
32%
**
**
**
19%
18%
**
18%
**
**
**
18%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
21%
**
**
**
21%
90%
**
11%
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
*
**
**
**
*
4
**
1
**
**
**
3
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*%
**
**
**
*%
1%
**
1%
**
**
**
*%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
9%
**
**
**
12%
97%
**
21%
**
**
**
83%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh18 (Qh62). Are Any Of Your Tv Sets "Smart Tvs"? These Are New Types Of Tv That Are Connected To The Internet And Can Stream Video Directly Onto Your Television Screen, Without The Need For A Computer, Set-Top Box Or Games Console. If Necessary - It'S A Tv That Allows You To Surf The Internet And Stream Movies, Tv Shows And Videos Using Services Such As Bbc Iplayer,Lovefilm And Youtube. They Are Also Sometimes Referred To As A Connected Tv Or A Hybrid Tv.
Base : Those with a TV in the household
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
589
444
336
780
1605
3509
198
675
98
120
241
3038
474
104
108
94
248
226
231
243
Effective Weighted Sample
412
261
221
482
1046
2374
172
439
62
73
169
2095
372
63
65
78
216
176
180
192
Total
343
203
186
389
856
2023
190
327
41
52
111
1891
330
32
19
9
143
186
158
172
15%
9%
8%
18%
39%
91%
9%
15%
**
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
6%
8%
7%
8%
Yes
14
9
1
9
30
108
7
14
**
3
3
101
9
*
*
**
5
4
6
3
4%
4%
*%
2%
3%
5%
4%
4%
**
5%
3%
5%
3%
*%
1%
**
3%
2%
4%
2%
c
c
12%
8%
1%
8%
26%
94%
6%
12%
**
2%
3%
88%
8%
*%
*%
**
4%
4%
5%
3%
No
320
188
174
362
800
1866
183
305
**
48
104
1748
305
30
18
**
136
168
145
160
93%
93%
93%
93%
93%
92%
96%
93%
**
93%
94%
92%
92%
96%
97%
**
95%
90%
92%
93%
16%
9%
8%
18%
39%
91%
9%
15%
**
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Don't know
9
6
12
17
27
49
*
8
**
1
3
41
16
1
*
**
2
14
6
9
3%
3%
6%
4%
3%
2%
*%
2%
**
2%
3%
2%
5%
3%
2%
**
1%
7%
4%
5%
a
g
q
q
18%
12%
24%
36%
54%
100%
*%
16%
**
3%
7%
84%
32%
2%
1%
**
4%
28%
13%
19%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh19 (Qh63). Showcard Which, If Any, Of The Uses Shown On This Card Have You Used Your "Smart Tv" Set For In The Last 12 Months? Please Don'T Include Anything You'Ve Done Using An Additional Device To Play The Content, Such As A Games Console Or Computer. (Multi Code)
Base : Those with a 'Smart TV' in the household
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
*e
f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
20
15
3
18
42
152
7
21
1
3
8
138
15
1
1
1
9
6
11
4
Effective Weighted Sample
17
11
2
13
31
112
6
15
1
2
5
103
12
1
1
1
8
5
9
3
Total
14
9
1
9
30
108
7
14
1
3
3
101
9
*
*
*
5
4
6
3
**
**
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Watching TV live - i.e. at the
same time as it is broadcast, and not something you've recorded
**
**
**
**
**
55
**
**
**
**
**
51
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
51%
**
**
**
**
**
50%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
95%
**
**
**
**
**
87%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Catch-up services - watch programmes or films recently broadcast (e.g. using the BBC iPlayer)
**
**
**
**
**
50
**
**
**
**
**
47
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
47%
**
**
**
**
**
46%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
97%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Watching TV you've previously recorded
**
**
**
**
**
45
**
**
**
**
**
40
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
41%
**
**
**
**
**
40%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
85%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Applications that come with the TV that allow you to watch programmes and video clips (e.g. YouTube, Amazon video)
**
**
**
**
**
23
**
**
**
**
**
24
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
22%
**
**
**
**
**
23%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh19 (Qh63). Showcard Which, If Any, Of The Uses Shown On This Card Have You Used Your "Smart Tv" Set For In The Last 12 Months? Please Don'T Include Anything You'Ve Done Using An Additional Device To Play The Content, Such As A Games Console Or Computer. (Multi Code)
Base : Those with a 'Smart TV' in the household
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
*e
f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
20
15
3
18
42
152
7
21
1
3
8
138
15
1
1
1
9
6
11
4
Effective Weighted Sample
17
11
2
13
31
112
6
15
1
2
5
103
12
1
1
1
8
5
9
3
Total
14
9
1
9
30
108
7
14
1
3
3
101
9
*
*
*
5
4
6
3
**
**
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Video on-demand services - e.g.
a service which may provide films (such as those recently available on DVD), classic TV shows and other content
**
**
**
**
**
21
**
**
**
**
**
19
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
20%
**
**
**
**
**
19%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Browse the internet - e.g. online shopping, checking emails, social networking sites
**
**
**
**
**
21
**
**
**
**
**
18
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
19%
**
**
**
**
**
18%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
86%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Applications that come with the TV that allow you to play games
**
**
**
**
**
13
**
**
**
**
**
12
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
12%
**
**
**
**
**
12%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
92%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Making voice calls using the internet
**
**
**
**
**
4
**
**
**
**
**
4
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
97%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh19 (Qh63). Showcard Which, If Any, Of The Uses Shown On This Card Have You Used Your "Smart Tv" Set For In The Last 12 Months? Please Don'T Include Anything You'Ve Done Using An Additional Device To Play The Content, Such As A Games Console Or Computer. (Multi Code)
Base : Those with a 'Smart TV' in the household
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
*e
f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
20
15
3
18
42
152
7
21
1
3
8
138
15
1
1
1
9
6
11
4
Effective Weighted Sample
17
11
2
13
31
112
6
15
1
2
5
103
12
1
1
1
8
5
9
3
Total
14
9
1
9
30
108
7
14
1
3
3
101
9
*
*
*
5
4
6
3
**
**
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
88%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
None of these
**
**
**
**
**
24
**
**
**
**
**
22
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
22%
**
**
**
**
**
22%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
83%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
**
4
**
**
**
**
**
4
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
98%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary Of Those Who Watch Non-Linear Programming
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
WATCH PROGRAMMES
RECORDED ON DVR
141
70
28
98
252
869
57
113
16
20
36
812
86
7
4
**
46
40
52
34
41%
35%
15%
25%
29%
42%
29%
34%
37%
38%
32%
42%
26%
23%
21%
**
31%
22%
32%
20%
cd
cd
c
g
hk
p
p
rt
rt
15%
8%
3%
11%
27%
94%
6%
12%
2%
2%
4%
88%
9%
1%
*%
**
5%
4%
6%
4%
WATCH TV PROGRAMMES ON DEMAND THROUGH TV SERVICE
67
22
12
35
119
477
42
48
7
9
14
474
31
2
2
**
15
16
18
12
19%
11%
7%
9%
14%
23%
22%
14%
16%
17%
13%
25%
9%
7%
8%
**
10%
8%
11%
7%
bcd
hk
p
13%
4%
2%
7%
23%
91%
8%
9%
1%
2%
3%
91%
6%
*%
*%
**
3%
3%
4%
2%
WATCH TV PROGRAMMES ONLINE FROM TV BROADCASTERS' WEBSITES
88
30
6
36
147
645
61
77
8
8
13
632
34
1
1
**
18
16
23
11
25%
15%
3%
9%
17%
31%
31%
23%
19%
15%
11%
33%
10%
4%
7%
**
12%
8%
14%
6%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
t
t
12%
4%
1%
5%
21%
91%
9%
11%
1%
1%
2%
89%
5%
*%
*%
**
3%
2%
3%
2%
ANY NON-LINEAR PROGRAMMING
195
92
40
131
363
1220
103
160
21
26
46
1168
117
8
5
**
60
57
71
46
56%
45%
21%
33%
42%
59%
53%
48%
48%
48%
41%
61%
35%
26%
26%
**
41%
31%
44%
27%
bcd
cd
c
hijk
p
rt
rt
15%
7%
3%
10%
27%
92%
8%
12%
2%
2%
4%
88%
9%
1%
*%
**
5%
4%
5%
3%
NONE
152
113
149
262
506
835
92
174
22
27
66
754
217
23
14
**
87
130
90
127
44%
55%
79%
67%
58%
41%
47%
52%
52%
52%
59%
39%
65%
74%
74%
**
59%
69%
56%
73%
a
abd
ab
l
l
l
l
m
qs
qs
16%
12%
16%
28%
54%
90%
10%
19%
2%
3%
7%
81%
23%
3%
1%
**
9%
14%
10%
14%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QCHECK. Can I just check that you have the following services? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Landline phone
321
194
185
379
698
1746
152
290
40
51
102
1613
322
30
18
**
141
180
158
163
93%
95%
98%
96%
80%
85%
78%
87%
93%
96%
90%
84%
96%
96%
98%
**
96%
97%
99%
94%
a
a
g
l
hl
l
t
17%
10%
10%
20%
37%
92%
8%
15%
2%
3%
5%
85%
17%
2%
1%
**
7%
9%
8%
9%
Mobile phone
316
169
99
268
702
1879
188
263
28
38
84
1812
234
16
12
**
112
123
119
115
91%
83%
52%
68%
81%
91%
97%
79%
64%
72%
74%
94%
70%
50%
64%
**
76%
66%
74%
66%
bcd
cd
c
f
i
hijk
n
n
rt
15%
8%
5%
13%
34%
91%
9%
13%
1%
2%
4%
87%
11%
1%
1%
**
5%
6%
6%
6%
Fixed Broadband internet access
243
127
48
175
450
1476
136
177
20
26
49
1444
158
8
6
**
83
76
94
64
70%
62%
25%
44%
52%
72%
70%
53%
46%
49%
43%
75%
47%
27%
31%
**
56%
41%
59%
37%
bcd
cd
c
k
hijk
nop
rt
rt
15%
8%
3%
11%
28%
91%
8%
11%
1%
2%
3%
89%
10%
1%
*%
**
5%
5%
6%
4%
Mobile broadband internet access
24
8
2
10
70
258
31
30
4
1
6
260
9
1
*
**
6
3
6
3
7%
4%
1%
3%
8%
13%
16%
9%
10%
3%
5%
14%
3%
2%
3%
**
4%
1%
3%
2%
cd
hjk
8%
3%
1%
3%
24%
89%
11%
10%
2%
*%
2%
90%
3%
*%
*%
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
Narrowband internet access
3
1
1
3
5
13
1
2
*
1
1
12
2
-
-
**
2
*
2
1
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
*%
1%
1%
1%
1%
-%
-%
**
1%
*%
1%
*%
20%
11%
8%
18%
40%
94%
7%
15%
*%
5%
9%
85%
18%
-%
-%
**
16%
2%
14%
4%
TV service with additional channels you pay to receive
188
86
53
139
391
1152
126
158
21
25
48
1123
117
10
8
**
61
56
60
56
54%
42%
28%
35%
45%
56%
64%
47%
48%
48%
43%
58%
35%
33%
45%
**
41%
30%
38%
32%
bcd
c
f
hk
r
15%
7%
4%
11%
31%
90%
10%
12%
2%
2%
4%
88%
9%
1%
1%
**
5%
4%
5%
4%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QCHECK. Can I just check that you have the following services? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
No, none of these
2
-
1
1
11
13
-
6
*
*
2
7
1
-
-
**
1
-
-
1
1%
-%
*%
*%
1%
1%
-%
2%
*%
*%
2%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
*%
-%
-%
*%
l
l
m
18%
-%
7%
7%
86%
100%
-%
43%
1%
2%
15%
54%
5%
-%
-%
**
5%
-%
-%
5%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qdm. And Which, If Any, Of These Services Are You Primarily Or Jointly Responsible For - In Terms Of Deciding Which Supplier Or Network To Use? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Landline phone
298
179
168
347
612
1496
127
256
36
48
94
1371
293
29
17
**
136
157
148
145
86%
88%
89%
88%
71%
73%
65%
77%
83%
90%
83%
71%
88%
93%
92%
**
92%
84%
92%
83%
g
l
l
hl
l
rt
rt
18%
11%
10%
21%
38%
92%
8%
16%
2%
3%
6%
84%
18%
2%
1%
**
8%
10%
9%
9%
Mobile phone
288
151
89
239
606
1633
168
236
22
33
76
1572
209
13
11
**
103
106
106
103
83%
74%
47%
61%
70%
79%
86%
71%
52%
63%
68%
82%
63%
42%
59%
**
70%
57%
66%
59%
bcd
cd
c
f
i
i
hijk
n
n
n
rt
16%
8%
5%
13%
34%
90%
9%
13%
1%
2%
4%
87%
12%
1%
1%
**
6%
6%
6%
6%
Fixed Broadband internet access
222
113
39
152
373
1212
111
147
17
23
43
1184
137
7
5
**
76
61
87
50
64%
55%
21%
39%
43%
59%
57%
44%
39%
44%
38%
62%
41%
22%
30%
**
52%
33%
54%
29%
bcd
cd
c
hijk
np
rt
rt
17%
8%
3%
11%
28%
91%
8%
11%
1%
2%
3%
89%
10%
1%
*%
**
6%
5%
7%
4%
Mobile broadband internet access
17
5
2
7
41
151
21
17
2
1
3
155
6
1
*
**
4
2
4
2
5%
2%
1%
2%
5%
7%
11%
5%
5%
2%
3%
8%
2%
2%
3%
**
3%
1%
3%
1%
cd
hk
10%
3%
1%
4%
24%
88%
13%
10%
1%
1%
2%
91%
3%
*%
*%
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
Narrowband internet access
3
-
1
1
4
6
1
2
*
1
1
5
1
-
-
**
1
-
1
-
1%
-%
1%
*%
*%
*%
1%
1%
*%
1%
1%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
1%
-%
1%
-%
38%
-%
15%
15%
55%
89%
14%
28%
1%
9%
16%
72%
15%
-%
-%
**
15%
-%
15%
-%
TV service with additional channels you pay to receive
164
69
49
118
314
906
93
133
18
23
43
869
97
10
8
**
53
44
50
48
47%
34%
26%
30%
36%
44%
48%
40%
41%
43%
38%
45%
29%
30%
43%
**
36%
24%
31%
28%
bcd
h
m
r
16%
7%
5%
12%
31%
90%
9%
13%
2%
2%
4%
87%
10%
1%
1%
**
5%
4%
5%
5%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qdm. And Which, If Any, Of These Services Are You Primarily Or Jointly Responsible For - In Terms Of Deciding Which Supplier Or Network To Use? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
None of these
19
10
15
25
81
152
11
24
3
3
8
138
23
*
1
**
6
17
5
18
6%
5%
8%
6%
9%
7%
6%
7%
6%
6%
7%
7%
7%
2%
4%
**
4%
9%
3%
10%
qs
qs
12%
6%
9%
15%
50%
94%
7%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
14%
*%
*%
**
3%
11%
3%
11%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QG1. Do you receive more than one of these services as part of an overall deal or package from the same supplier? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Yes
199
103
47
151
377
1163
109
138
18
20
44
1142
136
7
5
**
71
65
77
60
57%
51%
25%
38%
43%
57%
56%
41%
41%
38%
39%
59%
41%
22%
27%
**
48%
35%
48%
34%
cd
cd
c
hijk
nop
rt
rt
16%
8%
4%
12%
29%
91%
9%
11%
1%
2%
3%
89%
11%
1%
*%
**
6%
5%
6%
5%
No
143
97
137
234
471
843
80
190
26
32
67
730
190
24
13
**
72
118
81
109
41%
47%
72%
59%
54%
41%
41%
57%
59%
60%
60%
38%
57%
76%
71%
**
49%
63%
50%
63%
abd
ab
l
l
l
l
m
m
m
qs
qs
16%
11%
15%
25%
51%
91%
9%
21%
3%
3%
7%
79%
21%
3%
1%
**
8%
13%
9%
12%
Don't know
5
4
5
9
20
50
5
5
-
1
2
50
8
1
*
**
4
4
3
5
1%
2%
3%
2%
2%
2%
3%
2%
-%
2%
2%
3%
2%
3%
2%
**
3%
2%
2%
3%
8%
7%
10%
17%
37%
91%
10%
10%
-%
2%
3%
90%
14%
1%
1%
**
7%
7%
5%
9%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qg2 (Qg3A). Showcard Thinking About The Service Package You Consider To Be The Main One, Or The One Your Household Spends The Most On... Please Could You Tell Me Which Services Are Part Of This Deal Or Package You Have With The Same Supplier? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
~n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
328
198
74
272
658
1889
115
261
34
41
87
1746
187
28
34
23
117
70
109
78
Effective Weighted Sample
232
119
53
172
441
1309
100
179
24
27
64
1227
146
15
20
19
102
55
86
61
Total
199
103
47
151
377
1163
109
138
18
20
44
1142
136
7
5
2
71
65
77
60
16%
8%
**
12%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
**
89%
11%
**
**
**
6%
**
6%
**
Landline phone
191
99
**
146
348
1070
93
125
**
**
**
1045
133
**
**
**
69
**
75
**
96%
96%
**
97%
92%
92%
85%
90%
**
**
**
91%
98%
**
**
**
97%
**
97%
**
g
16%
9%
**
13%
30%
92%
8%
11%
**
**
**
89%
11%
**
**
**
6%
**
6%
**
One mobile phone
15
6
**
10
29
77
8
13
**
**
**
71
8
**
**
**
4
**
3
**
7%
6%
**
6%
8%
7%
7%
9%
**
**
**
6%
6%
**
**
**
5%
**
4%
**
17%
8%
**
11%
35%
91%
9%
16%
**
**
**
85%
10%
**
**
**
4%
**
4%
**
More than one mobile phone
7
2
**
2
7
31
1
4
**
**
**
28
2
**
**
**
2
**
1
**
4%
2%
**
1%
2%
3%
1%
3%
**
**
**
2%
1%
**
**
**
2%
**
1%
**
23%
5%
**
6%
23%
96%
4%
13%
**
**
**
87%
5%
**
**
**
5%
**
3%
**
Internet - Fixed Broadband access
172
96
**
133
326
1062
98
116
**
**
**
1052
122
**
**
**
64
**
72
**
87%
93%
**
88%
86%
91%
90%
84%
**
**
**
92%
89%
**
**
**
90%
**
94%
**
c
hk
t
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
91%
8%
10%
**
**
**
90%
10%
**
**
**
6%
**
6%
**
Internet - Mobile Broadband access
6
1
**
1
13
35
5
6
**
**
**
34
1
**
**
**
1
**
-
**
3%
1%
**
1%
3%
3%
5%
4%
**
**
**
3%
*%
**
**
**
1%
**
-%
**
14%
3%
**
3%
32%
88%
13%
15%
**
**
**
85%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
-%
**
Internet - not broadband access
2
-
**
1
3
3
-
2
**
**
**
1
1
**
**
**
1
**
1
**
1%
-%
**
1%
1%
*%
-%
1%
**
**
**
*%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
l
l
l
50%
-%
**
35%
85%
100%
-%
58%
**
**
**
43%
35%
**
**
**
35%
**
35%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qg2 (Qg3A). Showcard Thinking About The Service Package You Consider To Be The Main One, Or The One Your Household Spends The Most On... Please Could You Tell Me Which Services Are Part Of This Deal Or Package You Have With The Same Supplier? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
~n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
328
198
74
272
658
1889
115
261
34
41
87
1746
187
28
34
23
117
70
109
78
Effective Weighted Sample
232
119
53
172
441
1309
100
179
24
27
64
1227
146
15
20
19
102
55
86
61
Total
199
103
47
151
377
1163
109
138
18
20
44
1142
136
7
5
2
71
65
77
60
16%
8%
**
12%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
**
89%
11%
**
**
**
6%
**
6%
**
TV service
92
29
**
42
152
527
50
57
**
**
**
521
37
**
**
**
18
**
18
**
46%
28%
**
28%
40%
45%
46%
41%
**
**
**
46%
27%
**
**
**
25%
**
24%
**
bcd
16%
5%
**
7%
26%
91%
9%
10%
**
**
**
90%
6%
**
**
**
3%
**
3%
**
Don't know
1
1
**
1
3
9
3
2
**
**
**
10
1
**
**
**
-
**
1
**
*%
1%
**
*%
1%
1%
2%
1%
**
**
**
1%
*%
**
**
**
-%
**
1%
**
5%
5%
**
5%
28%
74%
23%
15%
**
**
**
85%
5%
**
**
**
-%
**
5%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qg2 (Qg3A). Showcard Thinking About The Service Package You Consider To Be The Main One, Or The One Your Household Spends The Most On... Please Could You Tell Me Which Services Are Part Of This Deal Or Package You Have With The Same Supplier? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Landline phone
191
99
47
146
348
1070
93
125
15
20
42
1045
133
6
5
**
69
64
75
59
55%
49%
25%
37%
40%
52%
48%
37%
36%
38%
37%
54%
40%
20%
27%
**
47%
34%
46%
34%
cd
cd
c
hijk
nop
rt
rt
16%
9%
4%
13%
30%
92%
8%
11%
1%
2%
4%
89%
11%
1%
*%
**
6%
5%
6%
5%
One mobile phone
15
6
3
10
29
77
8
13
1
3
5
71
8
1
*
**
4
4
3
5
4%
3%
2%
2%
3%
4%
4%
4%
3%
5%
4%
4%
2%
3%
2%
**
3%
2%
2%
3%
17%
8%
4%
11%
35%
91%
9%
16%
2%
3%
6%
85%
10%
1%
*%
**
4%
5%
4%
6%
More than one mobile phone
7
2
*
2
7
31
1
4
-
1
1
28
2
-
-
**
2
-
1
1
2%
1%
*%
*%
1%
2%
1%
1%
-%
1%
1%
1%
*%
-%
-%
**
1%
-%
1%
*%
cd
23%
5%
1%
6%
23%
96%
4%
13%
-%
2%
4%
87%
5%
-%
-%
**
5%
-%
3%
2%
Internet - Fixed Broadband access
172
96
37
133
326
1062
98
116
15
17
35
1052
122
5
4
**
64
58
72
50
50%
47%
20%
34%
38%
52%
50%
35%
35%
33%
31%
55%
37%
17%
23%
**
44%
31%
45%
29%
cd
cd
c
hijk
nop
rt
rt
15%
8%
3%
11%
28%
91%
8%
10%
1%
1%
3%
90%
10%
*%
*%
**
6%
5%
6%
4%
Internet - Mobile Broadband access
6
1
-
1
13
35
5
6
-
-
1
34
1
*
*
**
1
-
-
1
2%
1%
-%
*%
1%
2%
3%
2%
-%
-%
1%
2%
*%
2%
1%
**
*%
-%
-%
*%
d
14%
3%
-%
3%
32%
88%
13%
15%
-%
-%
3%
85%
1%
1%
1%
**
1%
-%
-%
1%
Internet - not broadband access
2
-
1
1
3
3
-
2
-
1
1
1
1
-
-
**
1
-
1
-
*%
-%
1%
*%
*%
*%
-%
1%
-%
1%
1%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
1%
-%
1%
-%
l
l
l
50%
-%
35%
35%
85%
100%
-%
58%
-%
20%
38%
43%
35%
-%
-%
**
35%
-%
35%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qg2 (Qg3A). Showcard Thinking About The Service Package You Consider To Be The Main One, Or The One Your Household Spends The Most On... Please Could You Tell Me Which Services Are Part Of This Deal Or Package You Have With The Same Supplier? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
TV service
92
29
13
42
152
527
50
57
9
9
16
521
37
2
2
**
18
19
18
19
27%
14%
7%
11%
18%
26%
26%
17%
21%
17%
14%
27%
11%
6%
11%
**
12%
10%
11%
11%
bcd
c
hjk
16%
5%
2%
7%
26%
91%
9%
10%
2%
2%
3%
90%
6%
*%
*%
**
3%
3%
3%
3%
Don't know
1
1
-
1
3
9
3
2
-
-
-
10
1
-
-
**
-
1
1
-
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
*%
1%
1%
-%
-%
-%
1%
*%
-%
-%
**
-%
*%
*%
-%
5%
5%
-%
5%
28%
74%
23%
15%
-%
-%
-%
85%
5%
-%
-%
**
-%
5%
5%
-%
DO NOT HAVE A PACKAGE/ BUNDLE OF SERVICES
148
101
142
243
491
892
86
196
26
33
69
780
197
25
14
**
76
122
84
114
43%
49%
75%
62%
57%
43%
44%
59%
59%
62%
61%
41%
59%
78%
73%
**
52%
65%
52%
66%
abd
ab
l
l
l
l
m
m
m
qs
qs
15%
10%
15%
25%
50%
91%
9%
20%
3%
3%
7%
80%
20%
3%
1%
**
8%
12%
9%
12%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qg3 (Qg3D). Which Supplier Do You Use For This Package Of Services? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
~n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
328
198
74
272
658
1889
115
261
34
41
87
1746
187
28
34
23
117
70
109
78
Effective Weighted Sample
232
119
53
172
441
1309
100
179
24
27
64
1227
146
15
20
19
102
55
86
61
Total
199
103
47
151
377
1163
109
138
18
20
44
1142
136
7
5
2
71
65
77
60
16%
8%
**
12%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
**
89%
11%
**
**
**
6%
**
6%
**
Virgin Media (previously NTL/
Telewest)
68
18
**
29
92
317
31
37
**
**
**
312
25
**
**
**
10
**
13
**
34%
18%
**
19%
24%
27%
28%
27%
**
**
**
27%
18%
**
**
**
15%
**
16%
**
bd
20%
5%
**
8%
26%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
**
90%
7%
**
**
**
3%
**
4%
**
BT
55
34
**
54
101
308
22
38
**
**
**
296
49
**
**
**
24
**
28
**
28%
33%
**
36%
27%
26%
20%
27%
**
**
**
26%
36%
**
**
**
33%
**
36%
**
a
17%
10%
**
16%
31%
93%
7%
11%
**
**
**
89%
15%
**
**
**
7%
**
8%
**
Sky
34
13
**
16
75
272
28
26
**
**
**
275
15
**
**
**
10
**
7
**
17%
13%
**
11%
20%
23%
26%
18%
**
**
**
24%
11%
**
**
**
13%
**
9%
**
k
k
11%
4%
**
5%
25%
90%
9%
8%
**
**
**
92%
5%
**
**
**
3%
**
2%
**
Talk Talk/ Carphone Warehouse
33
28
**
36
67
173
22
26
**
**
**
171
35
**
**
**
17
**
22
**
17%
27%
**
24%
18%
15%
20%
19%
**
**
**
15%
26%
**
**
**
23%
**
29%
**
a
l
17%
14%
**
18%
34%
88%
11%
13%
**
**
**
87%
18%
**
**
**
8%
**
11%
**
Orange
3
2
**
2
7
23
-
4
**
**
**
19
2
**
**
**
2
**
1
**
1%
2%
**
1%
2%
2%
-%
3%
**
**
**
2%
1%
**
**
**
2%
**
1%
**
12%
8%
**
9%
31%
100%
-%
19%
**
**
**
82%
7%
**
**
**
7%
**
4%
**
O2
*
1
**
2
6
14
2
2
**
**
**
14
1
**
**
**
1
**
1
**
*%
1%
**
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
**
**
**
1%
1%
**
**
**
2%
**
1%
**
1%
6%
**
12%
38%
88%
14%
11%
**
**
**
90%
9%
**
**
**
9%
**
6%
**
AOL
*
2
**
3
6
11
-
1
**
**
**
10
3
**
**
**
3
**
1
**
*%
2%
**
2%
1%
1%
-%
1%
**
**
**
1%
2%
**
**
**
4%
**
2%
**
l
3%
20%
**
26%
50%
100%
-%
8%
**
**
**
93%
26%
**
**
**
26%
**
12%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qg3 (Qg3D). Which Supplier Do You Use For This Package Of Services? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
~n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
328
198
74
272
658
1889
115
261
34
41
87
1746
187
28
34
23
117
70
109
78
Effective Weighted Sample
232
119
53
172
441
1309
100
179
24
27
64
1227
146
15
20
19
102
55
86
61
Total
199
103
47
151
377
1163
109
138
18
20
44
1142
136
7
5
2
71
65
77
60
16%
8%
**
12%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
**
89%
11%
**
**
**
6%
**
6%
**
Post Office
2
1
**
3
4
7
-
-
**
**
**
7
3
**
**
**
3
**
1
**
1%
1%
**
2%
1%
1%
-%
-%
**
**
**
1%
2%
**
**
**
4%
**
2%
**
35%
8%
**
37%
62%
100%
-%
-%
**
**
**
100%
37%
**
**
**
37%
**
20%
**
Other
3
5
**
5
14
34
2
5
**
**
**
33
4
**
**
**
2
**
3
**
1%
4%
**
3%
4%
3%
2%
3%
**
**
**
3%
3%
**
**
**
3%
**
3%
**
8%
12%
**
13%
37%
92%
7%
12%
**
**
**
88%
11%
**
**
**
5%
**
7%
**
Don't know
-
*
**
*
4
5
1
1
**
**
**
5
*
**
**
**
*
**
*
**
-%
*%
**
*%
1%
*%
1%
1%
**
**
**
*%
*%
**
**
**
*%
**
*%
**
-%
5%
**
5%
72%
80%
21%
15%
**
**
**
86%
5%
**
**
**
5%
**
5%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Components Of Package - I.E. Simple Bundle
Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
~n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
328
198
74
272
658
1889
115
261
34
41
87
1746
187
28
34
23
117
70
109
78
Effective Weighted Sample
232
119
53
172
441
1309
100
179
24
27
64
1227
146
15
20
19
102
55
86
61
Total
199
103
47
151
377
1163
109
138
18
20
44
1142
136
7
5
2
71
65
77
60
16%
8%
**
12%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
**
89%
11%
**
**
**
6%
**
6%
**
LANDLINE & BROADBAND
99
67
**
97
193
559
50
66
**
**
**
549
89
**
**
**
47
**
53
**
50%
65%
**
64%
51%
48%
46%
48%
**
**
**
48%
65%
**
**
**
66%
**
69%
**
a
a
16%
11%
**
16%
31%
91%
8%
11%
**
**
**
89%
14%
**
**
**
8%
**
9%
**
LANDLINE, BROADBAND & MULTI-CHANNEL TV
60
22
**
28
101
390
36
38
**
**
**
389
25
**
**
**
14
**
14
**
30%
21%
**
18%
27%
34%
32%
28%
**
**
**
34%
18%
**
**
**
19%
**
18%
**
cd
14%
5%
**
6%
24%
91%
8%
9%
**
**
**
91%
6%
**
**
**
3%
**
3%
**
MULTI-CHANNEL TV & BROADBAND
5
2
**
2
16
52
8
6
**
**
**
56
2
**
**
**
2
**
2
**
3%
2%
**
2%
4%
4%
7%
4%
**
**
**
5%
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
**
k
9%
4%
**
4%
26%
86%
13%
9%
**
**
**
91%
4%
**
**
**
3%
**
3%
**
LANDLINE & MULTI-CHANNEL TV
11
4
**
11
25
43
4
8
**
**
**
38
9
**
**
**
2
**
3
**
6%
4%
**
7%
7%
4%
4%
6%
**
**
**
3%
7%
**
**
**
4%
**
4%
**
ab
25%
8%
**
23%
55%
92%
9%
18%
**
**
**
82%
19%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
MOBILE & BROADBAND
2
1
**
1
10
30
5
6
**
**
**
29
1
**
**
**
1
**
-
**
1%
1%
**
1%
3%
3%
5%
4%
**
**
**
3%
*%
**
**
**
1%
**
-%
**
4%
3%
**
3%
30%
86%
14%
18%
**
**
**
83%
2%
**
**
**
2%
**
-%
**
LANDLINE, BROADBAND, MOBILE & MULTI-CHANNEL TV
9
-
**
-
5
32
1
2
**
**
**
31
-
**
**
**
-
**
-
**
5%
-%
**
-%
1%
3%
1%
1%
**
**
**
3%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
bd
29%
-%
**
-%
16%
98%
3%
6%
**
**
**
95%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Components Of Package - I.E. Simple Bundle
Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
~n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
328
198
74
272
658
1889
115
261
34
41
87
1746
187
28
34
23
117
70
109
78
Effective Weighted Sample
232
119
53
172
441
1309
100
179
24
27
64
1227
146
15
20
19
102
55
86
61
Total
199
103
47
151
377
1163
109
138
18
20
44
1142
136
7
5
2
71
65
77
60
16%
8%
**
12%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
**
89%
11%
**
**
**
6%
**
6%
**
LANDLINE, MOBILE &
BROADBAND
2
5
**
6
10
21
-
3
**
**
**
18
6
**
**
**
2
**
4
**
1%
5%
**
4%
3%
2%
-%
2%
**
**
**
2%
4%
**
**
**
3%
**
5%
**
a
a
7%
25%
**
29%
46%
100%
-%
16%
**
**
**
84%
28%
**
**
**
10%
**
18%
**
LANDLINE & DIAL-UP
1
-
**
1
2
2
-
1
**
**
**
1
1
**
**
**
1
**
1
**
*%
-%
**
1%
1%
*%
-%
1%
**
**
**
*%
1%
**
**
**
1%
**
1%
**
l
36%
-%
**
45%
81%
100%
-%
48%
**
**
**
55%
45%
**
**
**
45%
**
45%
**
OTHER
10
2
**
4
11
24
3
6
**
**
**
22
3
**
**
**
3
**
-
**
5%
2%
**
3%
3%
2%
3%
4%
**
**
**
2%
2%
**
**
**
4%
**
-%
**
hl
l
s
35%
7%
**
15%
40%
89%
11%
21%
**
**
**
80%
12%
**
**
**
10%
**
-%
**
DON'T KNOW
1
1
**
1
3
9
3
2
**
**
**
10
1
**
**
**
-
**
1
**
*%
1%
**
*%
1%
1%
2%
1%
**
**
**
1%
*%
**
**
**
-%
**
1%
**
5%
5%
**
5%
28%
74%
23%
15%
**
**
**
85%
5%
**
**
**
-%
**
5%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary Of Package
Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
~n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
328
198
74
272
658
1889
115
261
34
41
87
1746
187
28
34
23
117
70
109
78
Effective Weighted Sample
232
119
53
172
441
1309
100
179
24
27
64
1227
146
15
20
19
102
55
86
61
Total
199
103
47
151
377
1163
109
138
18
20
44
1142
136
7
5
2
71
65
77
60
16%
8%
**
12%
29%
91%
9%
11%
**
**
**
89%
11%
**
**
**
6%
**
6%
**
DOUBLE PLAY
121
75
**
115
252
698
67
90
**
**
**
682
104
**
**
**
55
**
59
**
61%
73%
**
77%
67%
60%
62%
65%
**
**
**
60%
76%
**
**
**
78%
**
76%
**
a
a
a
16%
10%
**
15%
33%
91%
9%
12%
**
**
**
89%
14%
**
**
**
7%
**
8%
**
TRIPLE PLAY
66
28
**
35
116
418
38
44
**
**
**
413
32
**
**
**
16
**
18
**
33%
27%
**
23%
31%
36%
35%
32%
**
**
**
36%
23%
**
**
**
22%
**
23%
**
cd
15%
6%
**
8%
25%
92%
8%
10%
**
**
**
90%
7%
**
**
**
3%
**
4%
**
QUAD PLAY
10
*
**
*
6
38
1
2
**
**
**
36
-
**
**
**
-
**
-
**
5%
*%
**
*%
2%
3%
*%
1%
**
**
**
3%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
bd
26%
*%
**
*%
15%
99%
1%
5%
**
**
**
95%
-%
**
**
**
-%
**
-%
**
Don't know
1
1
**
1
4
9
4
2
**
**
**
11
1
**
**
**
-
**
1
**
1%
1%
**
*%
1%
1%
3%
2%
**
**
**
1%
*%
**
**
**
-%
**
1%
**
f
10%
5%
**
5%
30%
72%
28%
18%
**
**
**
82%
5%
**
**
**
-%
**
5%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary Table For Purchasing Behaviour - Fixed Broadband
Base : Those with fixed broadband at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
*c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
~p
q
*r
s
*t
Unweighted total
406
241
72
313
776
2406
146
329
40
47
101
2227
217
32
38
26
140
77
139
78
Effective Weighted Sample
281
146
50
196
514
1641
126
217
26
31
73
1544
167
18
22
21
123
61
110
60
Total
243
127
48
175
450
1476
136
177
20
26
49
1444
158
8
6
2
83
76
94
64
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
91%
8%
11%
**
**
3%
89%
10%
**
**
**
5%
**
6%
**
FIXED BROADBAND
STANDALONE
71
31
**
42
124
414
38
61
**
**
14
393
36
**
**
**
18
**
22
**
29%
25%
**
24%
27%
28%
28%
34%
**
**
28%
27%
23%
**
**
**
22%
**
23%
**
l
16%
7%
**
9%
27%
92%
8%
13%
**
**
3%
87%
8%
**
**
**
4%
**
5%
**
FIXED BROADBAND BUNDLE
172
96
**
133
326
1062
98
116
**
**
35
1052
122
**
**
**
64
**
72
**
71%
75%
**
76%
73%
72%
72%
66%
**
**
72%
73%
77%
**
**
**
78%
**
77%
**
h
15%
8%
**
11%
28%
91%
8%
10%
**
**
3%
90%
10%
**
**
**
6%
**
6%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary Table For Purchasing Behaviour - Fixed Line
Base : Those with a landline phone at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
549
421
330
751
1304
3010
162
592
94
114
217
2585
461
98
106
86
243
218
232
229
Effective Weighted Sample
383
247
219
465
850
2049
140
386
61
70
153
1795
361
60
64
71
212
169
181
181
Total
321
194
185
379
698
1746
152
290
40
51
102
1613
322
30
18
8
141
180
158
163
17%
10%
10%
20%
37%
92%
8%
15%
**
3%
5%
85%
17%
**
1%
**
7%
9%
8%
9%
FIXED LINE STANDALONE
130
95
138
232
351
676
59
165
**
31
60
568
189
**
13
**
72
116
84
105
40%
49%
75%
61%
50%
39%
39%
57%
**
61%
59%
35%
59%
**
73%
**
51%
64%
53%
64%
a
abd
ab
l
l
l
l
m
m
m
qs
qs
18%
13%
19%
32%
48%
92%
8%
22%
**
4%
8%
77%
26%
**
2%
**
10%
16%
11%
14%
FIXED LINE BUNDLE
191
99
47
146
348
1070
93
125
**
20
42
1045
133
**
5
**
69
64
75
59
60%
51%
25%
39%
50%
61%
61%
43%
**
39%
41%
65%
41%
**
27%
**
49%
36%
47%
36%
bcd
cd
c
hijk
nop
rt
rt
16%
9%
4%
13%
30%
92%
8%
11%
**
2%
4%
89%
11%
**
*%
**
6%
5%
6%
5%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary Table For Purchasing Behaviour - Mobile Broadband
Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
*g
*h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
39
19
3
22
125
399
31
50
5
4
14
381
13
3
2
4
11
2
8
5
Effective Weighted Sample
27
13
1
12
83
279
26
33
4
2
10
271
10
2
2
3
10
2
6
4
Total
24
8
2
10
70
258
31
30
4
1
6
260
9
1
*
*
6
3
6
3
**
**
**
**
24%
89%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
MOBILE BROADBAND
STANDALONE
**
**
**
**
57
223
**
**
**
**
**
226
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
82%
86%
**
**
**
**
**
87%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
23%
90%
**
**
**
**
**
91%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
MOBILE BROADBAND BUNDLE
**
**
**
**
13
35
**
**
**
**
**
34
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
18%
14%
**
**
**
**
**
13%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
32%
88%
**
**
**
**
**
85%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QP1. SHOWCARD During an average week, on how many days do you listen to the radio (including listening at home, in the car, at work, via mobile phone, personal stereo)? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
7 days a week
(7.0)
188
110
92
202
380
1035
57
151
24
26
53
945
176
11
11
**
86
90
104
73
54%
54%
49%
51%
44%
50%
29%
45%
54%
50%
47%
49%
53%
34%
57%
**
58%
48%
65%
42%
g
n
n
n
rt
rt
17%
10%
8%
19%
35%
95%
5%
14%
2%
2%
5%
86%
16%
1%
1%
**
8%
8%
9%
7%
6 days a week
(6.0)
11
6
6
11
21
57
7
8
1
2
5
54
9
1
1
**
2
8
4
6
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
3%
3%
2%
2%
3%
4%
3%
3%
2%
5%
**
1%
4%
2%
3%
17%
9%
9%
18%
34%
91%
11%
13%
1%
3%
7%
87%
15%
1%
1%
**
3%
12%
6%
9%
5 days a week
(5.0)
25
11
7
18
53
163
11
19
1
3
7
154
14
2
1
**
4
11
5
9
7%
5%
4%
5%
6%
8%
6%
6%
1%
5%
6%
8%
4%
7%
3%
**
2%
6%
3%
5%
i
15%
6%
4%
10%
31%
94%
7%
11%
*%
1%
4%
89%
8%
1%
*%
**
2%
6%
3%
5%
3 or 4 days a week
(3.5)
21
16
9
25
64
151
17
18
2
2
7
151
20
3
2
**
7
13
9
11
6%
8%
5%
6%
7%
7%
9%
5%
4%
4%
7%
8%
6%
8%
8%
**
5%
7%
6%
6%
13%
9%
6%
15%
38%
90%
10%
11%
1%
1%
4%
89%
12%
2%
1%
**
4%
8%
5%
7%
1 or 2 days a week
(1.5)
32
15
24
39
92
176
14
40
5
5
11
154
32
5
1
**
15
18
12
21
9%
7%
13%
10%
11%
9%
7%
12%
10%
10%
10%
8%
10%
16%
4%
**
10%
9%
7%
12%
l
o
17%
8%
12%
20%
47%
91%
7%
21%
2%
3%
6%
80%
17%
3%
*%
**
8%
9%
6%
11%
Less often
(0.5)
15
11
8
19
41
98
10
16
3
2
5
91
16
1
1
**
10
6
6
10
4%
6%
4%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
8%
3%
5%
5%
5%
4%
5%
**
7%
3%
4%
6%
14%
10%
7%
18%
38%
91%
9%
15%
3%
1%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
10%
5%
6%
9%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QP1. SHOWCARD During an average week, on how many days do you listen to the radio (including listening at home, in the car, at work, via mobile phone, personal stereo)? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Never/ do not listen to
the radio
(0.0)
54
35
43
78
216
373
79
82
9
13
25
371
65
8
3
**
23
41
21
44
16%
17%
23%
20%
25%
18%
41%
24%
20%
24%
22%
19%
19%
27%
18%
**
16%
22%
13%
25%
a
f
l
s
qs
12%
8%
9%
17%
48%
82%
17%
18%
2%
3%
6%
82%
14%
2%
1%
**
5%
9%
5%
10%
Don't know
-
-
*
*
1
3
-
1
*
*
*
2
-
*
*
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
*%
*%
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
1%
*%
*%
-%
1%
*%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
l
m
-%
-%
19%
19%
25%
100%
-%
27%
3%
19%
3%
69%
-%
16%
3%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Mean number of days during an average week
4.7
4.6
4.2
4.4
4.0
4.5
3.0
4.0
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.4
4.5
3.5
4.8
**
4.6
4.3
5.2
3.8
c
g
h
n
n
n
t
rt
Standard deviation
2.86
2.93
3.08
3.01
3.06
2.92
3.06
3.09
3.16
3.11
3.03
2.94
3.01
3.03
2.99
**
3.01
3.01
2.76
3.09
Standard error
.12
.14
.17
.11
.08
.05
.21
.12
.31
.28
.19
.05
.14
.30
.29
**
.19
.20
.18
.20
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp2A (Qp11A). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Access The Radio Via - Radio Set With Am Stereo - Either At Home Or On Portable Radio. (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
j
k
l
m
*n
o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
485
369
260
629
1214
2838
122
511
79
86
191
2452
390
72
88
79
213
177
210
180
Effective Weighted Sample
339
217
175
392
788
1942
104
336
50
55
134
1704
308
43
53
65
186
138
164
144
Total
293
169
146
315
652
1680
116
252
34
40
88
1550
269
23
15
8
124
145
140
129
16%
9%
8%
17%
36%
93%
6%
14%
**
**
5%
86%
15%
**
**
**
7%
8%
8%
7%
Every day
44
32
25
57
104
228
10
43
**
**
9
196
47
**
**
**
17
30
21
26
15%
19%
17%
18%
16%
14%
9%
17%
**
**
11%
13%
17%
**
**
**
14%
21%
15%
20%
l
kl
18%
13%
10%
24%
44%
96%
4%
18%
**
**
4%
82%
20%
**
**
**
7%
13%
9%
11%
At least weekly
22
10
12
23
53
123
9
21
**
**
6
112
19
**
**
**
6
13
6
13
7%
6%
8%
7%
8%
7%
8%
9%
**
**
7%
7%
7%
**
**
**
5%
9%
4%
10%
16%
8%
9%
17%
40%
92%
7%
16%
**
**
5%
84%
14%
**
**
**
5%
10%
5%
10%
At least monthly
6
6
4
9
18
41
6
11
**
**
5
36
8
**
**
**
6
2
5
3
2%
3%
2%
3%
3%
2%
5%
5%
**
**
5%
2%
3%
**
**
**
5%
1%
4%
2%
l
l
l
13%
12%
8%
20%
38%
89%
12%
24%
**
**
10%
77%
17%
**
**
**
13%
4%
12%
5%
Have tried it once
6
3
4
7
13
32
1
3
**
**
2
29
4
**
**
**
3
2
1
3
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
**
**
2%
2%
2%
**
**
**
2%
1%
1%
3%
m
m
18%
10%
11%
21%
41%
98%
3%
10%
**
**
6%
89%
13%
**
**
**
8%
5%
3%
10%
Never
165
91
80
171
358
946
68
129
**
**
48
886
150
**
**
**
70
80
88
62
57%
54%
55%
54%
55%
56%
58%
51%
**
**
55%
57%
56%
**
**
**
56%
55%
63%
48%
h
n
t
16%
9%
8%
17%
35%
93%
7%
13%
**
**
5%
87%
15%
**
**
**
7%
8%
9%
6%
Do not have access to device
49
27
22
49
106
309
23
44
**
**
18
290
41
**
**
**
22
19
18
23
17%
16%
15%
15%
16%
18%
20%
18%
**
**
21%
19%
15%
**
**
**
18%
13%
13%
18%
p
p
15%
8%
7%
15%
32%
93%
7%
13%
**
**
5%
87%
12%
**
**
**
7%
6%
5%
7%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp2B (Qp11B). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Access The Radio Via - Radio Set With Fm Stereo - Either At Home Or On Portable Radio. (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
j
k
l
m
*n
o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
485
369
260
629
1214
2838
122
511
79
86
191
2452
390
72
88
79
213
177
210
180
Effective Weighted Sample
339
217
175
392
788
1942
104
336
50
55
134
1704
308
43
53
65
186
138
164
144
Total
293
169
146
315
652
1680
116
252
34
40
88
1550
269
23
15
8
124
145
140
129
16%
9%
8%
17%
36%
93%
6%
14%
**
**
5%
86%
15%
**
**
**
7%
8%
8%
7%
Every day
106
78
66
143
247
575
26
100
**
**
40
501
125
**
**
**
55
70
69
56
36%
46%
45%
46%
38%
34%
22%
40%
**
**
46%
32%
46%
**
**
**
45%
48%
49%
43%
a
a
g
l
l
l
l
n
n
n
18%
13%
11%
24%
41%
96%
4%
17%
**
**
7%
83%
21%
**
**
**
9%
12%
11%
9%
At least weekly
45
26
28
53
115
276
17
51
**
**
15
244
44
**
**
**
15
29
18
25
15%
15%
19%
17%
18%
16%
15%
20%
**
**
17%
16%
16%
**
**
**
12%
20%
13%
20%
l
p
q
15%
9%
9%
18%
39%
93%
6%
17%
**
**
5%
83%
15%
**
**
**
5%
10%
6%
9%
At least monthly
16
9
8
17
32
91
4
18
**
**
7
78
14
**
**
**
6
8
7
8
5%
5%
6%
5%
5%
5%
4%
7%
**
**
9%
5%
5%
**
**
**
5%
6%
5%
6%
m
17%
9%
9%
18%
33%
96%
4%
18%
**
**
8%
82%
15%
**
**
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Have tried it once
4
2
2
5
9
26
-
5
**
**
1
21
3
**
**
**
2
1
2
1
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
-%
2%
**
**
1%
1%
1%
**
**
**
2%
*%
1%
1%
l
16%
8%
10%
18%
37%
100%
-%
20%
**
**
5%
81%
10%
**
**
**
8%
3%
7%
4%
Never
84
40
28
68
178
501
51
49
**
**
14
501
59
**
**
**
33
25
31
27
29%
24%
19%
22%
27%
30%
44%
19%
**
**
16%
32%
22%
**
**
**
27%
17%
22%
21%
cd
f
hjk
o
o
r
15%
7%
5%
12%
32%
91%
9%
9%
**
**
3%
91%
11%
**
**
**
6%
5%
6%
5%
Do not have access to device
38
15
14
28
71
211
18
29
**
**
10
205
25
**
**
**
12
13
13
12
13%
9%
10%
9%
11%
13%
16%
11%
**
**
12%
13%
9%
**
**
**
10%
9%
9%
9%
16%
6%
6%
12%
30%
91%
8%
12%
**
**
4%
88%
11%
**
**
**
5%
6%
6%
5%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp2C (Qp11C). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Access The Radio Via - Mobile Phone. (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
j
k
l
m
*n
o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
485
369
260
629
1214
2838
122
511
79
86
191
2452
390
72
88
79
213
177
210
180
Effective Weighted Sample
339
217
175
392
788
1942
104
336
50
55
134
1704
308
43
53
65
186
138
164
144
Total
293
169
146
315
652
1680
116
252
34
40
88
1550
269
23
15
8
124
145
140
129
16%
9%
8%
17%
36%
93%
6%
14%
**
**
5%
86%
15%
**
**
**
7%
8%
8%
7%
Every day
1
1
2
2
8
35
8
2
**
**
1
40
2
**
**
**
1
1
1
1
*%
*%
1%
1%
1%
2%
7%
1%
**
**
1%
3%
1%
**
**
**
*%
1%
*%
1%
f
h
3%
1%
4%
6%
19%
83%
18%
5%
**
**
2%
95%
5%
**
**
**
1%
4%
1%
4%
At least weekly
8
2
*
2
21
81
9
8
**
**
*
83
1
**
**
**
*
1
*
1
3%
1%
*%
1%
3%
5%
8%
3%
**
**
*%
5%
1%
**
**
**
*%
1%
*%
1%
cd
k
k
m
9%
2%
*%
2%
23%
90%
10%
9%
**
**
*%
91%
2%
**
**
**
*%
1%
*%
1%
At least monthly
8
*
*
*
16
75
7
7
**
**
*
76
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
3%
*%
*%
*%
2%
4%
6%
3%
**
**
*%
5%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
bcd
k
m
10%
*%
*%
*%
19%
90%
9%
8%
**
**
*%
92%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Have tried it once
4
1
-
1
11
67
7
5
**
**
-
69
1
**
**
**
1
*
1
-
2%
1%
-%
*%
2%
4%
6%
2%
**
**
-%
4%
*%
**
**
**
1%
*%
1%
-%
k
k
hk
6%
2%
-%
2%
15%
91%
9%
7%
**
**
-%
93%
2%
**
**
**
1%
*%
2%
-%
Never
231
131
87
218
459
1218
71
174
**
**
60
1120
190
**
**
**
92
98
100
90
79%
78%
60%
69%
70%
73%
61%
69%
**
**
69%
72%
71%
**
**
**
75%
67%
71%
70%
cd
cd
c
g
o
no
18%
10%
7%
17%
36%
94%
6%
13%
**
**
5%
87%
15%
**
**
**
7%
8%
8%
7%
Do not have access to device
39
34
57
91
137
204
15
56
**
**
26
162
75
**
**
**
30
45
38
36
13%
20%
39%
29%
21%
12%
13%
22%
**
**
30%
10%
28%
**
**
**
24%
31%
27%
28%
a
abd
ab
l
l
l
l
p
p
18%
16%
26%
42%
63%
93%
7%
25%
**
**
12%
74%
34%
**
**
**
14%
21%
18%
17%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp2D (Qp11D). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Access The Radio Via - Digital Radio Through Tv. (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
j
k
l
m
*n
o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
485
369
260
629
1214
2838
122
511
79
86
191
2452
390
72
88
79
213
177
210
180
Effective Weighted Sample
339
217
175
392
788
1942
104
336
50
55
134
1704
308
43
53
65
186
138
164
144
Total
293
169
146
315
652
1680
116
252
34
40
88
1550
269
23
15
8
124
145
140
129
16%
9%
8%
17%
36%
93%
6%
14%
**
**
5%
86%
15%
**
**
**
7%
8%
8%
7%
Every day
11
7
2
8
42
84
8
16
**
**
3
76
8
**
**
**
4
4
6
2
4%
4%
1%
3%
6%
5%
7%
6%
**
**
3%
5%
3%
**
**
**
3%
3%
4%
1%
ik
12%
7%
2%
9%
45%
91%
8%
17%
**
**
3%
83%
8%
**
**
**
4%
4%
6%
2%
At least weekly
27
15
6
21
69
196
15
21
**
**
8
190
18
**
**
**
10
8
11
7
9%
9%
4%
7%
11%
12%
13%
8%
**
**
9%
12%
7%
**
**
**
8%
5%
8%
5%
c
h
13%
7%
3%
10%
33%
93%
7%
10%
**
**
4%
90%
8%
**
**
**
5%
4%
5%
3%
At least monthly
30
11
9
21
49
158
10
20
**
**
4
148
18
**
**
**
10
8
12
5
10%
7%
6%
7%
7%
9%
9%
8%
**
**
4%
10%
7%
**
**
**
8%
5%
9%
4%
k
o
o
18%
7%
6%
12%
29%
94%
6%
12%
**
**
2%
88%
10%
**
**
**
6%
5%
7%
3%
Have tried it once
29
11
2
13
40
134
12
19
**
**
5
127
12
**
**
**
10
2
7
5
10%
7%
1%
4%
6%
8%
10%
8%
**
**
6%
8%
4%
**
**
**
8%
2%
5%
4%
cd
c
r
20%
8%
1%
9%
28%
92%
8%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
8%
**
**
**
7%
2%
5%
3%
Never
172
113
97
210
387
1009
58
147
**
**
54
922
179
**
**
**
77
102
87
93
59%
67%
66%
67%
59%
60%
50%
58%
**
**
61%
59%
67%
**
**
**
63%
70%
62%
72%
a
g
16%
11%
9%
20%
36%
95%
5%
14%
**
**
5%
86%
17%
**
**
**
7%
10%
8%
9%
Do not have access to device
23
12
31
42
65
100
14
28
**
**
14
86
35
**
**
**
14
22
18
18
8%
7%
21%
13%
10%
6%
12%
11%
**
**
16%
6%
13%
**
**
**
11%
15%
13%
14%
abd
ab
f
l
l
l
l
n
20%
10%
26%
37%
57%
86%
12%
24%
**
**
12%
75%
31%
**
**
**
12%
19%
15%
15%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp2E (Qp11E). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Access The Radio Via - Digital Radio Through The Internet. (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
j
k
l
m
*n
o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
485
369
260
629
1214
2838
122
511
79
86
191
2452
390
72
88
79
213
177
210
180
Effective Weighted Sample
339
217
175
392
788
1942
104
336
50
55
134
1704
308
43
53
65
186
138
164
144
Total
293
169
146
315
652
1680
116
252
34
40
88
1550
269
23
15
8
124
145
140
129
16%
9%
8%
17%
36%
93%
6%
14%
**
**
5%
86%
15%
**
**
**
7%
8%
8%
7%
Every day
8
2
-
2
12
45
4
6
**
**
*
43
2
**
**
**
2
-
2
-
3%
1%
-%
1%
2%
3%
4%
2%
**
**
*%
3%
1%
**
**
**
1%
-%
1%
-%
cd
16%
4%
-%
4%
24%
92%
9%
12%
**
**
*%
89%
4%
**
**
**
4%
-%
4%
-%
At least weekly
21
3
3
6
26
108
10
10
**
**
3
110
5
**
**
**
3
2
3
3
7%
2%
2%
2%
4%
6%
9%
4%
**
**
3%
7%
2%
**
**
**
3%
1%
2%
2%
bcd
hj
17%
3%
2%
5%
22%
91%
9%
8%
**
**
3%
92%
4%
**
**
**
3%
2%
2%
2%
At least monthly
14
4
1
5
17
94
7
6
**
**
*
96
5
**
**
**
1
3
5
-
5%
3%
*%
2%
3%
6%
6%
2%
**
**
1%
6%
2%
**
**
**
1%
2%
3%
-%
cd
hk
t
14%
4%
1%
5%
17%
93%
7%
6%
**
**
*%
95%
5%
**
**
**
1%
3%
5%
-%
Have tried it once
10
5
-
5
14
77
10
7
**
**
1
82
4
**
**
**
4
-
4
-
3%
3%
-%
1%
2%
5%
9%
3%
**
**
1%
5%
2%
**
**
**
3%
-%
3%
-%
c
c
f
k
k
rt
rt
11%
5%
-%
5%
16%
87%
12%
8%
**
**
1%
92%
5%
**
**
**
5%
-%
5%
-%
Never
190
111
75
186
394
1086
63
148
**
**
48
1005
162
**
**
**
78
83
88
74
65%
66%
52%
59%
61%
65%
55%
59%
**
**
54%
65%
60%
**
**
**
63%
57%
63%
57%
c
c
g
hik
no
17%
10%
7%
16%
34%
94%
5%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
14%
**
**
**
7%
7%
8%
6%
Do not have access to device
49
44
67
111
189
270
20
75
**
**
36
215
92
**
**
**
35
57
39
52
17%
26%
46%
35%
29%
16%
17%
30%
**
**
41%
14%
34%
**
**
**
28%
39%
28%
41%
a
abd
ab
l
l
l
hl
p
qs
qs
17%
15%
23%
38%
65%
93%
7%
26%
**
**
12%
74%
32%
**
**
**
12%
20%
14%
18%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp2F (Qp11F). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Access The Radio Via - Dab Radio Set. (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
j
k
l
m
*n
o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
485
369
260
629
1214
2838
122
511
79
86
191
2452
390
72
88
79
213
177
210
180
Effective Weighted Sample
339
217
175
392
788
1942
104
336
50
55
134
1704
308
43
53
65
186
138
164
144
Total
293
169
146
315
652
1680
116
252
34
40
88
1550
269
23
15
8
124
145
140
129
16%
9%
8%
17%
36%
93%
6%
14%
**
**
5%
86%
15%
**
**
**
7%
8%
8%
7%
Every day
75
40
31
71
98
332
11
38
**
**
15
306
65
**
**
**
32
32
46
19
26%
24%
21%
22%
15%
20%
10%
15%
**
**
17%
20%
24%
**
**
**
26%
22%
33%
14%
g
p
t
rt
22%
12%
9%
21%
28%
96%
3%
11%
**
**
4%
89%
19%
**
**
**
9%
9%
13%
5%
At least weekly
30
11
9
20
42
151
8
23
**
**
6
140
19
**
**
**
9
10
12
7
10%
7%
6%
6%
7%
9%
7%
9%
**
**
7%
9%
7%
**
**
**
8%
7%
8%
6%
18%
7%
5%
13%
26%
94%
5%
14%
**
**
4%
87%
12%
**
**
**
6%
6%
7%
5%
At least monthly
5
1
1
3
8
34
1
4
**
**
1
31
2
**
**
**
2
1
1
1
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
**
**
1%
2%
1%
**
**
**
1%
*%
1%
1%
14%
4%
4%
8%
22%
97%
3%
11%
**
**
2%
89%
7%
**
**
**
5%
2%
3%
4%
Have tried it once
3
*
-
*
3
15
1
1
**
**
-
15
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
1%
*%
-%
*%
*%
1%
1%
*%
**
**
-%
1%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
d
21%
1%
-%
1%
16%
92%
7%
7%
**
**
-%
93%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Never
85
49
46
95
205
502
44
69
**
**
21
477
80
**
**
**
32
47
34
46
29%
29%
32%
30%
31%
30%
38%
27%
**
**
24%
31%
30%
**
**
**
26%
33%
24%
36%
mn
s
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
92%
8%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
15%
**
**
**
6%
9%
6%
8%
Do not have access to device
95
67
59
126
296
647
51
117
**
**
46
580
103
**
**
**
48
56
48
56
33%
39%
40%
40%
45%
39%
44%
47%
**
**
52%
37%
38%
**
**
**
39%
38%
34%
43%
a
l
l
m
14%
10%
8%
18%
42%
93%
7%
17%
**
**
7%
83%
15%
**
**
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp2G (Qp11G) Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Access The Radio Via - A Car Radio (Fm). (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
j
k
l
m
*n
o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
485
369
260
629
1214
2838
122
511
79
86
191
2452
390
72
88
79
213
177
210
180
Effective Weighted Sample
339
217
175
392
788
1942
104
336
50
55
134
1704
308
43
53
65
186
138
164
144
Total
293
169
146
315
652
1680
116
252
34
40
88
1550
269
23
15
8
124
145
140
129
16%
9%
8%
17%
36%
93%
6%
14%
**
**
5%
86%
15%
**
**
**
7%
8%
8%
7%
Every day
111
54
15
69
154
670
32
70
**
**
18
636
64
**
**
**
41
23
42
22
38%
32%
11%
22%
24%
40%
28%
28%
**
**
21%
41%
24%
**
**
**
33%
16%
30%
17%
cd
cd
c
g
hijk
no
no
rt
rt
16%
8%
2%
10%
22%
95%
5%
10%
**
**
3%
91%
9%
**
**
**
6%
3%
6%
3%
At least weekly
81
42
26
68
156
420
36
56
**
**
17
403
60
**
**
**
32
28
39
21
28%
25%
18%
22%
24%
25%
31%
22%
**
**
20%
26%
22%
**
**
**
26%
19%
28%
16%
c
i
t
t
18%
9%
6%
15%
34%
92%
8%
12%
**
**
4%
88%
13%
**
**
**
7%
6%
9%
5%
At least monthly
8
10
7
17
24
60
8
13
**
**
5
55
14
**
**
**
8
7
7
8
3%
6%
5%
5%
4%
4%
7%
5%
**
**
5%
4%
5%
**
**
**
6%
5%
5%
6%
12%
14%
10%
25%
36%
88%
12%
19%
**
**
7%
81%
21%
**
**
**
11%
10%
10%
11%
Have tried it once
2
2
3
5
7
13
1
4
**
**
1
11
4
**
**
**
3
1
1
2
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
**
**
1%
1%
1%
**
**
**
3%
*%
1%
2%
l
15%
14%
17%
32%
45%
88%
8%
27%
**
**
6%
74%
26%
**
**
**
21%
5%
10%
16%
Never
51
30
44
74
135
257
20
45
**
**
19
232
59
**
**
**
19
40
25
34
17%
18%
30%
23%
21%
15%
18%
18%
**
**
21%
15%
22%
**
**
**
15%
28%
18%
26%
ab
a
l
qs
q
18%
11%
16%
26%
49%
92%
7%
16%
**
**
7%
83%
21%
**
**
**
7%
14%
9%
12%
Do not have access to device
39
32
51
82
175
260
18
64
**
**
29
212
68
**
**
**
21
47
26
42
13%
19%
35%
26%
27%
15%
15%
26%
**
**
33%
14%
25%
**
**
**
17%
32%
18%
33%
abd
ab
l
l
l
l
p
mp
p
qs
qs
14%
11%
18%
30%
63%
94%
6%
23%
**
**
10%
76%
24%
**
**
**
8%
17%
9%
15%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp2H (Qp11H) Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Access The Radio Via - A Car Radio (Am). (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
j
k
l
m
*n
o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
485
369
260
629
1214
2838
122
511
79
86
191
2452
390
72
88
79
213
177
210
180
Effective Weighted Sample
339
217
175
392
788
1942
104
336
50
55
134
1704
308
43
53
65
186
138
164
144
Total
293
169
146
315
652
1680
116
252
34
40
88
1550
269
23
15
8
124
145
140
129
16%
9%
8%
17%
36%
93%
6%
14%
**
**
5%
86%
15%
**
**
**
7%
8%
8%
7%
Every day
36
15
6
21
44
171
11
19
**
**
3
164
19
**
**
**
12
6
12
7
12%
9%
4%
7%
7%
10%
9%
8%
**
**
4%
11%
7%
**
**
**
10%
4%
8%
5%
cd
ik
20%
8%
4%
12%
24%
94%
6%
10%
**
**
2%
91%
10%
**
**
**
7%
3%
6%
4%
At least weekly
35
13
5
18
48
155
26
20
**
**
7
163
15
**
**
**
6
9
9
5
12%
8%
4%
6%
7%
9%
23%
8%
**
**
8%
11%
5%
**
**
**
5%
6%
7%
4%
cd
f
19%
7%
3%
10%
26%
85%
14%
11%
**
**
4%
89%
8%
**
**
**
3%
5%
5%
3%
At least monthly
8
4
*
4
9
36
6
6
**
**
2
37
2
**
**
**
2
*
*
2
3%
3%
*%
1%
1%
2%
5%
2%
**
**
2%
2%
1%
**
**
**
1%
*%
*%
2%
c
c
m
m
20%
10%
*%
10%
21%
82%
13%
14%
**
**
4%
86%
5%
**
**
**
4%
1%
1%
5%
Have tried it once
2
2
2
4
11
18
1
4
**
**
2
16
2
**
**
**
2
-
2
-
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
**
**
2%
1%
1%
**
**
**
2%
-%
2%
-%
mn
11%
10%
11%
22%
54%
94%
6%
19%
**
**
8%
81%
12%
**
**
**
12%
-%
12%
-%
Never
144
93
72
165
320
877
46
120
**
**
40
803
146
**
**
**
69
77
77
69
49%
55%
49%
53%
49%
52%
40%
48%
**
**
46%
52%
54%
**
**
**
56%
53%
55%
54%
g
n
n
16%
10%
8%
18%
35%
95%
5%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
16%
**
**
**
7%
8%
8%
8%
Do not have access to device
67
42
60
102
220
423
26
82
**
**
34
366
85
**
**
**
32
53
40
46
23%
25%
41%
32%
34%
25%
22%
33%
**
**
39%
24%
32%
**
**
**
26%
36%
28%
35%
abd
a
l
l
l
p
mp
p
q
15%
9%
13%
23%
49%
94%
6%
18%
**
**
8%
81%
19%
**
**
**
7%
12%
9%
10%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp2I (Qp11I) Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Access The Radio Via - A Car Radio (Dab). (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
j
k
l
m
*n
o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
485
369
260
629
1214
2838
122
511
79
86
191
2452
390
72
88
79
213
177
210
180
Effective Weighted Sample
339
217
175
392
788
1942
104
336
50
55
134
1704
308
43
53
65
186
138
164
144
Total
293
169
146
315
652
1680
116
252
34
40
88
1550
269
23
15
8
124
145
140
129
16%
9%
8%
17%
36%
93%
6%
14%
**
**
5%
86%
15%
**
**
**
7%
8%
8%
7%
Every day
13
5
1
7
12
68
3
10
**
**
3
62
6
**
**
**
4
2
4
2
4%
3%
1%
2%
2%
4%
2%
4%
**
**
4%
4%
2%
**
**
**
4%
1%
3%
2%
c
18%
8%
2%
9%
17%
96%
4%
13%
**
**
5%
87%
9%
**
**
**
6%
2%
6%
3%
At least weekly
5
4
1
5
10
29
2
3
**
**
2
28
4
**
**
**
-
4
3
2
2%
3%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
**
**
2%
2%
2%
**
**
**
-%
3%
2%
1%
q
15%
14%
3%
17%
33%
95%
6%
8%
**
**
5%
92%
14%
**
**
**
-%
14%
9%
5%
At least monthly
1
*
-
*
*
4
-
1
**
**
-
4
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
**
-%
*%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
24%
1%
-%
1%
10%
100%
-%
16%
**
**
-%
84%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Have tried it once
-
-
-
-
1
1
2
-
**
**
-
3
-
**
**
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
*%
2%
-%
**
**
-%
*%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
-%
-%
-%
-%
37%
35%
62%
-%
**
**
-%
100%
-%
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Never
116
60
56
116
243
650
41
89
**
**
29
603
97
**
**
**
46
51
47
50
40%
36%
38%
37%
37%
39%
36%
35%
**
**
33%
39%
36%
**
**
**
37%
35%
33%
39%
mn
17%
9%
8%
17%
35%
94%
6%
13%
**
**
4%
87%
14%
**
**
**
7%
7%
7%
7%
Do not have access to device
158
99
88
187
386
927
68
150
**
**
54
850
162
**
**
**
73
89
86
76
54%
59%
60%
59%
59%
55%
58%
60%
**
**
62%
55%
60%
**
**
**
59%
61%
62%
59%
p
p
16%
10%
9%
19%
39%
93%
7%
15%
**
**
5%
85%
16%
**
**
**
7%
9%
9%
8%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary - Ever Use Digital Radio
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
YES, EVER USED
168
77
54
131
320
959
67
123
13
20
38
908
117
7
5
**
60
57
75
42
48%
38%
28%
33%
37%
47%
34%
37%
31%
37%
34%
47%
35%
21%
27%
**
41%
31%
47%
24%
bcd
c
g
hik
np
rt
rt
16%
7%
5%
13%
31%
93%
7%
12%
1%
2%
4%
88%
11%
1%
*%
**
6%
6%
7%
4%
YES, USE AT LEAST MONTHLY
154
74
53
127
293
885
61
112
12
17
34
838
114
7
4
**
57
57
74
40
44%
36%
28%
32%
34%
43%
31%
34%
27%
33%
30%
44%
34%
21%
23%
**
39%
31%
46%
23%
bcd
c
g
hik
np
t
rt
16%
8%
6%
13%
31%
93%
6%
12%
1%
2%
4%
88%
12%
1%
*%
**
6%
6%
8%
4%
YES, USE AT LEAST WEEKLY
142
68
47
115
256
767
47
100
10
15
33
719
105
4
4
**
51
54
69
37
41%
33%
25%
29%
29%
37%
24%
30%
23%
29%
29%
37%
31%
14%
23%
**
35%
29%
43%
21%
bcd
c
g
hik
np
t
rt
17%
8%
6%
14%
31%
94%
6%
12%
1%
2%
4%
88%
13%
1%
1%
**
6%
7%
8%
4%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary - Ever Listen To Radio
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
YES, EVER USED
293
168
146
314
650
1677
116
252
34
40
88
1546
269
23
15
**
123
145
139
129
84%
82%
77%
80%
75%
82%
59%
75%
80%
75%
78%
80%
80%
72%
82%
**
84%
78%
87%
75%
c
g
h
t
rt
16%
9%
8%
17%
36%
93%
6%
14%
2%
2%
5%
86%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
8%
7%
YES, USE AT LEAST MONTHLY
291
167
143
311
645
1664
116
248
33
38
87
1538
266
22
15
**
121
145
138
128
84%
82%
76%
79%
74%
81%
59%
74%
76%
72%
77%
80%
80%
70%
80%
**
83%
77%
86%
74%
c
g
h
t
rt
16%
9%
8%
17%
36%
93%
7%
14%
2%
2%
5%
86%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
8%
7%
YES, USE AT LEAST WEEKLY
279
160
137
297
616
1602
107
234
31
38
82
1481
255
21
15
**
115
140
135
120
81%
78%
72%
76%
71%
78%
55%
70%
72%
71%
73%
77%
76%
65%
79%
**
78%
75%
84%
69%
c
g
h
t
rt
16%
9%
8%
17%
36%
94%
6%
14%
2%
2%
5%
86%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
8%
7%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp3 (Qp2). Before Today, Had You Heard Of Digital Radios, Sometimes Called D-A-B Radios? Read Out Explanation If Necessary (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Yes
284
152
103
255
611
1685
150
243
29
34
76
1599
225
19
8
**
115
110
126
98
82%
74%
54%
65%
70%
82%
77%
73%
67%
64%
68%
83%
67%
60%
40%
**
78%
59%
79%
57%
bcd
cd
c
hijk
op
o
rt
rt
15%
8%
6%
14%
33%
92%
8%
13%
2%
2%
4%
87%
12%
1%
*%
**
6%
6%
7%
5%
No
56
45
77
122
232
329
41
80
12
16
30
288
96
11
10
**
29
67
30
66
16%
22%
41%
31%
27%
16%
21%
24%
28%
30%
27%
15%
29%
36%
53%
**
20%
36%
19%
38%
abd
ab
l
l
l
l
m
m
qs
qs
15%
12%
21%
33%
63%
89%
11%
21%
3%
4%
8%
78%
26%
3%
3%
**
8%
18%
8%
18%
Unsure
7
7
9
16
25
41
4
11
2
4
6
34
13
1
1
**
3
10
4
10
2%
3%
5%
4%
3%
2%
2%
3%
5%
7%
6%
2%
4%
4%
7%
**
2%
5%
2%
6%
a
l
l
l
14%
15%
20%
35%
54%
90%
9%
24%
5%
8%
14%
75%
29%
3%
3%
**
7%
22%
8%
21%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp4 (Qp9). How Many Dab Sets Do You Have In Your Household?
Base : Those who listen to radio
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
j
k
l
m
*n
o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
485
369
260
629
1214
2838
122
511
79
86
191
2452
390
72
88
79
213
177
210
180
Effective Weighted Sample
339
217
175
392
788
1942
104
336
50
55
134
1704
308
43
53
65
186
138
164
144
Total
293
169
146
315
652
1680
116
252
34
40
88
1550
269
23
15
8
124
145
140
129
16%
9%
8%
17%
36%
93%
6%
14%
**
**
5%
86%
15%
**
**
**
7%
8%
8%
7%
1
(1.0)
97
46
36
82
155
484
25
59
**
**
21
454
74
**
**
**
33
41
50
24
33%
27%
25%
26%
24%
29%
22%
23%
**
**
24%
29%
28%
**
**
**
27%
28%
36%
19%
cd
h
p
t
19%
9%
7%
16%
30%
95%
5%
12%
**
**
4%
89%
15%
**
**
**
6%
8%
10%
5%
2
(2.0)
16
12
6
18
27
119
6
11
**
**
5
115
18
**
**
**
12
5
13
5
6%
7%
4%
6%
4%
7%
5%
5%
**
**
5%
7%
7%
**
**
**
10%
4%
9%
4%
rt
t
13%
10%
5%
14%
21%
94%
5%
9%
**
**
4%
91%
14%
**
**
**
10%
4%
10%
4%
3 or more
(3.0)
18
6
2
8
12
53
*
9
**
**
*
44
7
**
**
**
3
4
6
1
6%
4%
1%
2%
2%
3%
*%
4%
**
**
*%
3%
3%
**
**
**
3%
3%
4%
1%
cd
k
t
34%
12%
3%
15%
23%
100%
*%
17%
**
**
1%
83%
13%
**
**
**
6%
7%
12%
2%
ANY DAB SETS
132
65
43
108
195
656
32
80
**
**
26
613
99
**
**
**
48
51
69
30
45%
38%
30%
34%
30%
39%
27%
32%
**
**
29%
40%
37%
**
**
**
39%
35%
49%
23%
cd
g
hk
nop
t
t
rt
19%
9%
6%
16%
28%
95%
5%
12%
**
**
4%
89%
14%
**
**
**
7%
7%
10%
4%
None
(0.0)
157
99
95
195
432
988
82
163
**
**
57
908
158
**
**
**
73
86
65
93
54%
59%
65%
62%
66%
59%
71%
65%
**
**
65%
59%
59%
**
**
**
59%
59%
47%
72%
a
a
f
l
m
m
m
s
s
qrs
15%
9%
9%
18%
40%
92%
8%
15%
**
**
5%
85%
15%
**
**
**
7%
8%
6%
9%
Don't know
4
5
7
12
25
36
2
9
**
**
5
29
12
**
**
**
3
9
5
6
1%
3%
5%
4%
4%
2%
2%
4%
**
**
5%
2%
4%
**
**
**
2%
6%
4%
5%
a
a
l
hl
l
10%
14%
19%
32%
64%
93%
6%
25%
**
**
12%
75%
31%
**
**
**
7%
24%
14%
16%
Mean number of DAB sets
.6
.5
.4
.5
.4
.5
.3
.5
**
**
.4
.5
.5
**
**
**
.6
.5
.7
.3
cd
c
g
k
nop
t
t
rt
Standard deviation
.85
.79
.62
.72
.67
.77
.58
.76
**
**
.61
.76
.75
**
**
**
.79
.70
.83
.57
Standard error
.04
.04
.04
.03
.02
.01
.05
.03
**
**
.05
.02
.04
**
**
**
.05
.05
.06
.04
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QP4 (QP9). How many DAB sets do you have in your household?
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
1
(1.0)
97
46
36
82
155
484
25
59
7
11
21
454
74
4
3
**
33
41
50
24
28%
23%
19%
21%
18%
24%
13%
18%
16%
20%
18%
24%
22%
12%
15%
**
22%
22%
31%
14%
cd
g
h
p
t
t
qt
19%
9%
7%
16%
30%
95%
5%
12%
1%
2%
4%
89%
15%
1%
1%
**
6%
8%
10%
5%
2
(2.0)
16
12
6
18
27
119
6
11
3
2
5
115
18
*
*
**
12
5
13
5
5%
6%
3%
5%
3%
6%
3%
3%
8%
5%
4%
6%
5%
1%
1%
**
8%
3%
8%
3%
h
rt
rt
13%
10%
5%
14%
21%
94%
5%
9%
3%
2%
4%
91%
14%
*%
*%
**
10%
4%
10%
4%
3 or more
(3.0)
18
6
2
8
12
53
*
9
-
1
*
44
7
*
*
**
3
4
6
1
5%
3%
1%
2%
1%
3%
*%
3%
-%
2%
*%
2%
2%
1%
1%
**
2%
2%
4%
1%
cd
g
t
34%
12%
3%
15%
23%
100%
*%
17%
-%
2%
1%
83%
13%
1%
*%
**
6%
7%
12%
2%
ANY DAB SETS
132
65
43
108
195
656
32
80
10
14
26
613
99
5
3
**
48
51
69
30
38%
32%
23%
27%
22%
32%
16%
24%
23%
27%
23%
32%
30%
14%
16%
**
33%
27%
43%
17%
cd
c
g
hk
nop
t
t
qrt
19%
9%
6%
16%
28%
95%
5%
12%
1%
2%
4%
89%
14%
1%
*%
**
7%
7%
10%
4%
None
(0.0)
157
99
95
195
432
988
82
163
21
24
57
908
158
18
12
**
73
86
65
93
45%
49%
50%
49%
50%
48%
42%
49%
48%
45%
51%
47%
47%
57%
65%
**
49%
46%
41%
54%
m
m
s
15%
9%
9%
18%
40%
92%
8%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
2%
1%
**
7%
8%
6%
9%
Don't know
4
5
7
12
25
36
2
9
4
1
5
29
12
*
*
**
3
9
5
6
1%
3%
4%
3%
3%
2%
1%
3%
8%
3%
4%
1%
3%
*%
1%
**
2%
5%
3%
4%
a
a
l
hl
l
10%
14%
19%
32%
64%
93%
6%
25%
9%
4%
12%
75%
31%
*%
*%
**
7%
24%
14%
16%
DO NOT LISTEN TO RADIO
(0.0)
54
35
43
78
217
375
79
82
9
13
25
372
65
9
3
**
23
41
21
44
16%
17%
23%
20%
25%
18%
41%
25%
20%
25%
22%
19%
19%
28%
18%
**
16%
22%
13%
25%
a
f
l
s
qs
12%
8%
9%
17%
47%
82%
17%
18%
2%
3%
6%
82%
14%
2%
1%
**
5%
9%
4%
10%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp4 (Qp9). How Many Dab Sets Do You Have In Your Household?
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Mean number of DAB
sets
.5
.4
.3
.4
.3
.4
.2
.3
.3
.4
.3
.4
.4
.2
.2
**
.5
.4
.6
.2
cd
c
g
hk
nop
t
t
rt
Standard deviation
.82
.75
.57
.67
.60
.72
.48
.68
.64
.66
.56
.71
.70
.47
.48
**
.75
.65
.81
.51
Standard error
.03
.04
.03
.02
.02
.01
.03
.03
.07
.06
.04
.01
.03
.05
.05
**
.05
.04
.05
.03
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp5 (Qp12). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Dab Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio but no DAB sets at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
277
227
182
409
840
1765
88
340
52
52
132
1515
228
52
67
62
124
104
98
130
Effective Weighted Sample
192
125
124
249
540
1174
76
222
33
35
92
1023
182
32
40
50
110
82
76
106
Total
157
99
95
195
432
988
82
163
21
24
57
908
158
18
12
6
73
86
65
93
15%
9%
9%
18%
40%
92%
**
15%
**
**
5%
85%
15%
**
**
**
7%
8%
**
9%
Certain to
2
1
1
2
7
18
**
3
**
**
-
16
2
**
**
**
1
1
**
-
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
**
2%
**
**
-%
2%
1%
**
**
**
2%
1%
**
-%
12%
7%
3%
10%
37%
93%
**
16%
**
**
-%
85%
10%
**
**
**
7%
3%
**
-%
Very likely
7
1
1
2
10
47
**
7
**
**
1
44
2
**
**
**
2
-
**
-
5%
1%
1%
1%
2%
5%
**
4%
**
**
2%
5%
1%
**
**
**
3%
-%
**
-%
d
14%
3%
2%
5%
19%
93%
**
13%
**
**
2%
88%
4%
**
**
**
4%
-%
**
-%
Likely
14
13
7
21
45
117
**
22
**
**
5
114
17
**
**
**
8
9
**
10
9%
13%
8%
11%
10%
12%
**
13%
**
**
9%
13%
11%
**
**
**
11%
11%
**
10%
f
11%
10%
5%
15%
33%
87%
**
16%
**
**
4%
85%
13%
**
**
**
6%
7%
**
7%
TOTAL LIKELY
24
16
9
25
62
181
**
31
**
**
6
174
21
**
**
**
12
10
**
10
15%
16%
9%
13%
14%
18%
**
19%
**
**
11%
19%
14%
**
**
**
16%
11%
**
10%
f
12%
8%
4%
12%
30%
89%
**
15%
**
**
3%
85%
11%
**
**
**
6%
5%
**
5%
Unlikely
25
16
8
24
65
166
**
14
**
**
4
160
19
**
**
**
7
12
**
10
16%
16%
8%
12%
15%
17%
**
9%
**
**
7%
18%
12%
**
**
**
10%
14%
**
11%
c
g
hik
14%
9%
4%
14%
37%
96%
**
8%
**
**
2%
92%
11%
**
**
**
4%
7%
**
6%
Very unlikely
33
22
22
43
82
193
**
34
**
**
12
169
37
**
**
**
19
18
**
21
21%
22%
23%
22%
19%
20%
**
21%
**
**
21%
19%
23%
**
**
**
26%
21%
**
22%
o
16%
11%
11%
21%
40%
95%
**
17%
**
**
6%
83%
18%
**
**
**
9%
9%
**
10%
Certain not to
52
34
42
76
153
292
**
62
**
**
29
252
63
**
**
**
25
37
**
42
33%
34%
44%
39%
35%
30%
**
38%
**
**
51%
28%
40%
**
**
**
35%
44%
**
45%
l
l
hl
17%
11%
13%
24%
49%
92%
**
20%
**
**
9%
80%
20%
**
**
**
8%
12%
**
13%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp5 (Qp12). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Dab Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio but no DAB sets at home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
277
227
182
409
840
1765
88
340
52
52
132
1515
228
52
67
62
124
104
98
130
Effective Weighted Sample
192
125
124
249
540
1174
76
222
33
35
92
1023
182
32
40
50
110
82
76
106
Total
157
99
95
195
432
988
82
163
21
24
57
908
158
18
12
6
73
86
65
93
15%
9%
9%
18%
40%
92%
**
15%
**
**
5%
85%
15%
**
**
**
7%
8%
**
9%
TOTAL UNLIKELY
110
72
71
143
300
651
**
110
**
**
46
581
118
**
**
**
51
67
**
73
70%
72%
75%
74%
69%
66%
**
68%
**
**
80%
64%
75%
**
**
**
71%
78%
**
78%
g
hjl
16%
10%
10%
21%
43%
94%
**
16%
**
**
7%
84%
17%
**
**
**
7%
10%
**
11%
Don't know
23
12
15
27
71
156
**
21
**
**
5
153
19
**
**
**
9
9
**
10
15%
12%
16%
14%
16%
16%
**
13%
**
**
9%
17%
12%
**
**
**
13%
11%
**
11%
k
m
13%
7%
9%
15%
41%
89%
**
12%
**
**
3%
88%
11%
**
**
**
5%
5%
**
6%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp6 (Qj14). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Digital Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get DAB radio in the next 12 months
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
*g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
*s
t
Unweighted total
194
159
136
295
578
1172
46
240
41
31
103
980
166
35
47
47
85
81
64
102
Effective Weighted Sample
133
85
94
179
373
785
39
153
26
20
73
670
134
20
31
40
78
63
50
83
Total
110
72
71
143
300
651
41
110
15
15
46
581
118
12
9
4
51
67
45
73
16%
10%
10%
21%
43%
94%
**
16%
**
**
7%
84%
17%
**
**
**
**
**
**
11%
No need
66
42
45
87
173
378
**
67
**
**
28
338
74
**
**
**
**
**
**
46
60%
59%
62%
61%
58%
58%
**
61%
**
**
61%
58%
62%
**
**
**
**
**
**
63%
o
o
16%
10%
11%
21%
43%
93%
**
17%
**
**
7%
83%
18%
**
**
**
**
**
**
11%
Happy to use existing service
39
27
33
60
100
201
**
37
**
**
20
175
48
**
**
**
**
**
**
30
35%
38%
46%
42%
33%
31%
**
33%
**
**
45%
30%
40%
**
**
**
**
**
**
41%
l
l
m
18%
13%
15%
28%
47%
95%
**
17%
**
**
10%
83%
23%
**
**
**
**
**
**
14%
Can receive through digital TV service
3
4
*
4
22
41
**
10
**
**
3
34
3
**
**
**
**
**
**
2
3%
5%
*%
3%
7%
6%
**
9%
**
**
7%
6%
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
8%
9%
1%
10%
51%
95%
**
22%
**
**
8%
78%
6%
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
Would never listen
6
2
-
2
9
39
**
7
**
**
1
34
2
**
**
**
**
**
**
1
6%
3%
-%
1%
3%
6%
**
6%
**
**
2%
6%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
cd
15%
5%
-%
5%
23%
97%
**
16%
**
**
3%
84%
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
Happy to use analogue radio service
7
1
4
6
16
27
**
2
**
**
1
27
5
**
**
**
**
**
**
4
6%
2%
6%
4%
5%
4%
**
2%
**
**
2%
5%
4%
**
**
**
**
**
**
5%
24%
5%
15%
20%
57%
94%
**
6%
**
**
3%
94%
16%
**
**
**
**
**
**
13%
Poor reception in our area
6
3
1
3
6
26
**
4
**
**
1
23
3
**
**
**
**
**
**
-
6%
4%
1%
2%
2%
4%
**
4%
**
**
2%
4%
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
t
22%
10%
3%
13%
22%
96%
**
15%
**
**
3%
85%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp6 (Qj14). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Digital Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get DAB radio in the next 12 months
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
*g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
*s
t
Unweighted total
194
159
136
295
578
1172
46
240
41
31
103
980
166
35
47
47
85
81
64
102
Effective Weighted Sample
133
85
94
179
373
785
39
153
26
20
73
670
134
20
31
40
78
63
50
83
Total
110
72
71
143
300
651
41
110
15
15
46
581
118
12
9
4
51
67
45
73
16%
10%
10%
21%
43%
94%
**
16%
**
**
7%
84%
17%
**
**
**
**
**
**
11%
Too expensive generally
3
1
1
2
12
19
**
5
**
**
3
18
2
**
**
**
**
**
**
1
3%
1%
1%
1%
4%
3%
**
4%
**
**
6%
3%
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
13%
5%
4%
9%
53%
86%
**
21%
**
**
11%
79%
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
Can't afford it
2
*
1
1
9
17
**
3
**
**
2
14
1
**
**
**
**
**
**
1
2%
1%
1%
1%
3%
3%
**
3%
**
**
4%
2%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
12%
2%
5%
8%
51%
100%
**
18%
**
**
11%
81%
8%
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
Don't know why I should
2
1
2
3
9
15
**
3
**
**
1
14
2
**
**
**
**
**
**
2
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
2%
**
2%
**
**
2%
2%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
m
10%
8%
10%
18%
57%
87%
**
16%
**
**
6%
83%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
**
10%
Will get it when I have to/ when switchover
-
1
1
2
3
5
**
2
**
**
2
3
1
**
**
**
**
**
**
1
-%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
**
2%
**
**
4%
1%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
l
-%
27%
18%
44%
69%
100%
**
37%
**
**
37%
64%
27%
**
**
**
**
**
**
15%
Haven't heard of it/ don't understand it
-
-
-
-
3
4
**
1
**
**
1
3
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
1%
1%
**
1%
**
**
2%
1%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
60%
100%
**
20%
**
**
20%
80%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
Other
2
*
-
*
3
9
**
1
**
**
*
8
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
-
2%
*%
-%
*%
1%
1%
**
1%
**
**
1%
1%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
26%
2%
-%
2%
38%
100%
**
11%
**
**
4%
88%
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp6 (Qj14). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Digital Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get DAB radio in the next 12 months
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
*g
h
*i
*j
k
l
m
*n
*o
*p
q
r
*s
t
Unweighted total
194
159
136
295
578
1172
46
240
41
31
103
980
166
35
47
47
85
81
64
102
Effective Weighted Sample
133
85
94
179
373
785
39
153
26
20
73
670
134
20
31
40
78
63
50
83
Total
110
72
71
143
300
651
41
110
15
15
46
581
118
12
9
4
51
67
45
73
16%
10%
10%
21%
43%
94%
**
16%
**
**
7%
84%
17%
**
**
**
**
**
**
11%
ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS
11
4
3
7
28
66
**
12
**
**
6
58
6
**
**
**
**
**
**
2
10%
6%
4%
5%
9%
10%
**
11%
**
**
12%
10%
5%
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
15%
6%
4%
10%
40%
94%
**
17%
**
**
8%
82%
9%
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS
101
63
71
134
271
584
**
98
**
**
42
524
110
**
**
**
**
**
**
68
92%
88%
99%
94%
90%
90%
**
89%
**
**
93%
90%
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
93%
abd
16%
10%
11%
21%
43%
94%
**
16%
**
**
7%
84%
18%
**
**
**
**
**
**
11%
ONLY VOLUNTARY REASONS
97
62
68
130
261
567
**
96
**
**
40
506
107
**
**
**
**
**
**
66
89%
86%
96%
91%
87%
87%
**
87%
**
**
88%
87%
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
90%
b
16%
10%
11%
22%
43%
94%
**
16%
**
**
7%
84%
18%
**
**
**
**
**
**
11%
Don't know
2
5
1
6
9
15
**
2
**
**
*
14
6
**
**
**
**
**
**
5
2%
7%
1%
4%
3%
2%
**
2%
**
**
*%
2%
5%
**
**
**
**
**
**
7%
ac
11%
33%
4%
37%
54%
92%
**
13%
**
**
1%
87%
36%
**
**
**
**
**
**
32%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QZ1. SHOWCARD Could you please take a look at the options shown on this card and let me know which applies to you? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Married/ civil partnership
231
138
73
211
377
1038
100
145
15
31
46
995
183
17
7
**
102
80
95
88
67%
67%
39%
54%
43%
50%
51%
44%
34%
58%
41%
52%
55%
53%
38%
**
70%
43%
59%
51%
cd
cd
c
hik
hik
o
rst
r
20%
12%
6%
19%
33%
91%
9%
13%
1%
3%
4%
87%
16%
1%
1%
**
9%
7%
8%
8%
Co-habiting
12
4
2
6
53
188
12
16
1
1
1
185
5
*
*
**
3
2
1
3
4%
2%
1%
1%
6%
9%
6%
5%
3%
2%
1%
10%
1%
1%
1%
**
2%
1%
1%
2%
d
k
hjk
6%
2%
1%
3%
26%
94%
6%
8%
1%
*%
1%
92%
2%
*%
*%
**
2%
1%
1%
2%
Single
29
6
5
11
197
482
62
59
6
*
9
486
9
1
1
**
6
3
5
4
8%
3%
3%
3%
23%
23%
32%
18%
13%
1%
8%
25%
3%
2%
4%
**
4%
2%
3%
2%
bcd
f
jk
j
j
hijk
mn
5%
1%
1%
2%
36%
89%
11%
11%
1%
*%
2%
89%
2%
*%
*%
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
Widowed, divorced or separated
73
56
107
163
238
341
21
109
21
21
55
250
136
14
11
**
36
100
59
77
21%
28%
57%
42%
27%
17%
11%
33%
48%
39%
49%
13%
41%
44%
57%
**
24%
53%
37%
44%
abd
ab
g
l
hl
l
hl
mp
qs
q
q
20%
16%
30%
45%
66%
94%
6%
30%
6%
6%
15%
69%
38%
4%
3%
**
10%
28%
16%
21%
Refused
1
1
1
2
3
7
*
4
1
-
1
6
2
-
-
**
-
2
1
1
*%
*%
1%
1%
*%
*%
*%
1%
2%
-%
1%
*%
1%
-%
-%
**
-%
1%
*%
1%
l
l
8%
8%
13%
21%
31%
65%
1%
42%
9%
-%
14%
60%
19%
-%
-%
**
-%
19%
6%
13%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz2. Showcard Which Of The Groups On This Card Do You Consider You Belong To? (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
WHITE British
235
127
126
253
559
1444
-
206
27
39
68
1241
231
7
8
**
98
133
113
118
68%
62%
67%
64%
64%
70%
-%
62%
62%
73%
60%
65%
69%
23%
43%
**
67%
71%
70%
68%
g
k
no
n
no
16%
9%
9%
18%
39%
100%
-%
14%
2%
3%
5%
86%
16%
1%
1%
**
7%
9%
8%
8%
English
53
44
34
78
129
295
-
63
6
4
22
234
77
*
1
**
35
42
34
43
15%
21%
18%
20%
15%
14%
-%
19%
14%
8%
19%
12%
23%
2%
6%
**
24%
22%
21%
25%
a
g
jl
jl
nop
p
18%
15%
12%
26%
44%
100%
-%
21%
2%
1%
7%
79%
26%
*%
*%
**
12%
14%
11%
15%
Scottish
29
14
13
27
64
154
-
25
5
6
9
126
3
24
-
**
2
1
2
1
8%
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
-%
8%
11%
11%
8%
7%
1%
75%
-%
**
2%
*%
2%
*%
g
mop
19%
9%
8%
18%
42%
100%
-%
17%
3%
4%
6%
82%
2%
15%
-%
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
Welsh
9
7
6
13
34
66
-
17
2
2
6
48
4
-
9
**
1
3
1
2
3%
3%
3%
3%
4%
3%
-%
5%
6%
4%
5%
2%
1%
-%
48%
**
1%
1%
1%
1%
g
l
mnp
13%
10%
9%
19%
51%
100%
-%
25%
4%
3%
8%
73%
6%
-%
14%
**
2%
4%
2%
4%
Irish
3
3
2
5
11
32
-
5
1
*
2
27
3
-
*
**
1
2
2
*
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
-%
1%
2%
*%
2%
1%
1%
-%
2%
**
*%
1%
1%
*%
mno
11%
8%
8%
16%
36%
100%
-%
16%
2%
1%
7%
85%
8%
-%
1%
**
2%
7%
7%
2%
Any other white background
4
6
3
8
19
65
-
5
1
*
2
60
8
-
*
**
4
3
5
3
1%
3%
1%
2%
2%
3%
-%
1%
2%
*%
2%
3%
2%
-%
1%
**
3%
2%
3%
2%
g
7%
9%
4%
12%
29%
100%
-%
8%
1%
*%
4%
93%
12%
-%
*%
**
6%
5%
8%
4%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz2. Showcard Which Of The Groups On This Card Do You Consider You Belong To? (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
MIXED White and Black Caribbean
-
-
-
-
5
-
9
1
-
-
-
10
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
1%
-%
5%
*%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
-%
-%
-%
-%
50%
-%
87%
10%
-%
-%
-%
89%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
White and Black African
-
-
1
1
2
-
6
-
-
-
-
7
1
-
-
**
-
1
1
-
-%
-%
*%
*%
*%
-%
3%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
-%
*%
1%
-%
f
-%
-%
11%
11%
22%
-%
83%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
11%
-%
-%
**
-%
11%
11%
-%
White and Asian
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
1%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
76%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Any other mixed background
1
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
*%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
1%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
40%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
98%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
ASIAN AND BRITISH ASIAN Indian
7
1
3
5
10
-
55
9
1
1
5
40
5
*
*
**
4
*
1
3
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
-%
28%
3%
2%
2%
4%
2%
1%
*%
*%
**
3%
*%
1%
2%
f
r
15%
3%
7%
10%
21%
-%
111%
18%
2%
2%
9%
82%
9%
*%
*%
**
8%
1%
2%
7%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz2. Showcard Which Of The Groups On This Card Do You Consider You Belong To? (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Pakistani
1
-
-
-
9
-
25
2
1
1
-
20
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
*%
-%
-%
-%
1%
-%
13%
1%
2%
1%
-%
1%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
4%
-%
-%
-%
41%
-%
110%
10%
4%
2%
-%
90%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Bangladeshi
-
-
-
-
6
-
13
-
-
-
-
11
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
1%
-%
7%
-%
-%
-%
-%
1%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
-%
-%
-%
-%
52%
-%
116%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Any other Asian background
-
-
-
-
3
-
10
-
-
-
-
9
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
5%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
-%
-%
-%
-%
38%
-%
117%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
BLACK AND BLACK BRITISH Caribbean
4
1
1
2
8
-
25
-
-
-
-
32
2
-
-
**
1
1
-
2
1%
1%
*%
*%
1%
-%
13%
-%
-%
-%
-%
2%
1%
-%
-%
**
*%
1%
-%
1%
f
h
12%
4%
2%
6%
27%
-%
79%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
6%
-%
-%
**
2%
4%
-%
6%
African
-
1
-
1
4
-
23
-
-
-
-
30
1
-
-
**
-
1
-
1
-%
*%
-%
*%
1%
-%
12%
-%
-%
-%
-%
2%
*%
-%
-%
**
-%
*%
-%
*%
f
h
-%
2%
-%
2%
15%
-%
78%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
2%
-%
-%
**
-%
2%
-%
2%
Any other black background
-
-
-
-
1
-
2
1
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
1%
*%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
-%
-%
-%
-%
23%
-%
76%
23%
-%
-%
-%
77%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz2. Showcard Which Of The Groups On This Card Do You Consider You Belong To? (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
MIDDLE EAST AND ARABIC ORIGIN Middle Eastern, including Arabic origin
-
-
-
-
*
-
7
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
4%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
-%
-%
-%
-%
5%
-%
141%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Iranian
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
151%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
CHINESE OR OTHER ETHNIC GROUP Chinese
-
-
-
-
*
-
7
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
3%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
f
-%
-%
-%
-%
3%
-%
126%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Any other background
*
1
-
1
2
-
8
1
-
-
-
5
1
-
-
**
1
-
1
-
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
-%
4%
*%
-%
-%
-%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
1%
-%
1%
-%
f
9%
16%
-%
16%
35%
-%
142%
17%
-%
-%
-%
84%
16%
-%
-%
**
16%
-%
16%
-%
Refused
*
1
-
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
1
-
-
**
1
-
-
1
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
*%
-%
-%
*%
6%
11%
-%
11%
11%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
11%
-%
-%
**
11%
-%
-%
11%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz3 (C9). Showcard Which Of These, If Any, Limit Your Daily Activities Or The Work You Can Do? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Cannot walk far or manage stairs
or can only do so with difficulty
22
24
51
75
100
103
6
105
12
16
105
-
62
5
6
**
31
32
21
41
6%
12%
27%
19%
12%
5%
3%
32%
27%
29%
93%
-%
19%
15%
32%
**
21%
17%
13%
24%
a
abd
ab
l
l
l
hijl
mnp
s
s
20%
22%
47%
69%
93%
96%
5%
98%
11%
14%
98%
-%
58%
5%
5%
**
29%
29%
20%
38%
Breathlessness or chest pains
20
16
24
40
60
79
4
82
7
9
29
-
33
1
5
**
19
14
15
18
6%
8%
13%
10%
7%
4%
2%
24%
16%
18%
26%
-%
10%
4%
26%
**
13%
7%
9%
10%
a
a
l
l
l
l
mn
24%
20%
29%
49%
73%
95%
5%
99%
8%
11%
35%
-%
40%
2%
6%
**
23%
17%
18%
22%
Poor hearing, partial hearing or deafness
9
9
26
35
43
51
2
53
10
53
17
-
23
6
4
**
14
10
8
15
3%
4%
14%
9%
5%
2%
1%
16%
24%
100%
15%
-%
7%
20%
23%
**
9%
5%
5%
9%
abd
ab
l
l
hikl
l
m
mp
17%
16%
49%
66%
81%
97%
3%
100%
19%
100%
32%
-%
45%
12%
8%
**
26%
18%
16%
29%
Poor vision, partial sight or blindness
4
5
25
30
37
42
2
43
43
10
13
-
22
5
2
**
9
13
9
13
1%
2%
13%
8%
4%
2%
1%
13%
100%
19%
11%
-%
7%
15%
12%
**
6%
7%
5%
8%
abd
ab
l
hjkl
l
l
m
m
9%
12%
58%
70%
84%
96%
5%
100%
100%
24%
30%
-%
50%
11%
5%
**
20%
30%
20%
31%
Mental health problems or difficulties
4
1
-
1
20
30
-
30
1
2
2
-
1
*
-
**
1
-
-
1
1%
*%
-%
*%
2%
1%
-%
9%
3%
3%
2%
-%
*%
1%
-%
**
*%
-%
-%
*%
kl
l
l
l
14%
3%
-%
3%
69%
100%
-%
100%
5%
5%
8%
-%
2%
1%
-%
**
2%
-%
-%
2%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz3 (C9). Showcard Which Of These, If Any, Limit Your Daily Activities Or The Work You Can Do? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Limited ability to reach
4
3
12
15
17
20
1
20
4
5
20
-
13
1
1
**
6
7
5
7
1%
1%
6%
4%
2%
1%
1%
6%
8%
9%
18%
-%
4%
4%
4%
**
4%
3%
3%
4%
ab
a
l
l
l
hl
18%
14%
59%
73%
81%
95%
6%
99%
18%
23%
99%
-%
62%
7%
3%
**
30%
32%
26%
36%
Dyslexia
1
1
-
1
5
15
-
15
1
1
2
-
1
-
-
**
1
-
-
1
*%
*%
-%
*%
1%
1%
-%
4%
2%
1%
2%
-%
*%
-%
-%
**
1%
-%
-%
1%
l
l
l
l
5%
6%
-%
6%
36%
100%
-%
101%
5%
5%
13%
-%
6%
-%
-%
**
6%
-%
-%
6%
Other illnesses or health problems which limit your daily activities or the work that you can do
26
14
25
39
78
109
7
117
6
10
21
-
34
2
2
**
14
20
14
20
8%
7%
13%
10%
9%
5%
3%
35%
14%
20%
19%
-%
10%
7%
9%
**
9%
11%
8%
12%
ab
ijkl
l
l
l
23%
12%
22%
34%
68%
95%
6%
101%
5%
9%
19%
-%
29%
2%
2%
**
12%
17%
12%
17%
None
283
152
92
244
626
1735
179
-
-
-
-
1922
216
17
7
**
86
130
111
105
82%
75%
49%
62%
72%
84%
92%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
65%
53%
36%
**
59%
69%
69%
60%
bcd
cd
c
f
hijk
o
o
q
q
15%
8%
5%
13%
33%
90%
9%
-%
-%
-%
-%
100%
11%
1%
*%
**
4%
7%
6%
5%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz4 (C10). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Sight? (Single Code)
Base : Those with poor vision, partial sight or blindness
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
*c
*d
e
f
~g
h
i
~j
~k
~l
*m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
13
16
48
64
86
101
2
103
103
23
28
-
32
9
10
13
14
18
13
19
Effective Weighted Sample
7
12
32
42
52
65
2
65
65
15
20
-
27
7
6
10
12
15
10
17
Total
4
5
25
30
37
42
2
43
43
10
13
-
22
5
2
1
9
13
9
13
**
**
**
**
**
96%
**
100%
100%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Have difficulty seeing ordinary
newspaper print
**
**
**
**
**
8
**
10
10
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
20%
**
23%
23%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
83%
**
100%
100%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Cannot see well enough to read a newspaper headline
**
**
**
**
**
5
**
5
5
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
11%
**
11%
11%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
97%
97%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend if close to his or her face
**
**
**
**
**
4
**
4
4
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
10%
**
9%
9%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
99%
99%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Cannot see well enough to read a large print book
**
**
**
**
**
3
**
3
3
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
**
7%
7%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
92%
92%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend across a road
**
**
**
**
**
2
**
1
1
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
3%
3%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
88%
88%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz4 (C10). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Sight? (Single Code)
Base : Those with poor vision, partial sight or blindness
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
*c
*d
e
f
~g
h
i
~j
~k
~l
*m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
13
16
48
64
86
101
2
103
103
23
28
-
32
9
10
13
14
18
13
19
Effective Weighted Sample
7
12
32
42
52
65
2
65
65
15
20
-
27
7
6
10
12
15
10
17
Total
4
5
25
30
37
42
2
43
43
10
13
-
22
5
2
1
9
13
9
13
**
**
**
**
**
96%
**
100%
100%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Cannot tell by the light where the
windows are
**
**
**
**
**
1
**
1
1
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
**
3%
3%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
94%
94%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend across a room
**
**
**
**
**
1
**
1
1
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
**
2%
2%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
98%
98%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Cannot see the shapes of furniture in the room
**
**
**
**
**
1
**
1
1
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
**
1%
1%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
80%
80%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Other
**
**
**
**
**
11
**
12
12
**
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
27%
**
27%
27%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
107%
107%
**
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz5 (C11). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Hearing? (Single Code)
Base : Those with poor hearing, partial hearing or deafness
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
*c
d
e
f
~g
h
~i
j
*k
~l
*m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
23
26
58
84
100
119
2
121
23
121
36
-
36
15
23
10
24
12
13
23
Effective Weighted Sample
15
13
36
49
61
75
2
74
15
74
26
-
28
10
12
9
21
9
9
19
Total
9
9
26
35
43
51
2
53
10
53
17
-
23
6
4
1
14
10
8
15
**
**
**
**
81%
97%
**
100%
**
100%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Cannot hear sounds at all
**
**
**
**
1
*
**
1
**
1
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3%
*%
**
2%
**
2%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
101%
18%
**
104%
**
104%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Cannot follow a TV programme with the volume turned up
**
**
**
**
6
7
**
6
**
6
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
14%
13%
**
12%
**
12%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
85%
100%
**
95%
**
95%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Have difficulty hearing someone talking in a loud voice in a quiet room
**
**
**
**
5
8
**
9
**
9
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
11%
16%
**
16%
**
16%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
57%
100%
**
102%
**
102%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Cannot hear a doorbell, alarm clock or telephone bell
**
**
**
**
1
1
**
1
**
1
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
2%
**
1%
**
1%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
99%
100%
**
92%
**
92%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Cannot follow a TV programme at a volume others find acceptable
**
**
**
**
10
12
**
13
**
13
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
23%
24%
**
24%
**
24%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
78%
100%
**
103%
**
103%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz5 (C11). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Hearing? (Single Code)
Base : Those with poor hearing, partial hearing or deafness
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
*c
d
e
f
~g
h
~i
j
*k
~l
*m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
23
26
58
84
100
119
2
121
23
121
36
-
36
15
23
10
24
12
13
23
Effective Weighted Sample
15
13
36
49
61
75
2
74
15
74
26
-
28
10
12
9
21
9
9
19
Total
9
9
26
35
43
51
2
53
10
53
17
-
23
6
4
1
14
10
8
15
**
**
**
**
81%
97%
**
100%
**
100%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Difficulty hearing someone
talking in a normal voice in a
quiet room
**
**
**
**
6
5
**
5
**
5
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
13%
10%
**
10%
**
10%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
105%
100%
**
98%
**
98%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Difficulty following a conversation against background noise
**
**
**
**
11
13
**
14
**
14
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
26%
26%
**
26%
**
26%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
80%
96%
**
100%
**
100%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Other
**
**
**
**
*
*
**
*
**
*
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
1%
1%
**
1%
**
1%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
89%
100%
**
97%
**
97%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
4
4
**
4
**
4
**
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
7%
**
7%
**
7%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
97%
100%
**
99%
**
99%
**
-%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz7 (Sga). Do You Ever Work From Home? (Single Code)
Base : Those working full or part time
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
*b
~c
*d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
*m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
226
49
4
53
314
1664
120
106
12
18
12
1682
36
7
5
5
30
6
22
14
Effective Weighted Sample
163
35
3
38
216
1140
104
73
10
13
8
1168
30
4
3
4
27
6
18
13
Total
164
28
1
29
213
1126
121
75
9
14
6
1190
25
3
1
*
18
7
16
9
13%
**
**
**
17%
89%
10%
6%
**
**
**
94%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Yes
53
**
**
**
28
324
18
25
**
**
**
319
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
33%
**
**
**
13%
29%
14%
33%
**
**
**
27%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
g
16%
**
**
**
8%
95%
5%
7%
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
No
111
**
**
**
185
802
104
50
**
**
**
871
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
67%
**
**
**
87%
71%
86%
67%
**
**
**
73%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
f
12%
**
**
**
20%
87%
11%
5%
**
**
**
95%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QZ8 (SGB). Would you say that you work from home most of the time or just occasionally? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : Those who ever work from home
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
~b
~c
~d
*e
f
~g
*h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
~p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
69
19
2
21
43
434
19
36
3
7
5
418
16
2
2
1
15
1
13
3
Effective Weighted Sample
51
15
2
16
29
313
15
24
3
5
3
306
14
1
1
1
13
1
11
3
Total
53
10
1
11
28
324
18
25
3
4
2
319
10
1
*
*
9
1
8
2
**
**
**
**
**
95%
**
**
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Most of the time
**
**
**
**
**
123
**
**
**
**
**
118
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
38%
**
**
**
**
**
37%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
l
**
**
**
**
**
93%
**
**
**
**
**
90%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Just occasionally
**
**
**
**
**
195
**
**
**
**
**
194
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
60%
**
**
**
**
**
61%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
h
**
**
**
**
**
96%
**
**
**
**
**
95%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
**
6
**
**
**
**
**
6
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
**
**
2%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
100%
**
**
**
**
**
97%
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz9 (Qz9A). Could You Please Tell Me If Your Total Household Income From All Sources Before Tax And Other Deductions Is Above Or Below £11,500 Per Year?
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Under £11,500
57
36
61
97
292
346
28
112
13
16
48
256
74
14
7
**
27
46
16
58
17%
18%
32%
25%
34%
17%
15%
33%
31%
30%
42%
13%
22%
43%
35%
**
19%
25%
10%
33%
abd
ab
l
l
l
hl
m
m
m
s
s
qs
15%
10%
16%
26%
79%
93%
8%
30%
4%
4%
13%
69%
20%
4%
2%
**
7%
13%
4%
16%
Above £11,500
194
88
66
153
300
1129
101
134
19
24
38
1105
134
10
7
**
64
70
77
57
56%
43%
35%
39%
35%
55%
52%
40%
44%
46%
34%
57%
40%
30%
38%
**
44%
37%
48%
33%
bcd
hijk
t
rt
16%
7%
5%
12%
24%
91%
8%
11%
2%
2%
3%
89%
11%
1%
1%
**
5%
6%
6%
5%
Don't know
14
13
20
33
95
191
25
22
3
3
8
192
29
2
1
**
10
19
12
17
4%
6%
11%
8%
11%
9%
13%
7%
7%
6%
7%
10%
9%
5%
6%
**
7%
10%
7%
10%
a
a
h
7%
6%
9%
16%
44%
89%
11%
11%
1%
2%
4%
90%
14%
1%
*%
**
5%
9%
6%
8%
Refused
81
67
42
109
182
390
41
66
8
10
19
369
97
7
4
**
46
51
56
41
23%
33%
22%
28%
21%
19%
21%
20%
19%
18%
17%
19%
29%
21%
21%
**
31%
28%
35%
23%
ac
t
19%
15%
10%
25%
42%
90%
10%
15%
2%
2%
4%
85%
22%
2%
1%
**
10%
12%
13%
9%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QZ9 (QZ9). SHOWCARD Group in which you would place your total household income from all sources, before tax and other deductions? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Unweighted total
596
447
341
788
1627
3560
206
688
103
121
245
3084
481
104
109
94
254
227
236
245
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
Total
346
204
189
393
868
2055
195
334
43
53
113
1922
334
32
19
9
147
187
160
174
15%
9%
8%
17%
38%
91%
9%
15%
2%
2%
5%
85%
15%
1%
1%
**
7%
8%
7%
8%
Under £11,500
57
36
61
97
292
346
28
112
13
16
48
256
74
14
7
**
27
46
16
58
17%
18%
32%
25%
34%
17%
15%
33%
31%
30%
42%
13%
22%
43%
35%
**
19%
25%
10%
33%
abd
ab
l
l
l
hl
m
m
m
s
s
qs
15%
10%
16%
26%
79%
93%
8%
30%
4%
4%
13%
69%
20%
4%
2%
**
7%
13%
4%
16%
£11,500 - £17,499
32
20
28
48
102
199
7
43
5
10
19
164
38
5
4
**
21
17
21
17
9%
10%
15%
12%
12%
10%
4%
13%
11%
18%
16%
9%
11%
14%
22%
**
14%
9%
13%
10%
a
g
l
l
l
m
16%
10%
14%
23%
50%
96%
4%
21%
2%
5%
9%
80%
18%
2%
2%
**
10%
8%
10%
8%
£17,500 - £29,999
39
23
13
36
77
237
31
28
5
4
7
244
33
1
*
**
16
17
22
11
11%
11%
7%
9%
9%
12%
16%
8%
12%
8%
6%
13%
10%
4%
1%
**
11%
9%
14%
6%
hk
o
o
t
14%
8%
5%
13%
28%
87%
12%
10%
2%
1%
2%
90%
12%
1%
*%
**
6%
6%
8%
4%
£30,000 - £49,999
42
12
5
17
31
252
17
17
2
1
4
253
17
*
*
**
8
9
8
9
12%
6%
2%
4%
4%
12%
9%
5%
5%
1%
4%
13%
5%
*%
*%
**
6%
5%
5%
5%
bcd
hijk
p
16%
5%
2%
6%
12%
93%
6%
6%
1%
*%
2%
94%
6%
*%
*%
**
3%
3%
3%
3%
£50,000+
30
5
-
5
7
146
6
16
2
7
*
137
5
*
-
**
3
2
3
2
9%
3%
-%
1%
1%
7%
3%
5%
5%
13%
*%
7%
2%
*%
-%
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
bcd
c
k
k
hk
k
20%
3%
-%
3%
5%
96%
4%
11%
1%
4%
*%
90%
3%
*%
-%
**
2%
1%
2%
2%
REFUSED BUT ABOVE £11.5K
55
30
24
54
94
323
42
34
5
6
11
332
47
4
3
**
17
30
27
20
16%
15%
13%
14%
11%
16%
22%
10%
11%
10%
10%
17%
14%
11%
15%
**
11%
16%
17%
11%
f
hk
p
p
15%
8%
7%
15%
26%
88%
11%
9%
1%
2%
3%
91%
13%
1%
1%
**
5%
8%
7%
5%
DK/ Refused
92
78
59
137
265
554
63
84
11
11
25
536
120
8
5
**
54
66
63
57
27%
38%
31%
35%
31%
27%
32%
25%
26%
20%
22%
28%
36%
26%
26%
**
37%
35%
39%
33%
a
a
15%
13%
10%
22%
43%
89%
10%
14%
2%
2%
4%
87%
19%
1%
1%
**
9%
11%
10%
9%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QZ9 (QZ9). SHOWCARD Group in which you would place your total household income from all sources, before tax and other deductions? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
Effective Weighted Sample
415
264
225
488
1064
2414
178
449
65
74
172
2130
378
63
66
78
222
177
184
194
HOUSEHOLD INCOME UNDER £11.5K
57
36
61
97
292
346
28
112
13
16
48
256
74
14
7
**
27
46
16
58
17%
18%
32%
25%
34%
17%
15%
33%
31%
30%
42%
13%
22%
43%
35%
**
19%
25%
10%
33%
abd
ab
l
l
l
hl
m
m
m
s
s
qs
15%
10%
16%
26%
79%
93%
8%
30%
4%
4%
13%
69%
20%
4%
2%
**
7%
13%
4%
16%
£11.5K- £17.5K
32
20
28
48
102
199
7
43
5
10
19
164
38
5
4
**
21
17
21
17
9%
10%
15%
12%
12%
10%
4%
13%
11%
18%
16%
9%
11%
14%
22%
**
14%
9%
13%
10%
a
g
l
l
l
m
16%
10%
14%
23%
50%
96%
4%
21%
2%
5%
9%
80%
18%
2%
2%
**
10%
8%
10%
8%
£17.5K- £29.9K
39
23
13
36
77
237
31
28
5
4
7
244
33
1
*
**
16
17
22
11
11%
11%
7%
9%
9%
12%
16%
8%
12%
8%
6%
13%
10%
4%
1%
**
11%
9%
14%
6%
hk
o
o
t
14%
8%
5%
13%
28%
87%
12%
10%
2%
1%
2%
90%
12%
1%
*%
**
6%
6%
8%
4%
£30K+
72
18
5
22
38
397
23
34
4
7
4
390
22
*
*
**
12
10
11
11
21%
9%
2%
6%
4%
19%
12%
10%
10%
14%
4%
20%
7%
*%
*%
**
8%
5%
7%
6%
bcd
c
g
k
k
hik
nop
17%
4%
1%
5%
9%
94%
5%
8%
1%
2%
1%
92%
5%
*%
*%
**
3%
2%
3%
3%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz12 (Qzni1). Do You Regard Yourself As Belonging To Any Particular Religion? If Yes: Which Religion, Religious Denomination Or Body Do You Belong?
Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
*b
*c
d
e
f
~g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
68
52
42
94
221
499
9
97
26
18
29
411
-
-
-
94
-
-
-
-
Effective Weighted Sample
54
41
37
78
173
381
9
75
24
16
24
314
-
-
-
78
-
-
-
-
Total
8
5
5
9
24
61
1
10
2
2
3
51
-
-
-
9
-
-
-
-
**
**
**
**
39%
99%
**
**
**
**
**
82%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Roman Catholic
**
**
**
**
8
24
**
**
**
**
**
21
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
**
**
**
**
33%
40%
**
**
**
**
**
41%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
**
**
**
**
32%
98%
**
**
**
**
**
86%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Presbyterian Church of Ireland
**
**
**
**
6
13
**
**
**
**
**
10
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
**
**
**
**
25%
21%
**
**
**
**
**
20%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
a
**
**
**
**
47%
100%
**
**
**
**
**
79%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Church of Ireland
**
**
**
**
4
8
**
**
**
**
**
6
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
**
**
**
**
15%
13%
**
**
**
**
**
12%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
**
**
**
**
44%
100%
**
**
**
**
**
75%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Methodist Church of Ireland
**
**
**
**
2
4
**
**
**
**
**
3
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
**
**
**
**
7%
6%
**
**
**
**
**
6%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
**
**
**
**
46%
100%
**
**
**
**
**
88%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Other Christian (including Christian related)
**
**
**
**
1
2
**
**
**
**
**
2
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
**
**
**
**
3%
4%
**
**
**
**
**
3%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
**
**
**
**
35%
100%
**
**
**
**
**
72%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Other religions/ philosophies
**
**
**
**
1
1
**
**
**
**
**
1
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
**
**
**
**
3%
2%
**
**
**
**
**
3%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
**
**
**
**
52%
77%
**
**
**
**
**
96%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
No religion
**
**
**
**
2
6
**
**
**
**
**
5
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
**
**
**
**
8%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
11%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
**
**
**
**
31%
98%
**
**
**
**
**
84%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz12 (Qzni1). Do You Regard Yourself As Belonging To Any Particular Religion? If Yes: Which Religion, Religious Denomination Or Body Do You Belong?
Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland
AGE/
AGE
SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+ AGE GROUP
65+ AGE GROUP ENGLAND
N
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
ENGLAND
SCOT-
IRELAND
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
LAND
WALES
MALE
FEMALE
ABC1
C2DE
Significance Level: 95%
*a
*b
*c
d
e
f
~g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
~m
~n
~o
p
~q
~r
~s
~t
Unweighted total
68
52
42
94
221
499
9
97
26
18
29
411
-
-
-
94
-
-
-
-
Effective Weighted Sample
54
41
37
78
173
381
9
75
24
16
24
314
-
-
-
78
-
-
-
-
Total
8
5
5
9
24
61
1
10
2
2
3
51
-
-
-
9
-
-
-
-
**
**
**
**
39%
99%
**
**
**
**
**
82%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Refused
**
**
**
**
1
3
**
**
**
**
**
2
-
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
**
**
**
**
6%
5%
**
**
**
**
**
4%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
**
**
**
**
48%
100%
**
**
**
**
**
80%
-%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
-%
-%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l - m,n,o,p - q,r,s,t | en |
2138-pdf |
## Dee Management Catchment Summary Contents
1.
Background to the Dee Management summary ...........................................................
3
2. The Dee Management Catchment
...................................................................................
4
3. Current Status of the water environment in the Dee Management Catchment ................
7
4. The main challenges
........................................................................................................
9
5. Objectives and measures ..............................................................................................
12
6. What next?
.....................................................................................................................
17
7. Water Watch Wales .......................................................................................................
17
## 1. Background To The Dee Management Summary
This management catchment summary supports the current consultation on the updated river basin management plans. Along with detailed information on the Water Watch Wales website, this summary will help to inform and support delivery of local environmental improvements. In Wales, Natural Resources Wales has adopted the ecosystem approach. This means being more joined up in how we manage the environment and its natural resources to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits for a healthier, more resilient Wales. It means considering and regulating the environment as a whole, rather than dealing with individual aspects separately; weighing up and setting priorities for the many competing demands on our natural resources in a more integrated way. In England the Environment Agency has launched the catchment based approach (CaBa), a way of working which was piloted during 2012 across 10 catchments. This has similar aims as the ecosystem services approach in Wales. CaBa aims to deliver positive and sustained outcomes for the water environment by promoting a better understanding of the environment at a local level; and to encourage local collaboration and more transparent decision-making when both planning and delivering activities to improve the water environment. Partnership working is essential to achieve our ambition. By working together in this management catchment we will:
understand the issues in catchments and how they interact understand how the issues are affecting the current local benefits and future uses of
water
involve local people, communities, organisations and businesses in making decisions
by sharing evidence
identify which issues to tackle as a priority.
The Water Framework Directive provides a major overarching framework for river basin management. The Floods Directive sets out a strategic approach to flood risk management planning. A flood risk management plan has been produced for consultation in parallel to the river basin management plan and can also be found on our website. The flood risk management plan details how we propose to manage flood risk across the river basin district by prioritising those communities that are most at risk of flooding and detailing the measures we intend to take to manage their risk. The flood risk management plan and the river basin management plan will shape important decisions, direct considerable investment and action, and deliver significant benefits to society and the environment. As part of the consultation we are asking you for your input on priority opportunities and how we can make these summary documents as useful and relevant to the management catchment as possible. Within the river basin management plan consultation documents are a number of consultation questions; these will provide a useful starting point to gather your ideas in order to improve not only this document but partnership options to ensure that we work together to provide the best environmental options. We encourage you to look at the river basin management plans and respond to the consultation questions which you can find on our website.
## 2. The Dee Management Catchment
The Dee management catchment covers an area of 2,251 square kilometres, mainly in Wales but in the lower reaches the Dee often runs along the border with England. Its source is in the mountains and lakes of the Snowdonia National Park and it runs to the internationally significant intertidal and wading bird habitat of the Dee Estuary. Chester and Wrexham are the major urban centres, but the land is mainly rural with rough grazing and forestry in the upper catchment and arable and dairy farming on the Cheshire Plain. Reservoirs in the upper part of the catchment store water and regulate flow in the Dee. They sustain abstractions for public and industrial water supply and modify flood response in the river, reducing the frequency of flooding in the Dee between Bala and Chester. Parts of the Dee catchment are underlain by a Permo-Triassic Sandstone aquifer. This aquifer is used to support agricultural, industrial and water supply abstractions and contributes to baseflows in the lower Dee and some of the tributaries. The river is an important source of drinking water for nearly three million people, in Wales and North West England. Risks from pollution have led to it becoming one of the most protected rivers in Europe. In 1999, the lower part of the Dee was designated as the UK's first, and to date only, Water Protection Zone. The Dee and its estuary has a high conservation value, it is designated as two Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), and notified as three separate Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Interest features contributing to the SSSI and SAC designations of the freshwater sections of the river include floating water plantain, Atlantic salmon, lamprey, otter, and structural changes in the meandering section of the main river. The intertidal habitats of the Dee Estuary support significant populations of wading birds and is also designated as a Special Protection Area and a Ramsar site. The Dee and its tributaries are renowned for their excellent fishing and there is an important cockle fishery in the estuary. The river Dee is popular for canoeing and the National Whitewater Centre is located on the Afon Tryweryn near Bala.
2.1 The catchment approach In 2013 the Environment Agency launched the catchment based approach (CaBa). Both Natural Resource Wales and Environment Agency place value on collaborative decision making and local action to help deliver improvements to water bodies across the Dee catchment.
The Welsh Dee Trust in collaboration with Cheshire Wildlife Trust successfully bid for Environment Agency money to develop catchment partnerships in the Middle Dee and the Tidal Dee in 2013. A cross-border approach was adopted from the outset to enable joint working and with a view to obtaining funding from Wales to support future work. Both partnerships are supported by a steering group. The Tidal and Middle Dee partnerships aim to maintain, enhance and protect the Dee catchment and estuary by integrating the catchment based approach to promote sustainable use of the environment, enhance wildlife value and provide recreation and access to nature. A stakeholder workshop was held in December 2013 at Little Sutton to collate baseline information on what was already happening in the Middle and Tidal Dee catchments, and to identify future projects and funding opportunities. Opinions were also sought on whether the estuary should be managed separately to the Middle Dee catchment or if a combined approach would be advantageous. Based on the feedback received it was decided to develop both partnerships separately, but remain aware of the need to work together on many issues. A second follow-up workshop, "Muddy Boots drop-in" was held on March 26th 2014. This was an opportunity for people who hadn't attended a catchment workshop before to find out more and a chance to have a say on some of the projects and potential future project ideas.
Natural Resources Wales held a workshop to cover the upper part of the Dee catchment during February 2014 at the White Water Hotel, Llangollen.
During recent workshops the benefits of the Dee catchment were captured. These included: Water supply - from the Dee, Llangollen canal and reservoirs Flood control High quality landscape - e.g. Clwydian Range and Dee Valley Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (AONB)
Recreation and tourism - importance for local economy and employment, particularly
water based recreation around Llyn Tegid, National White Water Centre and angling at many of the reservoirs
Vibrant rural communities Biodiversity Farming of livestock and crops Forestry & Native woodlands
Views on the wider benefits of a healthy water environment were also captured, these were wide ranging and included a better quality of life, increased well-being, high biodiversity, rivers that people can swim in, healthy fishing industry for mussels and cockles, good for tourism and recreation and rivers that local people are interested in Natural Resources Wales and Environment Agency continue to work in partnership with a range of partners and sectors in innovative ways so that we can achieve even more together. Some of the projects that have been delivered within this management catchment over the last 3 years together with projects in development are included below:
| Project Name Project Description | Partners | Funding |
|-------------------------------------|------------------------|---------------|
| sources | | |
| Afon Alwen | Removal of barriers | Afonydd Cymru |
| fund | | |
| Afon | | |
| Camddwr | | |
| Middle section habitat | | |
| scheme | | |
| Afonydd Cymru | WFD TSO | |
| fund | | |
| Afon Eitha | Fish pass and eel pass | Afonydd Cymru |
| fund | | |
| Afonydd Cymru | WFD TSO | |
| fund | | |
| Afon Meloch | Barrier removal and | |
| replace fence | | |
| to stop poaching | | |
| Rossett and Gresford | | |
| Flyfishers Club | | |
| WFD TSO | | |
| fund | | |
| Survey of fish | | |
| population | | |
| and habitat | | |
| improvement | | |
| Improve habitat on the | | |
| River Alyn using stream | | |
| side fencing and tree | | |
| planting | | |
| Welsh Dee Rivers Trust | WFD TSO | |
| fund | | |
| Himalayan | | |
| Balsam | | |
| control | | |
| Working with angling | | |
| clubs to manage invasive | | |
| plant species | | |
| Afonydd Cymru | WFD TSO | |
| fund | | |
| Habitat | | |
| restoration on | | |
| Camddwr | | |
| Working with the | | |
| Woodland Trust to restore | | |
| stream side woodlands on | | |
| the river Camddwr near | | |
| Corwen | | |
## 2.1 Key Facts We Use The Term Water Bodies To Help Understand And Manage The Water Environment. A Water Body Is Part, Or The Whole, Of A River, Lake, Ground Water Or Coastal Water. The Number And Type Of Water Bodies In The Management Catchment Is Shown In The Table Below.
| Number of water bodies | Natural | Heavily Modified | Total |
|----------------------------|------------|---------------------|----------|
| River* | 49 | 22 | 71 |
| Lake | 7 | 17 | 24 |
| Coastal | | | |
| | | | |
| 0 | | | |
| Estuarine | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Groundwater | 5 | | |
| | | | |
| 5 | | | |
| Total | 61 | 40 | 101 |
| | | | |
There are areas in the catchment where the water environment is recognised as being of particular importance, including rare wildlife habitats, bathing waters or areas around drinking water sources. These areas are known collectively as protected areas and are detailed in the table below.
| Protected Area | Number |
|---------------------------------------|-----------|
| Bathing Waters | 0 |
| Drinking Water Protected Areas | 33 |
| Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites | 22 |
| Nitrate Vulnerable Zones | 45315ha |
| Shellfish Waters | 1 |
| Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive | |
| - Sensitive areas | |
| 1 | |
3. Current Status of the water environment in the Dee Management Catchment We assess the condition of water bodies through monitoring which produces an annual classification. The current status for each water body is shown in figure 2. Note, since 2009, we have updated some of the systems we use to classify water bodies, including changes to some standards and water body boundaries.
4. The main challenges
We have carried out a programme of investigations to better understand why water bodies are not meeting the required standards. The results of our findings are summarised in Figure 3.
## Figure 3. Reason For Not Achieving Good Status In The Dee Management Catchment
Water bodies are often affected by more than one issue. Acidification affects the Gelyn above Llyn Celyn and the Alwen above Alwen reservoir while elevated concentrations of metals from abandoned mines impacts the Afon Clywedog near Wrexham and the Afon Y Garth which drains direct to the estuary near Ffynnongroyw. Continuous discharges from wastewater treatment works are contributing to elevated concentrations of phosphate in Pulford, Worthenbury and the Alyn catchments. Reducing pollution from diffuse rural sources will help address reasons for not achieving good in water bodies throughout the catchment, including tributaries above Llyn Tegid at Bala, in some tributaries in the Alwen catchment and in many parts of the lower Dee. Further work is required to identify issues and mitigate any impacts from water resource impoundments including at Llyn Celyn and Tryweryn.
4.1 Workshop feedback on challenges We need to work together to ensure the overall aims of the Water Framework Directive are met. In order to work together effectively we need to agree on the issues and solutions. The following section includes some of the issues that were raised at the recent Dee workshops; however it is not a full list. All of the comments received will be taken into account and the following are examples:
Pollution from metal mines
Low populations of salmon in the Upper Dee Need for more education and awareness raising Need to clear debris from rivers to reduce flood risk - trees, gravel bars, dredge Rapid upland drainage impacting on designated sites, WQ and flooding
Invasive non-native species Local planning different in Wales - no emphasis for Neighbourhood Plans Economic benefit of good interest environments (coastal/river/birds/biodiversity) Bathing water quality, microbiological quality, as well as water company investment the
land and water management, agricultural etc
NRW Navigation Authority for whole estuary (except Mostyn Dock)
##
Case study: Finchetts Gutter water quality improvements Finchetts Gutter runs through the 29Ha Countess of Chester Community Country Park. Approximately 30,000 people (10% of Chester's population) live and work in the surrounding area. With the Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, the Environment Agency have reduced diffuse pollution issues affecting Finchetts Gutter. This is part of a wider project to enhance the Community Park. The vision for the park is to improve wildlife habitat, its ecology and for the local communities to enjoy it. In 2011/12 the Environment Agency and partners created a reedbed and improved the channel flow. In 2012/13 a further 130m of its old course was excavated and an additional reedbed created to improve water quality. Volunteers helped plant up the bed with phragmites reeds and iris. Once embedded, the improvements will have created space for water, reduced flood risk downstream and improved habitats.
Case study: Dee Invasive Non Native Species (DINNS) Project The project covers the entire River Dee catchment in Wales (1,722 km2). The Dee Catchment is an important area for biodiversity and this is recognised by the many designated sites (national, local and EU) that are located within it. One of the biggest threats to this important biodiversity are invasive nonnative species (INNS). INNS also have negative impacts on local people and businesses and can cause a potential health risk such as Giant Hogweed. The DINNS Project is a catchment-wide partnership initiative which aims to co-ordinate control of INNS within the Dee catchment. A strategic action plan is already in place and includes management action, surveillance, awareness raising and biosecurity planning. A project officer coordinates action between a wide range of partners including Wildlife Trusts, several local authorities, Welsh Dee Trust, Keep Wales Tidy and local angling groups as well as statutory organisations such as NRW, Environment Agency and Natural England. Future funding is being sought to expand the project and provide a long term project for the Dee. This should result in increased ecosystem resilience and diversity of the Dee catchment.
5. Objectives and measures This section outlines what we are aiming to achieve and the proposed new measures that need to be put in place. We aim to develop a single integrated programme of measures by
2021 that meets Water Framework Directive objectives:
## Prevent Deterioration In Status Water Body Status Will Not Be Allowed To Deteriorate From The Current Reported Status. Achieve The Objectives For Protected Areas Achieve The Standards Set By The Relevant Directive Under Which They Were Designated. For Water Dependent Natura 2000 Sites We Will Aim To Achieve Conservation Objectives, Achieving Good Status By 2021 Is A Milestone Towards This Objective. Aim To Achieve Good Overall Status For Surface And Ground Waters Implement Measures To Achieve Good Overall Status Where They Are Technically Feasible And Not Disproportionately Costly.
5.1 Measures We have reviewed the reasons why water bodies are failing to achieve objectives and identified potential measures. Measures are divided into two groups. National measures apply to the whole of Wales, or the United Kingdom. In general these set the legislative, policy or strategic approach. Examples include a national ban on using a particular chemical or a national strategy for prioritising and funding the remediation of abandoned mines. Local measures are specific to the river basin district or a part of it. For example, the removal of invasive plants along a length of designated river or a local campaign targeting misconnections across an industrial estate. Many of the actions listed will also have multiple benefits. For example, sustainable urban drainage (SuDs) schemes help to reduce urban pollution, sewage pollution and changes to water levels. A list of all national measures, both new and existing, and the local measures at the water body scale are detailed on Water Watch Wales. If you know about any others or want to suggest new measures, please tell us in your response to the consultation. The river basin management plan will become a statutory document hence the importance of ensuring that the correct measures are identified through this consultation.
The table below summarises the local measures for the management catchment, including those identified for protected areas. The high level categories describe the types of action required and broadly the options that are available, including voluntary and regulatory measures. At the local scale some of the options described might not be considered appropriate. There is overlap between some categories.
| Measure | Description |
|-------------------------------------------|----------------|
| Acidification restoration | 3 |
| Emissions controls and upland | |
| restoration: blocking drainage, restoring | |
| blanket bog, within forestry plantation | |
| blocking forest drains and establishing | |
| native trees within the riparian zone, | |
| liming options. Some overlap with | |
| "address air pollution". | |
| Address air pollution | 36 |
| Emissions controls to reduce nitrogen | |
| and acidic deposition. Some overlap with | |
| "acidification restoration". | |
| Address point source pollution | |
| Investigate and regulate pollution from | |
| 24 | |
| Measure | Description |
|---------------------------------------------|----------------|
| point sources. Overlaps with "reduce | |
| pollution from sewage discharges" and | |
| "other waste water discharges". | |
| Complete first cycle investigation | |
| All ongoing WFD investigations from first | |
| cycle programme. | |
| 46 | |
| 25 | |
| Drainage and water level | |
| management | |
| Investigate and implement changes to | |
| land drainage regimes and structures to | |
| restore water levels. | |
| Dredging and silt management | 2 |
| Includes reducing siltation at source | |
| through land management, and | |
| implementing sustainable dredging and | |
| silt disposal regimes. | |
| Improve fish passage and habitat | |
| Remove or modify barriers to fish | |
| passage | |
| 30 | |
| Improve flows and water levels | 28 |
| Reduce impacts of regulated flows and | |
| abstractions, restore more natural flow | |
| regimes, implement options to improve | |
| water levels, such as water efficiency and | |
| recycling measures, alternative sources | |
| and supplies. | |
| Manage invasive non-native species | 39 |
| Eradication and/or management of | |
| invasive non-native species in line with | |
| current national invasive species Action | |
| Plans. Includes biosecurity good | |
| practice, such as "CHECK-CLEAN-DRY" | |
| and Be Plant Wise. | |
| 10 | |
| Mine water and contaminated land | |
| remediation | |
| Coal and metal mine, and contaminated | |
| land remediation - including passive and | |
| active mine water treatment, capping of | |
| spoil, removal of wastes to landfill, and | |
| channel diversion | |
| 27 | |
| Mitigate impacts of flood and coastal | |
| defences | |
| Reduce impacts of flood defence | |
| structures and operations - improve | |
| connectivity, habitat, and morphology by | |
| implementing options through capital and | |
| maintenance programmes, such as soft | |
| engineering, opening culverts, upgrading | |
| tidal flaps, changing dredging and | |
| vegetation management. Includes the | |
| national habitat creation programme to | |
| address coastal squeeze. | |
| Mitigate impacts of water resource | |
| impoundments | |
| Assess and implement options for | |
| improving fish passage and habitat. | |
| 4 | |
| New Investigation | 61 |
| Includes investigations for all new | |
| failures, deterioration, and drinking water | |
| protected areas. | |
| | |
| Reduce impacts of other physical | |
| modifications | |
| Improve connectivity, habitat and | |
| morphology through soft engineering and | |
| 2 | |
| Measure | Description |
|-----------------------------------------------|----------------|
| restoration techniques. | |
| 1 | |
| Reduce pollution from other waste | |
| water discharges | |
| Reduce pollution from other (non- | |
| sewage) point sources, both regulated | |
| and unregulated. Investigate and | |
| implement basic pollution prevention | |
| measures, including provision of up to | |
| date advice and guidance, such as | |
| correct handling and storage of chemicals | |
| and waste, management of trade effluent, | |
| and regulation. | |
| Reduce pollution from septic tanks | 4 |
| Target actions to ensure septic tanks are | |
| maintained correctly. Where necessary | |
| issue formal works notices to owners to | |
| relocate or replace tanks and soakaways. | |
| 8 | |
| Reduce pollution from sewage | |
| discharges | |
| Reducing pollution from continuous and | |
| intermittent discharges, includes | |
| additional treatment at sewage treatment | |
| works (e.g. phosphate stripping), | |
| investigating and tackling sewer | |
| blockages, and implementing sustainable | |
| drainage to reduce surface water | |
| drainage to sewers. | |
| 39 | |
| Sustainable access and recreation | |
| management | |
| Reduce the impacts of erosion, | |
| disturbance and damage from both water- | |
| based and terrestrial access, including | |
| tackling illegal off-roading. | |
| Sustainable agricultural practices | 69 |
| Implement basic and additional measures | |
| such as correct management of slurry, | |
| silage, fuel oil, and agricultural chemicals; | |
| clean and dirty water separation; nutrient | |
| management planning; buffer strips and | |
| riparian fencing; cover crops and soil | |
| management. In N2k sites changes to | |
| grazing regimes may be required, | |
| includes scrub management. Within | |
| NVZs comply with storage and spreading | |
| regulations. | |
| Sustainable fisheries management | 22 |
| Includes measures for both freshwater | |
| and marine fisheries to reduce and | |
| mitigate impacts | |
| Sustainable marine development | 1 |
| Includes off-shore energy developments, | |
| such as oil and gas exploration and tidal | |
| energy. | |
| Sustainable sea fish industries | 1 |
| Includes measures for both freshwater | |
| and marine fisheries to reduce and | |
| mitigate impacts | |
| Sustainable woodland and forestry | |
| management | |
| Restore the riparian zone, disconnect | |
| forest drains, monitor the effectiveness of | |
| 27 | |
| Measure | Description |
|-------------------------------------------|----------------|
| the 5 principle risks associated with | |
| forestry and use forestry and woodland to | |
| reduce diffuse pollution. | |
| Waste management | 22 |
| Includes appropriate management of | |
| spoil and sludge, illegal fly-tipping and | |
| litter | |
| 1 | |
| Mitigate impacts of shipping, | |
| navigation and dredging | |
| Assess and implement options for | |
| adapting dredging regimes and reducing | |
| the impacts of physical modifications. | |
| | |
Some examples of actions that are already under way include:
Big Dee Day (litter clean up Sept and invasive non-native species work June/July) Dee Estuary Strategy, Dee Conservation Group and Dee Industry Group Tourism projects e.g. Flint Castle Dee Diffuse Water Pollution Plan United Utilities funding with Defra Livestock Northwest farm visits for nutrient and
pesticide management.
Go with the Flow - Dee Community Engagement project Cheshire Wildlife Trust Countess of Chester Country Park - EA, NHS, Cheshire West & Chester Council
(CWAC)
Misconnections in Caldy Valley and Huntington area - EA Middle Dee Rural Diffuse Pollution Project on the Worthenbury and Wych - UU and
DCWW funded
Canal Connections Project - Cheshire Wildlife Trust, Canal & Rivers Trust Chinese Mitton Crab project EA/NWWT Waterways of Chester Regeneration (Cheshire West and Chester Council) Coastal Country Park Project - Local Authorities Saltmarsh engagement project (RSPB, Bat group, Local town councils, Local
authorities, Wildlife Trust)
Eryri and Hiraethog Peatland Restoration Project - Snowdonia National Park, RSPB
and partners
Tidal Dee litter marine project between the catchment partnership and Cheshire Wildlife
Trust
NRW is setting up an external steering group to support investigations into how the flow
regime on the Tryweryn, and the various structures in and around Bala, may be affecting fish migration in the Upper Dee catchment. The group will assess and implement adaptive management measures that may be required to overcome impacts identified during this work.
5.2 Workshop feedback on solutions
Of the challenges raised at the recent workshops, the following potential solutions were proposed:
**Diffuse pollution from rural land management** - nitrates, sediments, pesticides
Proposed solutions include - provide more information for farmers and foresters,
buffer zones, soil testing for nutrients, free visits for nutrient planning, effective
landspreading, look to use non-toxic alternative insecticides that won't damage the aquatic environment
Water running off the catchments too quickly
Proposed solutions include - Tree planting, grip blocking in the uplands, enhance
storage capacity of soil, reduce erosion by buffer zones, re-meander, review role of agrienvironment schemes, look at management of moorlands/farmlands
Low populations of salmon in the Upper Dee
Proposed solutions include - Investigate flow regime, including flow reversal and
migration at Bala sluices, habitat creation on tributaries
Invasive non-native species
Proposed solutions include - on the ground action, education and awareness raising,
biosecurity, secure additional funding, make landowners responsible
5.3 Alternative objectives We have identified a small number of water bodies where because of the nature of the problem or the required measures we propose an extended deadline or less stringent objective (less than good). In each case we have provided a justification.
Number
Alternative
of
Water body
objective
Justifications
water
bodies
Extended deadline
Natural conditions - recovery time from acidification
3
Alwen - above Afon Brenig Lliw Gelyn
Extended deadline
Natural conditions - naturally acidic, unlikely to change
1
Tryweryn - Llyn Celyn to Llyn Treweryn Inlet
Technically infeasible -
minewater scheme
1
Less
stringent
objective
Clywedog - Gwenfro to Black Brook
Dee Carboniferous Coal Measures
5.4 Opportunities for partnerships
There are several external funding opportunities, which could support projects that contribute towards Water Framework Directive outcomes. Each fund has its own priorities, budgetary allocation and application process. Types of funding for consideration include:
European funds - The EU provides funding from a broad range of programmes - go to
the Welsh European Funding Office website for more information.
Lottery Funding - such as Heritage Lottery Fund, Postcode Lottery and BIG Lottery
Fund which have a range of programmes from £5000 up to £millions.
Charities, trust & foundations - there are many of these operating and they often have a
specific focus - either geographically or topically and will support local charities and projects.
Businesses and sponsorship opportunities - including making the most of the Welsh
carrier bag charge!
Public bodies - Local authorities, Welsh Government, UK Government, Natural
Resource Wales and EA may have annual funding opportunities or one-off competitions for their priority areas.
Crowdfunding - gathering support from a wide range and number of funders, often
including individuals and usually using the internet to raise awareness for a specific project needing funds.
Trading - Increasingly funders are looking to support organisations with longer term
sustainability in mind so developing trading opportunities can be something to consider too.
Your local County Voluntary Council and Wales Council for Voluntary Action will have up to date information on opportunities such as these as well as a host of other support available.
6. What next?
This summary is intended to be a snap shot of the management catchment and should enable you to be able to access further detail using Water Watch Wales. We welcome your views on how we can improve how we do this. The summary supports the current consultation on the updated river basin management plans. We encourage you to look at the river basin management plans and respond to the consultation questions which you can find on our website. If you have any questions, please e-mail: ardalbasnafondyfrdwy@cyfoethnaturiolcymru.gov.uk deerbd@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk
7. Water Watch Wales During the implementation phase of the first river basin management plan many of our partners and stakeholders requested access to data and information to assist them in helping to deliver local environmental improvements. It was quite clear early on that the first plan was difficult to navigate and access at a local scale. Consequently with both the support and input from the river basin district liaison panels a web based tool has been developed. This tool is called Water Watch Wales. This is an interactive spatial web-based tool that provides supporting information and data layers which can assist partners. We are continuing to develop this tool and see it as a critical link between the more strategic river basin management plan and local delivery. It should enable the user to access information on:
classification data at the water body scale reasons for not achieving good status objectives measures/actions, including protected area information partnership projects
Data can be retrieved in a number of formats (spreadsheets and summary reports). A user guide together with frequently asked questions is included with the tool and can be accessed from a link on the home page.
##
Published by: Natural Resources Wales Cambria House 29 Newport Road Cardiff CF24 0TP 0300 065 3000 (Mon-Fri, 8am - 6pm)
enquiries@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk © Natural Resources Wales All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of Natural Resources Wales | en |
3995-pdf |
Accord entre l'autorite
nationale de securite
francaise et l'autorite
competente du
Royaume-Uni concernant
la cooperation en matiere
de surveillance des
entreprises ferroviaires
Agreement between the
national safety
authorities of France and
the United Kingdom
concerning co-operation
relating to on
supervision of railway
activities
Office of Rail and Road (ORR)
Etablissement public de securite
ferroviaire (EPSF)
One Kemble Street
60, rue de la Vallee
London, WC2B 4AN
CS 11758
Tel.: +44 20 7282 2000
F-80017 Amiens Cedex 1
orr.gov.uk
Tel. : +33 (0)3 22 33 95 95
http://www.securite-ferroviaire.fr/contact
## Office Of Rail And Road Agreement Between The National Safety Authorities Of France And The United Kingdom Concerning Co Operation Relating To On Supervision Of Railway Activities
The Parties:
-
Mrs Florence Rousse, Director-General of the Etab/issement Public de Securite Ferroviaire (EPSF), acting pursuant to the amended Decree 2006-1289 of 19
October 2006 on the duties and status of EPSF
- Mr. Ian Prosser CBE, Director of Railway Safety and Her
!V1ajesty's Chief !nsoector r of Rai!wa\/c: nn
_,, ht:>h:>lf -•
nf tht:>
..,,,.._
1'-'I
-'-'I'""''
Office of Rail and Road (ORR), acting pursuant to the Railways Act 2005 and the railway safety purposes of ORR
Hereby agree as follows:
## 1. Introduction
The present agreement is entered into between the Etablissement Public de Securite Ferroviaire (EPSF) on behalf of France and the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) for the United Kingdom.
It is hereby agreed that the present agreement shall neither waive the principle of respect of the geographical competence devolved to each authority nor in any way limit the substantive competences devolved to them.
The present agreement concerns the co-operation between the signatory authorities in the supervision of the railway undertakings (RUs) operating trains between France and the United Kingdom, including their subcontractors. It also concerns the information which the Parties pledge to exchange when their findings in the context of their respective supervision operations may fall within the other authority's competence.
## Accord Entre L'Autorite Nationale De Securite Fran~Aise Et L'Autorite Competente Du Royaume-Uni Concernant La Cooperation En Matiere De Surveillance Des Entreprises Ferroviaires
Les **parties** :
-
Mme Florence Rousse, Directrice Generale de l'Etablissement Public de Securite Ferroviaire (EPSF), agissant conformement au decret 2006-1289 du 19
octobre 2006 modifie relatif aux missions et statut de l'Etablissement Public de Securite Ferroviaire
- M. Ian Prosser CBE, Directeur de la Securite Ferroviaire et lnspecteur en Chef des Chem ins de Fer de Sa Majeste, pour le compte de Office of Rail and Road (ORR), agissant conformement athe Railways Act 2005 relatif aux missions de securite ferroviaire de l'ORR
Conviennent :
1. INTRODUCTION
Le present accord est conclu entre l'Etablissement Public de Securite Ferroviaire (EPSF) pour la France, et l'Office of Rail and Road (ORR) pour le Royaume-Uni.
II est convenu que le present accord ne pourra deroger au principe du respect de la competence territoriale devalue a chaque autorite, ni restreindre de quelque maniere que ce soit les competences materielles qui leur sont devalues.
Le present accord concerne la cooperation des autorites signataires en matiere de surveillance des entreprises ferroviaires (EF) exploitant des trains circulant entre la France et le Royaume-Uni y compris leurs sous-traitants.
II concerne egalement les echanges d'informations que les parties s'engagent arealiser lorsque, al'occasion de leurs operations de controle respectives, des constats de securite pouvant relever de la competence de l'autre autorite sont observes.
## 2. Champ D'Application
2. SCOPE
The signatory Parties undertake to co-operate to implement common approaches to the supervision of the RUs operating trains between France and the United Kingdom, including their subcontractors, to satisfy themselves that the safety management system operated by the RUs in both states governed by the present agreement shall cover all relevant activities which guarantee control of the safety-related risks and the exercise of safety tasks. This collaboration also includes the sharing of information about aspects of the safety of railway traffic and also the measures to be taken identified by one party which could be of interest to the other.
Les parties signataires s'engagent a collaborer pour mettre en reuvre des approches communes pour leurs activites de surveillance des EF exploitant des trains circulant entre la France et le Royaume-Uni, y compris leurs sous-traitants, afin de s'assurer que le systeme de gestion de la securite applique par les EF, dans les deux Etats concernes par le present accord, couvre toutes les activites pertinentes permettant de garantir la maitrise des risques en matiere de securite et l'exercice des taches de securite. Cette collaboration vise egalement a partager les informations sur des aspects de la securite des circulations ferroviaires et sur les mesures a prendre identifiees par une partie qui peuvent interesser l'autre partie.
To this end, ORR and EPSF agree that:
Each signatory authority will ensure that the other has the practical opportunity to carry out its supervision activities where it is necessary that these activities involve working on each other's territory;
They will share with each other the non
conformities or weaknesses respectively identified in each State with the level of responsiveness demanded by the seriousness of the situation observed.
They should inform each other when they take any urgent safety measures;
The lessons learned from the experience gained from both sides will be shared in order to maintain the level of safety in both States.
Dans ce but, l'EPSF et l'ORR s'engagent ace que:
Chaque autorite signataire garantit a l'autre les possibilites pratiques d'exercer ses missions de surveillance lorsque, par necessite, ces missions la conduisent a intervenir physiquement sur le territoire de l'autre;
Les ecarts ou defaillances releves respectivement dans chaque Etat sont partages mutuellement, avec le degre de reactivite necessaire en fonction de la criticite de la situation observee ;
Les prises de mesures immediates font I'objet d'un partage;
Les enseignements tires du retour d'experience effectue de part et d'autre font l'objet d'un partage utile au maintien du niveau de securite dans les deux Etats.
Pour la mise en pratique de la coordination, les auto rites signataires s'accordent a prevoir les modalites pratiques selon lesquelles une autorite informe l'autre de son intention d'aller controler une entreprise sur le territoire de l'autre autorite.
In order to put this cooperation into practice, the signatory authorities hereby agree to set down the practical approaches under which either authority will inform the other of its intent to carry out inspection of an undertaking on the territory of the other authority.
The parties also agree to work on the following topics:
Elles s'accordent egalement a travailler sur les themes suivants :
1.
Sharing
of
information
about
each
authority's supervisory strategies and plans.
1.
Le partage d'informations sur les strategies
et les plans de surveillance de securite;
2.
Classification of their findings
and,
if
necessary, harmonisation of the measures to
take in the event of non-conformities;
2.
La qualification des constats et, le cas
echeant, !'harmonisation des mesures a
prendre en cas de non-conformites;
3.
Mutual exchange of information on any
findings or events which reveal a safety
concern;
3.
Les echanges mutuels d'information en cas
de constats de situations revelant un risque
pour la securite.
## 3. Surveillance Des Ef 3. Supervision Of Rus 3.1. Mission Des Autorites Sur Le Territoire De L'Autre Autorite 3.1. Activities Of Authorities In Neighbouring Territory
Some railway operators certified by one of the authorities also operate or sub-contract operations on the territory of the other authority. The inspectors of the authority that is competent for the supervision of those operators will therefore become involved in identifying issues on the territory of the other authority.
Certains exploitants ferroviaires, disposant d'un titre de securite delivre par une autorite operent egalement OU sous-traitent des operations dans le territoire relevant de l'autre autorite. Les inspecteurs de l'autorite competente pour la surveillance de ces exploitants, sont done conduits arealiser des constats sur le territoire de l'autre autorite.
By the present agreement, the authorities shall ensure A travers le present accord, chaque autorite garantit a l'autre l'exercice de ces activites, moyennant:
the pursuit of such activities as follows:
they will notify their counterpart no later than the day before the intervention;
the other authority may, if desired, send a Que celle-ci en informe son homologue le plus tot possible et au plus tard la veille de
!'intervention ;
Que l'autre autorite puisse, si elle le souhaite, depecher un collaborateur accompagnant la mission en tant qu'observateur;
Que tout constat revelant une situation arisque sur le territoire relevant de l'autorite member of its staff to accompany the mission in an observer role;
and any finding of a safety concern relevant to the territory of the other authority shall be notified to that authority without delay by the authority that identified the issue.
homologue lui soit signale sans delai par l'autorite ayant releve le constat.
Both parties further agree to inform the other where either authority moves towards revoking or suspending on its territory a certificate awarded to an RU operating services on both territories.
En outre, si une autorite procede a la suppression ou a la suspension sur son territoire d'une autorisation delivree a une EF exploitant des services de part et d'autre, elle s'engage aen informer l'autre sans delai.
Les parties faciliteront, en tant que de besoin, la communication avec l'entite controlee de leurterritoire.
The parties will facilitate, where needed, communication with the entity subject to this enforcement.
Les parties s'accordent a soutenir les formalites administratives eventuellement necessaires d'entree sur le territoire voisin.
The Parties hereby agree to support such administrative formalities as may prove necessary to enter the neighbouring territory.
Des modalites pratiques complementaires pourront etre convenues a !'usage en fonction des premiers retours d'experience sur ces dispositions.
Additional practical arrangements may be agreed upon depending on the early experience of applying these provisions.
## 3.2. Sharing Of Supervision Strategies And Plans 3.2. Partage Des Strategies Et Des Plans De Surveillance
The authorities hereby undertake to share their respective plans for supervising the RUs operating trains between France and the United Kingdom, including their subcontractors, in order to implement where possible co-ordinated management of their supervision activities.
Les autorites s'engagent a partager leurs plans de surveillance respectifs concernant les EF exploitant des trains circulant entre la France et le Royaume-Uni, y compris leurs sous-traitants, afin de mettre en ceuvre, autant que possible, une gestion coordonnee des operations de surveillance de celles-ci.
The supervision plans (specifically including the schedule of inspections and their themes) shall be shared at the meetings provided for in part 5 of the present agreement, to check whether joint themes are Les plans de surveillance (incluant notamment le calendrier des controles et les themes) seront partages lors d'une des reunions prevues au chapitre 5 du present accord, afin de verifier si des themes conjoints de appropriate in the supervision of the RU and to avoid, where possible, scheduling simultaneous and/or superfluous activities supervising the same entity which would otherwise stretch the resources it dedicates to safety activities. Where common topics are identified, the parties shall share the results.
surveillance a l'egard des EF sont opportuns et ainsi d'eviter, autant que faire se peut, la programmation d'operations de surveillance simultanees et/ou superflues sur une meme entite et par consequence une sur-sollicitation des ressources dediees aux activites de securite. Lorsque des themes communs sont identifies, les autorites en partagent les resultats.
In accordance with paragraph 3.1, these provisions do not preclude the implementation by either authority at any time, within the scope of its own powers, of a supplementary supervisory action it deems necessary for an RU, including in an emergency.
Conformement au paragraphe 3.1, ces dispositions ne font pas obstacle a la mise en reuvre par une autorite, dans le cadre de ses competences propres, d'une action de surveillance complementaire, eventuellement en urgence, jugee necessaire envers une EF, et ce a tout moment.
The signatory Parties to this agreement also undertake to share their supervisory strategies in order to inform each other of the themes of their supervisory activities and the priorities selected by each authority to draw up its supervision programme.
Les parties signataires du present accord s'engagent par ailleurs a partager leurs strategies de surveillance afin de s'informer mutuellement des themes des activites de surveillance et des priorites que chaque autorite a choisies afin d'elaborer son programme de surveillance.
## 3.3. Classification Of Findings And Harmonisation Of Measures To Take In The Event Of Non Conformities 3.3. Qualification Des Constats Et Harmonisation Des Mesures A Prendre En Cas De Non Conformites
The defined classification levels used by the authorities for their supervisory activities and findings shall be specific to each State. The Parties shall work to draw up an approach for aligning the classification of findings and, as far as possible, converge towards harmonisation of measures to be taken in response to similar non
conformities.
La definition des systemes de qualification des constats appliques par les autorites dans leurs activites de surveillance est specifique a chaque Etat. Les parties travailleront a l'etablissement d'une methode de concordance pour la qualification des constats et a converger, dans la mesure du possible, vers une harmonisation des mesures a prendre en cas de non
conformites semblables.
Where appropriate, the parties shall discuss their assessment of the impact of a safety finding in order to harmonize their decisions.
Chaque fois que cela est opportun, les parties echangent sur !'appreciation de !'impact d'un constat sur la securite aux fins d'harmonisation de leurs decisions.
## 3.4. Sharing Of Good Practice 3.4. Partage Du Retour D'Experience
Under the present agreement, the Parties undertake to exchange good practices and place their feedback at their partners' disposal, so as to improve their performance of the duties devolved to them and to support continuous improvement in the safety performance of the railway system.
Au travers du present accord, les parties s'engagent a mettre leurs retours d'experiences a la disposition de leur partenaire et de partager les experiences en matiere de securite ferroviaire, afin d'accroitre leur performance dans la realisation des missions qui leurs sont devalues, dans le but d'ameliorer la performance du niveau de securite du systeme ferroviaire.
The Parties hereby agree to co-operate in the following ways to share their practices for the proper implementation of common supervision activities:
Pour la bonne realisation des activites de surveillance en commun, les parties conviennent de partager leurs pratiques a travers les differentes formes de collaboration ci-apres definies :
"Passive" co-operation: during a supervision activity by any of the signatory authorities, an inspector answerable to the other authority shall be invited to observe any good practices and transpose them as applicable to the supervisory Collaboration « passive » : lors d'une operation de surveillance realisee par l'une des autorites signataires, un inspecteur dependant de l'autre autorite est invite en tant qu'observateur afin process of the authority to which she or he belongs. The aim shall also be to use such passive co-operation to set up a framework for active co
operation.
"Active" co-operation: this shall mean that an inspector from one signatory authority takes part in a supervision activity conducted under the responsibility of the other signatory authority, during which that authority shall follow the procedures of the authority with geographical competence.
With the exception of the participation provided for in paragraph 3.1, the implementation of this collaboration will be subject to the explicit agreement on a case-by-case basis of the company subject to the supervision activity.
4.
NOMINATION OF EACH AUTHORITY'S CONTACT
PERSONS
Each **authority** shall nominate two named contact persons from among their number:
A technical contact person, to participate in the activities and discussions set out in part 3. the duties of the authorities' technical contact persons shall include the following:
o
to act as technical contact person for the
requesting authority;
o
to arrange, with the technical contact
persons of the other signatory authority,
to approach to implementing the agreed
actions;
A lead person responsible for overseeing this agreement as a whole. The leads shall also be tasked with assuring selected technical decisions and, if they are strategic, bringing them to the attention of the senior managers of their respective authorities.
## 5. Meetings
When following up this co-operation agreement, the leads shall meet regularly - in principle at least twice yearly. During such meetings, they shall make any suggestion for the good performance of the agreement.
If at least one signatory authority expresses the need, extraordinary meetings may be held.
d'identifier d'
eventuelles bonnes pratiques et de les transposer, le cas echeant, dans le processus de surveillance de l'autorite dont ii depend. II s'agit egalement d'user de cette collaboration passive pour mettre en application le cadre d'une collaboration active;
Collaboration « active » : elle consiste en la participation d'un inspecteur d'une autorite signataire a une operation de surveillance realisee sous la responsabilite de l'autre autorite signataire, au cours de laquelle celui-ci applique Jes procedures de l'autorite responsable, qui encadre son action.
La mise en oeuvre de ces collaborations au cas par cas est soumise a !'accord explicite de l'entreprise faisant l'objet de !'operation de surveillance, a
!'exception de la participation prevue au paragraphe
3.1.
## 4. Identification Des Correspondants De
CHAQUE AUTORITE
Chaque **autorite** identifie et designe en son sein deux correspondants :
Un correspondant technique qui participera aux activites et reflexions definies dans le chapitre
3. Les objectifs des correspondants techniques des autorites seront entre autres :
o
D'etre l'interlocuteur technique vis-a
vis de l'autorite demanderesse;
o
D'organiser, avec le
correspondant
technique de l'autre autorite signataire,
les modalites de mise en oeuvre des
actions decidees.
Une personne referente charge du suivi de
!'ensemble du present accord. Les referents ont egalement la charge de valider un certain nombre de decisions d'ordre technique et le cas echeant, pour Jes decisions strategiques, de Jes porter a !'appreciation de la direction de leur autorite respective.
## 5. Reunions
Dans le cadre du suivi du present accord de cooperation, Jes referents se reuniront regulierement et en principe au moins deux fois par an. Au cours de ces reunions, ils feront toute suggestion pour le ban deroulement de la mise en ceuvre de !'accord. En cas de necessite exprimee par au moins une des autorites signataires, des reunions specifiques pourront etre organisees.
## 6. Information Exchange 6. Echange D'Informations
When the Parties have agreed to exchange information under this agreement, they are not bound to do so if such information is already in the public domain or is not held by the Parties.
Lorsque les parties sont convenues d'echanger des informations en vertu du present accord, elles ne seront pas obligees de le faire si les informations sont deja dans le domaine public ou ne sont pas detenues par les parties.
The Parties shall supply information in their own language.
The recipient Party shall bear sole responsibility for such translations as it may carry out.
Les parties fournissent des informations dans leur propre langue et les traductions que la partie destinataire effectue sont realisees sous son entiere responsabilite.
## 6.1 Driving Licences 6.1. Licences Conducteurs
In relation to driving licences, the parties agree to upon request exchange the necessary information relating to driving licences or equivalent documents;
Les parties s'accordent a echanger de maniere reactive, selon necessite, des informations necessaires quant aux licences de conducteurs ou titres equivalents.
## 6.2 Vehicles 6.2. Vehicules
The parties agree to ensure the mutual provision of necessary information relating to vehicles that are registered in one of the two states and which circulate on the neighbouring territory.
Les parties s'accordent a garantir la fourniture mutuelle des informations necessaires relatives aux vehicules irnmatricules dans l'un des Etats et circulant sur le territoire de l'autre Etat.
## 6.3 National Investigating Body 6.3. Bureaux D'Enquetes Nationaux.
The parties will co-operate in the exchange of relevant information relating to the reports and recommendations of the national investigating bodies.
Les parties s'engagent a echanger les informations pertinentes relatives aux rapports et recommandations des bureaux d'enquetes nationaux.
## 7. Confidentialite 7. Confidentiality
Subject to the international, European and national regulations on access rights to government documents, the Parties undertake to keep confidential any document or information shared between them. The Parties shall be responsible for the respecting of this obligation by their own staff.
Sous reserve des reglementations internationales, europeennes et nationales en matiere de droit d'acces aux documents administratifs, les parties s'engagent a garantir la confidentialite de tout document et information qu'elles se seront echangees. Elles sont responsables du respect de cette disposition par leurs personnels The obligation of confidentiality shall apply in particular the authorities' supervision programmes and reports, any information exchanged concerning non-conformities or situations presenting a safety risk, the information freely communicated by persons during supervisory activities and the safety event information gathered by the authorities.
L'obligation de confidentialite vaut en particulier pour les programmes de surveillance des autorites, les informations echangees concernant des ecarts ou des situations presentant un risque pour la securite, les informations communiquees librement par les personnes au cours d'activites de surveillance, ainsi que les informations sur les evenements de securite echangees entre les autorites.
Such information shall be handled in compliance with the European and national regulations on the protection of natural persons and the processing of personal data.
Les informations sont traitees dans le respect des reglementations nationale et europeenne qui leur sont respectivement applicables en la matiere concernant la protection des personnes physiques quant au traitement de donnees a caractere personnel.
Si l'une des parties signataires du present accord re~oit une demande d'acces a des documents ou informations If either of the Parties, signatory to the present agreement, receives a request for access to documents or information passed to it by another authority, the requesting Party shall be referred to the authority originating such document or information.
qui lui ant ete communiquees par l'autre autorite, le tiers demandeur sera dirige vers l'autorite etant a l'origine du document ou de !'information.
The present confidentiality obligation shall remain in force after cessation of the present agreement.
La presente obligation de confidentialite demeure apres
!'extinction du present accord.
## 8. Entry Into Force, Term And Amendments 8. Entree En Vigueur, Duree De Validite Et Modifications
The present agreement shall enter into force upon signature by both parties.
Le present accord entrera en vigueur des sa signature par !'ensemble des parties prenantes.
The parties agree that the terms of this Agreement will be reviewed at the request of either party. Each party undertakes to inform the other of any regulatory changes relating to the provisions of this agreement in order to assess whether it needs to be modified.
Les parties conviennent que les modalites du present accord seront revues sur demande de l'une des parties.
Chaque partie s'engage a informer l'autre partie des evolutions reglementaires en lien avec les dispositions de cet accord en vue d'evaluer le besoin de modification de celui-ci.
Either Party may also decide at any time, subject to 90
(ninety) days' notice, to withdraw unilaterally from the present agreement or request amendment thereof. Such amendment request or notice of withdrawal shall be served on the other Party to the agreement by registered letter with advice of receipt.
Chacune des parties pourra egalement decider, a tout moment et avec un preavis de 90 (quatre-vingt-dix)
jours, de resilier le present accord ou d'en demander la modification. Cette resiliation, ou cette demande de modification sera notifiee par lettre recommandee avec accuse de reception al'autre partie prenante a!'accord.
En cas d'accord mutuel pour revoir tout ou partie des dispositions du present accord, les parties feront leurs meilleurs efforts pour parvenir a une redaction mutuellement acceptable, au benefice des deux parties.
If it is mutually agreed to revise all or some of the provisions of the present agreement, the Parties shall do their best to devise a mutually acceptable version, to the benefit of both Parties.
2
5 APR 2019
Done in London on Fait aAmiens, le
1
5 AYR. 2019
I
D'
usse,
1rectrice
·
G' ,
I
d
Ian Prosser CBE, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of
enera e
e
Railways and Director of Railway Safety, Office of Rail
Public de Securite Ferroviaire (EPSF)
and Road (ORR)
| en |
4977-pdf | The English Reformation c1527-1590
How did state and people respond to religious change? This is a full, but by no mean comprehensive, reading list for the Reformation, covering England, Wales and Ireland. The material is mixed: some of the items are paperback books, most (though, unfortunately not all) of which are relatively reasonably priced. Many items, however, are journal articles which you will primarily find in, or via, a university library (it is possible to 'rent' or buy access to individual journal articles through the publishers' websites, but this can be pricey). Many institutions now offer access to JSTOR (the main repository of journal articles online) to alumni for free; some institutions (like my own) also offer access to teachers in the local area. So it is worth exploring both of these options. Remember that JSTOR has a 'moving wall' of usually five years - in other words, you will only get access to articles that were published five or more years ago. However, if you have full access to a university's library, you can usually get access to more recent material through the journal's publishers itself, e.g. Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press (although via the library catalogue). As with all things, what is available is dependent on what subscriptions the university has (and journal subscriptions are very expensive) and whether journals have digitised their back issues (most have by now). Generally, these lists are organised with general/introductory material at the beginning of each section and then more specialised material later on. Some of the larger topics are broken down into subsections (organised on the same basis).
1. General books Robert Tittler & Norman Jones (eds.), *A Companion to Tudor Britain* (Oxford, 2009)
- doesn't just cover the Reformation; a really good introduction to a range of issues. Often available as an e-book in univeristies. Susan Doran and Norman Jones (eds.), *The Elizabethan World* (London and New York, 2011) - expensive but very good. Like Tittler & Jones, above, covers more than just the Reformation. Christopher Haigh, English Reformations: religion, politics and society under the Tudors (Oxford, 1993) - really good for lots of evidence of what was happening 'on the ground'. Felicity Heal, *Reformation in Britain and Ireland* (Oxford, 2003). Alec Ryrie, *Being protestant in Reformation Britain* (Oxford, 2015) - focused on the nature of devotion, rather than the impact of the Reformation Natalie Mears and Alec Ryrie (eds), Worship and the parish church in early modern Britain (Farnham and Burlington, VT, 2013), esp. essays by Ryrie, Willis, Marsh and Craig
Sourcebooks and specific material on types of sources David Cressy & Lori Anne Ferrell (eds.), Religion and Society in early modern England: a sourcebook (2nd edn, Abingdon & New York, 2005). Alec Ryrie, 'Counting sheep, counting shepherds: the problem of allegiance in the English Reformation', in Peter Marshall and Alec Ryrie (eds.), The beginnings of English protestantism (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 84-110.
Michael L. Zell, 'The use of religious preambles as a measure of religious belief in the sixteenth century', *Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research*, 50 (1977), 246-
9 - relevant for understanding the will of Rauff Shelton J.D. Alsop, 'Religious Preambles in Early Modern English Wills as Formulae', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 40 (1989), pp. 19-27 - relevant for understanding the will of Rauff Shelton
Reference material
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (*ODNB*)
This contains biographies of many people involved in the Reformation, from monarchs and higher clergy to London preachers. It is always worth checking because, inevitably with this period, biographical information is weaved quite closely into the political, social and religious events of the period. Most public libraries in the UK subscribe to *ODNB*.
Historiography
Patrick Collinson, 'The English Reformation', in Michael Bentley (ed.), Companion to Historiography (London and New York, 2002), pp. 336-60 - very good on the broad historiography of the Reformation. Christopher Haigh, 'The recent historiography of the English Reformation', Historical Journal, 25 (1982), pp. 995-1107 - the standard and seminal essay on how to make sense of the speed and direction of change 'on the ground' Alec Ryrie, 'Paths not taken in the British Reformations', *Historical Journal*, 52 (2009), pp. 1-22.
2. The Pre-Reformation Church Ben R McRee, 'Traditional religion', in Tittler and Jones (eds.), Companion to Tudor Britain, pp. 207-20.
Eamon Duffy, *The stripping of the altars* (New Haven, 1992), chs 1-10.
Christopher Harper-Bill, 'Dean Colet's Convocation sermon and the pre-Reformation church in England', *History*, 73 (1988), pp. 191-210.
James G. Clark, 'Humanism and reform in pre-Reformation English monasteries', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th series, 19 (1999), pp. 57-93.
Henry A Jeffries, 'A church 'in decline'?: The pre-Reformation Irish church', History Ireland, 14:6 (2006), pp. 13-18.
## 3. The Henrician Reformation A) Reformation 'At The Top'
Conrad Russell, 'The Reformation and the creation of the Church of England, 1500- 1640' in John Morrill (ed.), The Oxford Illustrated history of Tudor and Stuart Britain (Oxford, 1996), pp. 258-77 only. Christopher Haigh, English Reformations: religion, politics and society under the Tudors (Oxford, 1993), chs. 6-9 (primarily on change at the top)
Richard Rex, *Henry VIII and the English Reformation* (London, 1993) Felicity Heal, *Reformation in Britain and Ireland* (Oxford, 2003), ch.4 (8 useful too)
Brendan Bradshaw, 'The opposition to the ecclesiastical legislation in the Irish reformation parliament', *Irish Historical Studies*, 16 (1969), pp. 285-303. Diarmaid MacCulloch, 'The religion of Henry VIII', in David Starkey (ed.), Henry VIII: a European court in England (London, 1987), pp. 160-62.
D. MacCulloch, 'Henry VIII and the reform of the church', in D MacCulloch (ed.), The reign of Henry VIII (1995) Alec Ryrie, 'The strange death of Lutheran England', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 53 (2002), 64-92 Maria Dowling, 'Anne Boleyn and reform', *Journal of Ecclesiastical History*, 35 (1984), pp. 30-46
John Guy, 'Thomas Cromwell and the intellectual origins of the Henrician revolution', in Alistair Fox and John Guy, *Reassessing the Henrician Age* (Oxford, 1986) and reprinted in Guy, *The Tudor Monarchy* (1997)
Susan Brigden, 'Popular disturbance and the fall of Thomas Cromwell and the reformers, 1539-1540', *Historical Journal*, 24 (1981), pp. 257-78 Richard Hoyle, 'The origins of the dissolution of the monasteries', *Historical Journal*,
30 (1995)
Peter Cunich, 'The dissolutions and their aftermath', in Tittler & Jones (eds.), Companion to Tudor Britain, pp. 221-37.
Glyn Redworth, 'A study in the formulation of policy', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 37 (1986)
## B) Reformation On The Ground
Christopher Haigh, 'The recent historiography of the English Reformation', Historical Journal, 25 (1982), pp. 995-1107. Christopher Haigh, English Reformations: religion, politics and society under the Tudors (Oxford, 1993), ch. 11
Felicity Heal, *Reformation in Britain and Ireland* (Oxford, 2003), ch.6
C S L Davies, 'The Pilgrimage of Grace reconsidered', *Past and Present*, 41 (1973), pp.49-83 M L Bush, '"Up for the commonweal": the significance of tax grievances in the English rebellions of 1536', *English Historical Review*, 106 (1991), pp. 299-318 M E James, 'Obedience and dissent in Henrician England: the Lincolnshire rebellion, 1536', *Past & Present*, 48 (1970), pp, 3-78 and reprinted in his Society, Politics and Culture.
Ronald Hutton, 'The local impact of the Tudor Reformations', in Christoper Haigh (ed.), *The English Reformation revised* (Cambridge, 1987) and reprinted in P. Marshall (ed.), *The impact of the English Reformation* (London, 1997). Robert Whiting, 'Local responses to the Henrician Reformation', in MacCulloch (ed.), The reign of Henry VIII (Basingstoke, 1995). Susan Brigden, *London and the Reformation* (Oxford, 1989), chs. 6, 8-9.
Margaret Bowker, The Henrician Reformation: the diocese of Lincoln under John Longland, 1521-1547 (Cambridge, 1981), (chapter 3 part 4; ch. 4)
John Craig, 'Reformers, conflict and revisionism: the Reformation in sixteenthcentury Hadleigh', *Historical Journal*, 42 (1999), pp. 1-23. Margaret Spufford, Contrasting communities: English villagers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Cambridge, 1974), ch. 10. Eamon Duffy, The voices of Morebath: Reformation and rebellion in an English village (New Haven and London, 2001) Danae Tankard, 'The Johnson family and the Reformation, 1542-52', Historical Research, 80 (2007), pp. 469-90.
Glanmor Williams, *Renewal and Reformation: Wales, c. 1415-1642* (1987), pp. 276-
96
Steven G. Ellis, *Ireland in the age of the Tudors* (London and New York, 1999), ch. 8
Henry A. Jeffries, 'Parishes and pastoral care in the early Tudor era', in Elizabeth Fitzpatrick and Raymond Gillespie (eds.), The parish in medieval and early modern Ireland: community, territory and building (Dublin, 2006), pp. 211-27.
Brendan Bradshaw, 'Sword, word and strategy in the Reformation in Ireland', Historical Journal, 21 (1978).
Stephen G. Ellis, 'Economic problems of the Church: why the Reformation failed in Ireland', *Journal of Ecclesiastical History*, 41 (1990)
Brendan Bradshaw, 'The Reformation in the cities: Cork, Limerick and Galway,
1534-1603', in J. Bradley (ed.), Settlement and society in medieval Ireland: essays presented to F.X. Martin (Kilkenny, 1988), pp. 445-76.
Brendan Scott, *Religion and reform in the Tudor diocese of Meath* (Dublin, 2006)
## C) The Maid Of Kent
Ethan Shagan, *Popular politics and the English Reformation* (Cambridge, 2003), ch. 2. Ethan Shagan, 'Print, orality and communication in the Maid of Kent affair', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 52 (2001), pp. 21-33. Richard Rex, 'The execution of the Holy Maid of Kent', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 64 (1991), pp. 216-20.
## D) The Lincolnshire Rising And The Pilgrimage Of Grace
Krista J Kesselring, 'Rebellion and disorder', in Susan Doran and Norman Jones (eds), *The Elizabethan world* (London, 2011), pp. 372-86.
Andy Wood, *Riot, rebellion and popular politics in early modern England*
(Basingstoke, 2002)
M H Dodds and R Dodds, The Pilgrimage of Grace, 1536-7, and the Exeter conspiracy, 1538 (Cambridge, 1915).
Richard W. Hoyle, *The pilgrimage of grace and the politics of the 1530s* (Oxford,
2001). Richard Hoyle, 'Thomas Master's narrative of the Pilgrimage of Grace', Northern History, 21 (1985), pp. 53-79. A G Dickens, 'Secular and religious motivation in the Pilgrimage of Grace', in G.J. Cuming (ed.), *Studies in Church History*, 4 (1967), 39-64. G R Elton, 'Politics and the Pilgrimage of Grace', in B C Malament (ed.), After the Reformation: essays in honour of J H Hexter (Manchester, 1980), pp. 25-56 and reprinted in G R Elton, *Studies in Tudor and Stuart politics and government* (4 vols, Cambridge, 1974-92), III, pp. 183-215.
C S L Davies, 'Popular religion and the Pilgrimage of Grace', in Anthony Fletcher and J Stevenson (eds), *Order and disorder in early modern England* (Cambridge,
1985), pp. 58-91. Michael L. Bush, The pilgrimage of grace: a study of the rebel armies of October
1536 (Manchester, 1996).
Michael L Bush, 'The Richmondshire uprising of October 1536 and the Pilgrimage of Grace', *Northern History*, 29 (1993), pp. 64-98.
M E James, 'Obedience and dissent in Henrician England: the Lincolnshire rebellion, 1536', *Past & Present*, 48 (1970), pp, 3-78 and reprinted in his Society, Politics and Culture Steven J. Gunn, 'Peers, commons and gentry in the Lincolnshire revolt of 1536', Past & Present, 123 (1989), pp. 52-79.
Michael L Bush, 'The Tudor polity and the Pilgrimage of Grace', *Historical Research*,
80 (2007), pp. 47-72. C S L Davies, 'The Pilgrimage of Grace reconsidered', *Past and Present*, 41 (1973), pp.49-83 M L Bush, '"Up for the commonweal": the significance of tax grievances in the English rebellions of 1536', *English Historical Review*, 106 (1991), pp. 299-318 Michael L Bush, 'The Pilgrimage of Grace and the pilgrim tradition of Holy War', in Colin Morris and Peter Roberts (eds), Pilgrimage: the English experience from Becket to Bunyan (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 178-98.
## E) Propaganda
Virginia Murphy, 'The literature and propaganda of Henry VIII's first divorce', in Diarmaid MacCulloch (ed.), *The reign of Henry VIII: politics, policy and piety* (London, 1995), pp. 135-58 J Christopher Warner, Henry VIII's divorce: literature and the politics of the printing press (Woodbridge, 1998) John Guy, 'Thomas Cromwell and the intellectual origins of the Henrician revolution', in Alistair Fox and John Guy (eds), *Reassessing the Henrician Age* (Oxford, 1986), pp. 151-78, and reprinted in Guy (ed.), *The Tudor Monarchy* (London, 1997), pp.
213-32 S W Haas, 'Henry VIII's Glasse of Truthe', *History*, 64 (1979), pp. 353-62
Tracey A Sowerby, '"All our books do be sent into other countreys and translated": Henrician polemic in its international context', *English Historical Review*, 121 (2006), pp. 1271-99
Richard Rex, 'Paul's Cross and the crisis of the 1530s', in Torrance Kirby and P G Stanwood (eds), *Paul's Cross and the culture of persuasion in England, 1520-1640*
(Leiden and Boston, 2014), pp. 105-27
## 4. The Edwardian Church
Christopher Haigh, English Reformations: religion, politics and society under the Tudors (Oxford, 1993), chs. 10-13 Diarmaid MacCulloch, *Thomas Cranmer: a life* (New Haven, 1996), chs. 9-11. Felicity Heal, *Reformation in Britain and Ireland* (Oxford, 2003), chs. 4, 6
Glanmor Williams, *Renewal and Reformation: Wales, c. 1415-1642* (1987), ch. 12
Steven G. Ellis, *Ireland in the age of the Tudors* (London, 1999), pp. 218-25
D MacCulloch, *Tudor church militant* (1999), chs. 2-3.
Eamon Duffy, *The stripping of the altars* (1992), ch. 14
Susan Brigden, *London and the Reformation* (Oxford, 1989), ch. 10.
John N King, 'Paul's Cross and the implementation of protestant reforms under Edward VI', in Torrance Kirby and P G Stanwood (eds), Paul's Cross and the culture of persuasion in England, 1520-1640 (Leiden and Boston, 2014), pp. 141-59
John N King, 'Freedom of the press, protestant propaganda and Protector Somerset', *Huntington Library Quarterly*, 40 (1976), pp. 1-9
John Craig, 'Reformers, conflict and revisionism: the Reformation in sixteenthcentury Hadleigh', *Historical Journal*, 42 (1999), pp. 1-23
Margaret Spufford, Contrasting communities: English villagers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Cambridge, 1974), ch. 10. Eamon Duffy, The voices of Morebath: Reformation and rebellion in an English village (New Haven and London, 2001), ch. 6
Danae Tankard, 'The Johnson family and the Reformation, 1542-52', Historical Research, 80 (2007), pp. 469-90.
Brendan Scott, *Religion and reform in the Tudor diocese of Meath* (Dublin, 2006)
## South Western And Kett'S Rebellions, 1549
Barrett L. Beer, Rebellion and riot: popular disorder in England during the reign of Edward VI (rev. edn) (Kent, Ohio, 2005). Andy Wood, *The 1549 rebellions and the making of early modern England*
(Cambridge, 2007).
J Youings, 'The Southwestern Rebellion of 1549', *Southern History*, 1 (1979), pp. 99- 122 D MacCulloch, 'Kett's rebellion in context', *Past & Present*, 84 (1979)
Ethan H. Shagan, 'Protector Somerset and the 1549 rebellions : new sources and new perspectives', *English Historical Review*, 114 (1999), pp. 34-63 **WITH** Michael L
Bush, 'Protector Somerset and the 1549 rebellions : a post-revision questioned', English Historical Review, 115 (2000), pp. 103-12, AND George W. Bernard, 'New perspectives or old complexities?', *English Historical Review*, 115 (2000), pp. 113-20
AND Ethan H. Shagan, '"Popularity" and the 1549 rebellions revisited', English Historical Review, 115 (2000), pp. 121-33.
Jane Whittle, 'Lords and Tenants in Kett's Rebellion 1549', *Past & Present*, 207 (2010), pp. 3-52.
## 5. The Marian Church
Eamon Duffy, *The stripping of the altars, c. 1400-c.1580* (Oxford, 1992), ch. 16.
Felicity Heal, *Reformation in Britain and Ireland* (Oxford, 2003), ch. 4, 6 Susan Doran, 'A 'sharp rod' of chastisement: Mary I through protestant eyes during the reign of Elizabeth I', in Susan Doran and Thomas S Freeman (eds), Mary Tudor:
old and new perspectives (Basingstoke, 2011), pp. 21-36
Thomas S Freeman, 'Inventing Bloody Mary: perceptions of Mary Tudor from the Restoration to the twentieth century', in Susan Doran and Thomas S Freeman (eds), Mary Tudor: old and new perspectives (Basingstoke, 2011), pp. 78-102 William Wizeman, SJ, 'The religious policy of Mary I', in Susan Doran and Thomas S Freeman (eds), *Mary Tudor: old and new perspectives* (Basingstoke, 2011), pp. 153-
70 Eamon Duffy & David Loades (eds.), *The church of Mary Tudor* (Aldershot, 2006), particularly intro, essays by Loades (both essays), Houlbrooke, Collinson, Duffy, Edwards & Wooding. John Edwards (ed.), *Reforming Catholicism in the England of Mary Tudor* (Aldershot, 2006), particularly introduction, essays by Tellecha Idígoras, Loades, Wooding & Mayer [some overlap with Duffy & Loades volume] Rex H Pogson, 'Reginald Pole and the priorities of government', *Historical Journal* (1975) Thomas Mayer, *Reginald Pole: prince and prophet* (Cambridge, 2000), ch. 7 Anna Whitelock and Diarmaid MacCulloch, 'Princess Mary's household and the succession crisis, July 1553', *Historical Journal*, 50 (2007), pp. 265-87.
Lucy Wooding, *Rethinking catholicism in early modern England* (Oxford, 2000)
William Wizeman, *The theology and spirituality of Mary Tudor's church* (Aldershot,
2006) Thomas S Freeman, 'Burning zeal: Mary Tudor and the Marian persecution', in Susan Doran and Thomas S Freeman (eds), *Mary Tudor: old and new perspectives*
(Basingstoke, 2011), pp. 171-205 Elizabeth Evenden and Vivinne Westbrook (eds), Catholic renewal and protestant resistance in Marian England (Farnham and Burlington, VT, 2015) Susan Brigden, *London and the Reformation* (Oxford, 1989), ch. 14. Elizabeth Russell, 'Marian Oxford and the Counter-Reformation', in C.M. Barron & C.
Harper-Bill (eds.), *The church in pre-Reformation society* (Woodbridge, 1985), pp. 212-27.
Margaret Spufford, Contrasting communities: English villagers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Cambridge, 1974), ch. 10.
Christopher Haigh, English Reformations: religion, politics and society under the Tudors (Oxford, 1993), ch. 12.
Danae Tankard, 'The Johnson family and the Reformation, 1542-52', Historical Research, 80 (2007), pp. 469-90.
Glanmor Williams, 'Wales and the reign of Queen Mary I', *Welsh History Review*, 10
(1981), pp. 334-58.
Brendan Scott, *Religion and reform in the Tudor diocese of Meath* (Dublin, 2006)
## 6. The Elizabethan Church A) General Books
Christopher Haigh, English Reformations: religion, politics and society under the Tudors (Oxford, 1993), chs. 15-16. Felicity Heal, *Reformation in Britain and Ireland* (Oxford, 2003), ch.9 & 10
Glanmor Williams, *Renewal and Reformation: Wales, c. 1415-1642* (1987), ch. 13 Steven G. Ellis, *Ireland in the age of the Tudors* (London and New York, 1999), pp.
225-42.
Brett Usher, 'New wine into old bottles: the doctrine and structure of the Elizabethan church', in Doran and Jones (eds.), *The Elizabethan world*, pp. 203-21.
Patrick Collinson, 'Windows in a woman's soul: questions about the religion of Queen Elizabeth I', in Collinson (ed.), *Elizabethan essays* (London and Rio Grande,
1994), pp.87-118.
Susan Doran, 'Elizabeth I's religion: the evidence of her letters', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 51 (2000)
## B) The Elizabethan Settlement
Norman Jones, 'Religious settlements', in Tittler & Jones (eds.), Companion to Tudor Britain, pp. 238-53. J.E. Neale, *Elizabeth I and her parliaments, 1559-1581* (London, 1953), part 1
N M Sutherland, 'The Marian exiles and the establishment of the Elizabethan regime', *Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte*, 78 (1987), pp. 253-86
Norman Jones, *Faith by statute: parliament and the settlement of religion, 1559* (London, 1982) Roger Bowers, 'The Chapel Royal, the first Edwardian Prayer Book and Elizabeth's settlement of religion', *Historical Journal*, 43 (2000), pp. 317-44
## C) Puritans And Puritanism
John Coffey, *The Cambridge companion to puritanism* (Cambridge, 2008), essays by Collinson and Craig Peter Iver Kaufman, 'The godly, the godlier and godliest in Elizabethan England', in Doran and Jones (eds.), *The Elizabethan world*, pp. 238-53 Carol Z. Wiener, 'The Beleaguered Isle: a study of Elizabethan and early Jacobean anti-catholicism', *Past & Present*, 51, 1971 Peter Lake, 'The significance of the Elizabethan identification of the pope as Antichrist', *Journal of Ecclesiastical History*, 31, 1980
Peter Iver Kaufman, 'The protestant opposition to Elizabethan religious reform', in Tittler & Jones (eds.), *Companion to Tudor Britain*, pp. 271-88. Patrick Collinson, *The Elizabethan puritan movement* (Oxford, 1967), pp.243-88 and 291-329 [Though some parts of this book are a little outdated, it remains one of the most important and influential studies by the doyen of Elizabethan Puritanism and is well worth consulting generally] Louise Campbell, 'A diagnosis of religious moderation: Matthew Parker and the 1559 Settlement', in Luc Racaut and Alec Ryrie (eds.), Moderate voices in the European Reformation (Aldershot and Burlington, VT, 2005), pp. 32-50.
Brett Usher, 'The deanery of Bocking and the demise of the Vestiarian Controversy', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 52 (2001), pp. 434-55 Thomas S. Freeman, 'As true a subiect being prysoner': John Foxe's notes on the imprisonment of Princess Elizabeth, 1554-5', *English Historical Review*, 117 (2002), pp. 104-16
Elizabeth Evenden and Thomas S. Freeman, 'Print, Profit and Propaganda : The Elizabethan Privy Council and the 1570 Edition of Foxe's 'Book of Martyrs'', English Historical Review, 119 (2004), pp. 1288-1307. Thomas S Freeman, '"The reformation of the church in this parliament": Thomas Norton, John Foxe and the parliament of 1571, *Parliamentary History*, 16 (1997)
Patrick Collinson, 'The downfall of Archbishop Grindal and its place in Elizabethan political and ecclesiastical history', in Peter Clark, AGR Smith & Nicholas Tyacke (eds.), *The English Commonwealth, 1547-1640* (Leicester, 1979), pp. 39-57.
Ethan Shagan, 'The battle for indifference in Elizabethan England', in Luc Racaut and Alec Ryrie (eds.), *Moderate voices in the European Reformation* (Aldershot and Burlington, VT, 2005), pp. 122-44. Patrick Collinson, 'Ecclesiastical vitriol: religious satire in the 1590s and the invention of puritanism', in Guy (ed.), *The reign of Elizabeth I* (Cambridge, 1995)
Christopher Haigh, *Reformation and resistance in Tudor Lancashire* (Cambridge, 1975), ch. 14. Ethan Shagan, 'The English Inquisition: constitutional conflict and the English law in the 1590s', *Historical Journal*, 47 (2004), pp. 541-65.
## D) Catholicism
William Sheils, 'Catholics and recusants', in Tittler & Jones (eds.), Companion to Tudor Britain, pp. 254-70.
John Bossy, *The English catholic community, 1570-1850* (London, 1975) [the classic account of English catholicism] John Bossy, 'The character of Elizabethan catholicism', *Past & Present*, 21 (1962), pp. 39-59
Christopher Haigh, 'Review article: Catholicism in early modern England: Bossy and beyond', *Historical Journal*, 45 (2002), pp. 481-94.
Christopher Haigh, 'From monopoly to minority', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, 31 (1981), pp. 129-47
Alexandra Walsham, Church papists: Catholicism, conformity and confessional polemic (Woodbridge, 2009) Michael C. Questier, 'What happened to English Catholicism after the English Reformation?', *History*, 85 (2000), pp. 28-47.
Malcolm Thorpe, 'Catholic conspiracy in early Elizabethan foreign policy', Sixteenth Century Journal, 15 (1984)
Patrick McGrath, 'Elizabethan Catholicism: a reconsideration', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 35 (1984), pp. 414-28
Christopher Haigh, *Reformation and resistance in Tudor Lancashire* (Cambridge, 1975), ch. 14. Michael C. Questier, Catholicism and community in early modern England: politics, aristocratic patronage and religion, c.1550-1640 (Cambridge, 2006), chs. 1-8
Michael C. Questier, 'Loyal to a fault: Viscount Montague explains himself', Historical Research, 77 (2004), pp. 225-53.
Peter Lake & Michael C. Questier, 'Margaret Clitherow, Catholic Nonconformity, Martyrology and the Politics of Religious Change in Elizabethan England', Past & Present, 185 (2004), pp. 43-90.
E. Gwynne Jones, 'The Lleyn recusancy case, 1578-1581', Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, (1936). Colm Lennon, 'Taking sides: the emergence ofIrish Catholic ideology', in Vincent P. Carey and Ute Lotz-Heumann (eds.), Taking sides?: colonial and confessional mentalités in early modern Ireland (Dublin, 2003), pp. 78-93.
Thomas M. McCoog, SJ, The Society of Jesus in Ireland, Scotland and England, 1541-1588: "our way of proceeding" (Leiden, 1996)
Peter Lake, *The Anti-Christ's lewd hat* (New Haven, 2002), chs. 6-8
## E) Reformation On The Ground
Christopher Haigh, 'Success and failure in the English Reformation', *Past & Present*, 173 (2001), pp. 28-49.
John Craig, Reformation, politics and polemics: the growth of protestantism in East Anglian market towns, 1500-1610 (Aldershot & Burlington, VT, 2001), chs. 1, 3 Caroline Litzenberger, 'Defining the Church of England: religious change in the
1570s', in Susan Wabuda and Caroline Litzenberger (eds.), Belief and practice in Reformation England (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 137-53 Margaret Spufford, Contrasting communities: English villagers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Cambridge, 1974), ch. 10. Christopher Haigh, English Reformations: religion, politics and society under the Tudors (Oxford, 1993), chs. 14-19.
Christopher Haigh, 'The taming of Reformation: preachers, pastors and parishioners in Elizabethan and early Stuart England', *History*, 85 (2000), pp. 572-88.
Eric Carlson, 'Good pastors or careless shepherds?: parish ministers and the English Reformation', *History*, 88 (2003), pp. 423-36.
## F) The Northern Rising, 1569
R R Reid, 'The rebellion of the earls, 1569', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 2nd series, 20 (1906), pp. 171-203.
M E James, 'The concept of order and the Northern Rising of 1569', Past and Present, 60 (1973), pp. 49-83. David Marcombe, '"A rude and heady people": the local community and the rebellion of the Northern Earls', in David Marcombe (ed.), The last principality: politics, religion and society in the bishopric of Durham, 1494-1660 (Nottingham, 1987), pp. 117-51. Krista J Kesselring, The Northern Rebellion of 1569: faith, politics, and protest in Elizabethan England (Basingstoke, 2007). Krista J. Kesselring, '"A Cold Pye for the Papistes": Constructing and Containing the Northern Rising of 1569', *Journal of British Studies*, 43:4 (2004), pp. 417-43.
Stephen Alford, The early Elizabethan polity: William Cecil and the British succession crisis, 1558-1569 (Cambridge, 1998), ch.8
## 7. Reformation In Wales And Ireland A) Ireland
Steven G. Ellis, *Ireland in the age of the Tudors* (London, 1999)
Felicity Heal, *Reformation in Britain and Ireland* (Oxford, 2003) Felicity Heal, 'Mediating the Word: Language and Dialects in the British and Irish Reformations', *Journal of Ecclesiastical History*, 56 (2005), pp. 261-86. Brendan Bradshaw, 'Sword, word and strategy in the Reformation in Ireland', Historical Journal, 21 (1978).
Nicholas Canny, 'Why the Reformation failed in Ireland: *une question mal posée*', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 30 (1979). Stephen G. Ellis, 'Economic problems of the Church: why the Reformation failed in Ireland', *Journal of Ecclesiastical History*, 41 (1990)
Colm Lennon, 'Taking sides: the emergence of Irish Catholic ideology', in Vincent P. Carey and Ute Lotz-Heumann (eds.), Taking sides?: colonial and confessional mentalités in early modern Ireland (Dublin, 2003), pp. 78-93.
Brendan Bradshaw, 'The opposition to the ecclesiastical legislation in the Irish reformation parliament', *Irish Historical Studies*, 16 (1969), pp. 285-303. Henry A Jeffries, 'The Irish parliament of 1560: the Anglican reforms authorised', Irish Historical Studies, 26 (1988), pp. 128-41.
Henry A. Jeffries, 'Parishes and pastoral care in the early Tudor era', in Elizabeth Fitzpatrick and Raymond Gillespie (eds.), The parish in medieval and early modern Ireland: community, territory and building (Dublin, 2006), pp. 211-27. Helen C. Walshe, 'Enforcing the Elizabethan settlement: the vicissitudes of Hugh Brady, bishop of Meath, 1563-84', *Irish Historical Studies*, 26 (1989), pp. 352-76. Brendan Bradshaw, 'The Reformation in the cities: Cork, Limerick and Galway, 1534-1603', in J. Bradley (ed.), Settlement and society in medieval Ireland: essays presented to F.X. Martin (Kilkenny, 1988), pp. 445-76.
Brendan Scott, *Religion and reform in the Tudor diocese of Meath* (Dublin, 2006)
## B) Wales
Glanmor Williams, *Renewal and Reformation: Wales, c. 1415-1642* (1987), pp. 276- 96 Peter Marshall, '"The Greatest Man in Wales" : James ap Gruffydd ap Hywel and the International Opposition to Henry VIII", *Sixteenth Century Journal*, 39 (2008), pp. 681-704.
Felicity Heal, 'Mediating the Word: Language and Dialects in the British and Irish Reformations', *Journal of Ecclesiastical History*, 56 (2005), pp. 261-86.
Glanmor Williams, 'Wales and the reign of Queen Mary I', *Welsh History Review*, 10
(1981), pp. 334-58.
E. Gwynne Jones, 'The Lleyn recusancy case, 1578-1581', Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, (1936).
## 8. A Religion Of The Word? A) Print And Print Culture
Alexandra Walsham, and Julia C. Crick, 'Introduction : script, print and history', in Julia C. Crick and Alexandra Walsham (eds.), The uses of script and print, 1300- 1700 (Cambridge, 2004), pp. 1-26
Elizabeth Eisenstein, *The printing press as an agent of change* (1979) (or the abridged edition: *The printing revolution in early modern Europe* (Cambridge, 1983)).
Margaret Spufford, Small books and pleasant histories: popular fiction and its readership in seventeenth-century England (London, 1981) [17th century but seminal]
Andrew Pettegree, 'Printing and the Reformation: the English exception', in Peter Marshall and Alec Ryrie (eds.), *The beginnings of English protestantism* (Cambridge,
2002), pp. 157-179 Felicity Heal, *Reformation in Britain and Ireland* (Oxford, 2003), ch.7
John Barnard, D.F. McKenzie and Maureen Bell (eds.), The Cambridge History of the book in Britain, volume IV (Cambridge, 1999-), chs. 1, 3, 14, 20, 26, 27, 32, 34, 35 [Covers a wide range of issues; reference only] David McKitterick, *Print, manuscript and the search for order, 1450-1830*
(Cambridge, 2003) Jennifer Loach, 'The Marian establishment and the printing press', English Historical Review, 101 (1986), pp.135-48.
Elizabeth Evenden, 'The Michael Wood Mystery: William Cecil and the Lincolnshire Printing of John Day', *Sixteenth Century Journal*, 35 (2004), pp. 383-94
Elizabeth Evenden and Thomas S. Freeman, 'Print, Profit and Propaganda : The Elizabethan Privy Council and the 1570 Edition of Foxe's 'Book of Martyrs'', English Historical Review, 119 (2004), pp. 1288-1307. David Scott Kastan, 'Little foxes', in Christopher Highley and John King (eds.), John Foxe and his world (Aldershot and Burlington, VT, 2002) [plus other good essays on a number of topics]
David Cressy, 'Literacy in context: meaning and measurement in early modern England', in John Brewer and Roy Porter (eds.), Consumption and the world of goods (London and New York, 1993), pp. 305-19
W.B. Stephens, 'Literacy in England, Scotland and Wales, 1500-1900', History of Education Quarterly, 30 (1990) Peter Clark, 'The ownership of books in England, 1560-1640', in Lawrence Stone
(ed.), *Schooling and Society: studies in the history of education* (Baltimore and London, 1976)
R Geraint Gruffydd, 'The Renaissance and Welsh literature', in Glanmor Williams and Robert Owen Jones (eds.), *The Celts and the Renaisssance* (Cardiff, 1990), J Gwynfor Jones, 'The Welsh poets and their patrons, c. 1550-1640', Welsh History Review, 14 (1979), pp. 245-77
Brian Ó Cuív, 'The Irish language in the early modern period', in T.W. Moody, F.X. Martin and F.J. Byrne (eds.), A new history of Ireland III: Early modern Ireland, 1534-
1691 (Oxford, 1976, 1991 edn), pp. 509-45
Alan Bliss, 'The English language in early modern Ireland', in T.W. Moody, F.X. Martin and F.J. Byrne (eds.), A new history of Ireland III: Early modern Ireland, 1534- 1691 (Oxford, 1976, 1991 edn), pp. 546-60.
The Oxford history of the Irish book: volume III: the Irish book in English, 1550-1800, ed. Raymond Gillespie and Andrew Hadfield (Oxford, 2006), chs. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11
[Note that some of these chapters cover 17th century as well]
Raymond Gillespie, Reading Ireland: print, reading and social change in early modern Ireland (Manchester, 2005)
Desmond Clarke and P J Madden, 'Printing in Ireland', *An Leabharlann*, 12 (1954), pp. 113-30 M. Pollard, *Dublin's trade in books, 1550-1800* (Lyell Lectures, Oxford, 1989), ch. 2
Elizabeth Armstrong, 'English purchases of books from the Continent, 1465-1526', English Historical Review, 94 (1979), pp. 268-90.
## B) 'Manuscript Publication', Script And Oral Culture
Alexandra Walsham, 'Preaching without speaking: script, print and religious dissent', in Julia C. Crick and Alexandra Walsham (eds.), The uses of script and print, 1300- 1700 (Cambridge, 2004), pp. 211-34.
Thomas S. Freeman, 'Publish and perish: the scribal culture of the Marian martyrs', in Julia C. Crick and Alexandra Walsham (eds.), The uses of script and print, 1300- 1700 (Cambridge, 2004), pp.235-54.
Adam Fox, *Oral and literate culture in England, 1500-1700* (Oxford, 2000)
## C) Censorship
Anthony Milton, 'Licensing, censorship, and religious orthodoxy in early Stuart England', *Historical Journal*, 41 (1998), pp. 625-51 [though seventeenth century, this article is reflects the current understanding of how censorship worked in this period] Annabel Patterson, Censorship and interpretation: the conditions of reading and writing in early modern England (Madison, WI, 1984) C.S. Clegg, *Press censorship in Elizabethan England* (Cambridge, 1997).
## D) Images
Patrick Collinson, The birthpangs of Protestant England: religious and cultural change in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (New York, 1988), pp. 94-126
Margaret Aston, *England's iconoclasts, I: laws against images* (Oxford 1988). Tessa Watt, *Cheap print and popular piety, 1550-1640* (Cambridge, 1991).
John Phillips, *The reformation of images: destruction of art in England, 1535-1660*
(Los Angeles & Berkeley, CA, 1973) Margaret Aston & Elizabeth Ingram, 'The iconography of the Acts and monuments', in David Loades, *John Foxe and the English Reformation* (Aldershot & Burlington, VT, 1997), pp. 66-142.
William A. Dyrness, Reformed theology and visual culture: the protestant imagination from Calvin to Edwards (Cambridge, 2004), ch. 4
Alexandra Walsham, 'Impolitic pictures: providence, History and the iconography of protestant nationhood in early Stuart England', in R.N. Swanson (ed.), The church retrospective: studies in Church History, 33 (1997), pp. 307-28 Edward Hodnett, Image and text: studies in the illustration of English literature
(London, 1982), esp. ch. 2 Sheila O'Connell, The *popular print in England, 1550-1850* (London, 1999) Rowena J. Smith, 'The lambe speaketh…: an English protestant satire', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 61 (1998), pp. 262-7
Malcolm Jones, 'The lambe speaketh…: an addendum', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 63 (2000), pp. 287-94 University of Durham | en |
2537-pdf |
## Commission Implementing Regulation (Eu) 2015/2447 Of 24 November 2015 Laying Down Detailed Rules For Implementing Certain Provisions Of Regulation (Eu) No 952/2013 Of The European Parliament And Of The Council Laying Down The Union Customs Code
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Article 291 thereof, Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (
1
) , and in particular Articles 8, 11, 17, 25, 32, 37, 41, 50, 54, 58, 63, 66, 76, 100,
107, 123, 132, 138, 143, 152, 157, 161, 165, 169, 176, 178, 181, 184, 187, 193, 200, 207, 209, 213, 217, 222,
225, 232, 236, 266, 268, 273 and 276 thereof, Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (Code), in its consistency with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
(TFEU), confers on the Commission implementing powers to specify the procedural rules for some of its elements, in the interest of clarity, precision and foreseeability.
(2)
The use of information and communication technologies, as laid down in Decision No 70/2008/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council (
2
), is a key element in ensuring trade facilitation and, at the same
time, the effectiveness of customs controls, which thus significantly contributes to the reduction of costs for business and of risks for society. Therefore, exchanges of information between customs authorities on the one hand, and between economic operators and customs authorities on the other hand, as well as the storage of such information using electronic data-processing techniques require specific rules on the information systems used. Storage and processing of customs information and a harmonised interface with economic operators should be established as a component of systems offering a direct and EU harmonised access to trade, where appropriate. Any storage and processing of personal data under this Regulation is in full compliance with the Union and
national data protection provisions in force.
(3)
Any processing of personal data under this Regulation is in full compliance with the Union and national data
protection provisions in force.
(4)
In those cases where authorities or persons from third countries will use electronic systems, their access will be
restricted to the required functionality and in line with the Union legal provisions.
(5)
In order to ensure that there is only one economic operators registration and identification number (EORI number)
for each economic operator, it is necessary to have clear and transparent rules that define the customs authority competent for assigning it.
(6)
In order to facilitate the proper development and maintenance of the electronic system relating to binding tariff
information and the efficient use of the information uploaded therein, rules for the setting up of that system and its operation should be determined.
(7)
An electronic information and communication system for the exchange and storage of information on the proofs
of the customs status of Union goods should be introduced to achieve facilitation and ensure effective monitoring.
(8)
The requirement to submit in advance the data that is required for the lodgement of CN 23 declaration in an
electronic form entails adjustments in the processing of customs declarations pertaining to postal consignment, in
particular those consignments that benefit from relief from customs duty.
(9)
Transit simplifications should be aligned with the electronic environment envisaged by the Code and which suits
better the needs of economic operators, while ensuring facilitation of legitimate trade and the effectiveness of customs controls.
(10)
In the interests of ensuring a more efficient functioning and better monitoring of the procedures regarding goods
in transit that are currently carried out on paper or are partially computerised, it is desirable that transit procedures be fully computerised for all modes of transport while having defined exceptions for travellers and business continuity cases.
(11)
In order to give effect to the right of every person to be heard before customs authorities take a decision that
would adversely affect that person, it is necessary to specify the procedural rules for the exercise of that right, taking also into consideration the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union as well as the fundamental rights which are an integral part of the Union legal order and in particular the right to good administration.
(12)
In order to make the system of applications for decisions relating to customs legislation operative and to ensure a
smooth and effective decision-taking process by the customs authorities, it is of utmost importance that Member States communicate to the Commission a list of their competent customs authorities to which applications for decisions have to be submitted.
(13)
Common rules are needed for the submission and acceptance of a decision relating to binding information, as well
as for taking such decisions, in order to ensure equal conditions for all economic operators.
(14)
Since the electronic system relating to binding tariff information is yet to be upgraded, paper forms for BTI
applications and decisions need to be used until the system is upgraded.
(15)
In order to comply with the obligation that decisions relating to binding information are to be binding, a reference
to the relevant decision should be included in the customs declaration. Furthermore, in order to support an
effective monitoring by the customs authorities of the compliance with the obligations resulting from a
binding tariff information decision, it is also necessary to specify the procedural rules for the collection and use of surveillance data that are relevant for monitoring the usage of that decision. It is also necessary to specify how that monitoring shall be carried out as long as the electronic systems are not upgraded.
(16)
In order to ensure uniformity, transparency and legal certainty, procedural rules are needed for the extended use of
decisions relating to binding information and for notifying the customs authorities that the taking of decisions relating to binding information is suspended for goods whose correct and uniform tariff classification or deter mination of origin cannot be ensured.
(17)
The criteria for granting the status of an authorised economic operator (AEO) for customs simplifications and for
security and safety, which can also be combined, and the procedure for applying for that status should be laid down in a more detailed manner to ensure uniform implementation as regards the different types of the status of AEO authorisations.
(18)
Since the electronic system which is necessary for the application of the provisions of the Code governing both the
application for and the authorisation granting the status of an Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) is yet to be upgraded, the currently-used means, in paper form and electronic need to continue to be used until the system is upgraded.
(19)
Uniform and effective application of customs controls requires harmonised exchange of risk information and risk
analysis results. Therefore, an electronic communication and information system should be used for risk-related communications between customs authorities and between those authorities and the Commission as well as for the storage of that information.
(20)
To ensure a correct and uniform application of tariff quotas, rules on their management and responsibilities of the
customs authorities for this task should be laid down. It is also required to establish procedural rules for the proper functioning of the electronic system relating to the management of tariff quotas.
(21)
Procedural rules are needed to ensure the collection of surveillance data on declarations for release for free
circulation or on export declarations representative for the Union. Furthermore, it is also necessary to establish procedural rules for the proper functioning of the electronic system relating to that surveillance. It is also necessary to specify procedural rules for the collection of surveillance data as long as the electronic system relating to that surveillance and the national import and export systems are not upgraded.
(22)
In the context of non-preferential rules of origin, procedural rules are necessary for the provision and verification
of the proof of origin where agricultural or other Union legislation provides for this proof of origin in order to benefit from special import arrangements.
(23)
Within the framework of the Union's Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) and of the preferential tariff
measures adopted unilaterally by the Union for certain countries or territories, procedures and forms should be
established to ensure a common application of the rules of origin. Provisions should also be established aiming to ensure compliance with the relevant rules by GSP beneficiary countries and those countries or territories and set out procedures for an effective administrative cooperation with the Union in order to facilitate verifications and prevent, or combat fraud.
(24)
In the context of preferential rules of origin, procedures are needed to facilitate the process of issuing of proofs of
origin in the Union, including provisions concerning the exchange of information between economic operators by means of supplier's declarations and the functioning of administrative cooperation between Member States, notably through the issuing of Information Certificates INF 4. Such procedures should take into account and narrow the gap resulting from the fact that the Union has concluded free-trade agreements that do not always include rules for the replacement of proofs of origin for the purpose of sending products not yet released for free circulation elsewhere within the parties of such agreements. Such procedures should also take into account that the Union may not include in future free-trade agreements comprehensive rules or not include any rule at all for the certification of origin and rely solely on the internal legislation of the parties. It is therefore necessary to establish general procedures for the granting of approved exporter's authorisations for the purpose of such agreements. Following the same reasoning, procedures for the registration of exporters outside of the GSP framework should also be provided for.
(25)
Within the GSP framework, procedures are needed in order to facilitate the replacement of proofs of origin,
whether they are certificates of origin Form A, invoice declarations or statements on origin. Such rules should facilitate the movement of products not yet released for free circulation elsewhere within the customs territory of the Union or, where applicable, to Norway, Switzerland or Turkey, once that country fulfils certain conditions.
Forms to be used for issuing certificates of origin Form A, movement certificate EUR.1 and forms used by the
exporters to apply for the status of registered exporters should also be provided for.
(26)
In order to ensure uniform and harmonised application of the provisions on customs valuation, in compliance
with international rules, procedural rules should be adopted specifying how the transaction value is determined. For the same reasons, procedural rules need to be adopted specifying how the secondary methods of customs valuation are to be applied and how the customs value is determined in specific cases and under specific circum stances.
(27)
Considering the need to ensure a proper protection of the financial interests of the Union and of the Member
States and a level playing field between economic operators, it is necessary to lay down procedural rules regarding the provision of a guarantee, the determination of its amount and, taking into account the risk associated with the different customs procedures, the monitoring of the guarantee by the economic operator concerned and by the customs authorities.
(28)
In order to safeguard the recovery of the customs debt, mutual assistance between customs authorities should be
ensured in the cases where a customs debt is incurred in a Member State other than the Member State which accepted the guarantee.
(29)
With a view to facilitate the uniform interpretation throughout the Union of the rules of repayment or remission
of duties, procedures and requirements need to be laid down. Repayment or remission is subject to the fulfilment of requirements, as well as to completion of formalities, which have to be clarified at Union level in order to facilitate the Code's application in the Member States and to prevent differences of treatment. The conditions under which mutual assistance between the customs authorities can take place have to be specified, for the purposes of repayment or remission, in cases where supplementary information must be obtained. Uniform application has
also to be provided in repayment or remission cases where export or destruction has taken place without customs supervision. Conditions have to be laid down together with the evidence required to demonstrate that the goods in respect of which repayment or remission is requested have been exported or destroyed.
(30)
In certain cases of repayment or remission where the amount involved is of lesser importance, the Member States
should keep at the disposal of the Commission the list of such cases in order to allow the Commission to carry out checks under the framework of own resources controls and to protect the financial interests of the Union.
(31)
To take into account the cases where certain particulars of the entry summary declaration are to be submitted at
an early stage in the transport of goods to allow for better protection against serious threats and also the cases where, in addition to the carrier, other persons submit particulars of the entry summary declaration to improve the effectiveness of risk analysis for security and safety purposes, it should be possible to submit the entry summary declaration by more than one data set. Clear rules on the corresponding registration of the submissions and the amendments should be laid down.
(32)
In order to avoid disruption of legitimate trade risk analysis for security and safety purposes should be carried out
as a rule within the time limits prescribed for the lodgement of the entry summary declaration with the exception of cases where a risk is identified or additional risk analysis needs to be carried out.
(33)
Since the Import Control System, which is necessary for the application of the provisions of the Code governing
the entry summary declaration, is not yet fully upgraded, the currently-used means for the exchange and storage of information other than the electronic data-processing techniques referred to in Article 6(1) of the Code, the Import Control System as it stands currently, has to continue to be used.
(34)
In the same respect, because the current ICS is capable of only receiving an entry summary declaration by
submission of one dataset, provisions related to the provision of data in more than one dataset should, until the upgrade of the ICS, be temporarily suspended.
(35)
It is appropriate to lay down the procedural rules that should apply when a sea-going vessel or an aircraft entering
the customs territory of the Union arrives first at a customs office in a Member State that was not declared as a country of routing in the entry summary declaration.
(36)
Where the movement of goods in temporary storage involves storage facilities located in more than one Member
State, the competent customs authority should consult the customs authorities concerned in order to ensure the fulfilment of the conditions before authorising such movement.
(37)
In order to improve the effective operation of temporary storage, it is appropriate to lay down provisions in the
Union customs legislation regulating the movement of goods from one temporary storage facility into another
where each of them is covered by one and the same or by different authorisations, as well as the cases where the holders of those authorisations may be one and the same or different persons. In order to ensure effective customs supervision, clear rules establishing the responsibilities of the customs authorities competent for the place of the arrival of the goods should be laid down.
(38)
In order to ensure uniform application of the rules on the customs status of Union goods, which will lead to
efficiency gains for the customs administrations as well as for economic operators, procedural rules for the provision and verification of the proof of the customs status of Union goods should be specified, in particular rules relating to the various means by which those proofs can be provided, and simplifications related to such provision of proof.
(39)
For the sake of clarity for economic operators, it is appropriate to specify which customs office is competent for
receiving and processing a customs declaration based on the type of the customs declaration and the customs procedure requested by the economic operator. It is also appropriate to specify the conditions for the acceptance of a customs declaration and the situations in which a customs declaration can be amended after the release of the goods.
(40)
The lodgement of a standard customs declaration requires procedural rules specifying that when a customs
declaration is lodged with different items of goods, each item is considered as a separate customs declaration.
(41)
The cases of authorisations granted for a regular use of simplified declarations require a harmonisation of practises
in terms of deadlines for lodging the supplementary declarations and the supporting documents when missing at the time when the simplified declaration is lodged.
(42)
In order to allow an easy identification of a customs declaration for the purposes of formalities and controls after
the acceptance of a customs declaration, procedural rules specifying the use of a Master Reference Number (MRN) should be laid down.
(43)
Uniform measures should be laid down to determine the tariff subheading that could apply upon application by
the declarant, to a consignment that is made up of goods falling within different tariff subheadings and in case dealing with each of those goods in accordance with its tariff subheading would entail a burden of work and expense disproportionate to the import or export duty chargeable.
(44)
In order to ensure a proper administration of the granting of authorisation for centralised clearance in cases where
more than one customs authorities are involved, the consultation procedure should be standardised. Likewise, an adequate framework for timely communication between the supervising customs office and the customs office of presentation should be set up in order to allow Member States to release the goods in a timely manner and comply also with value added tax legislation, excise legislation, national prohibitions and restrictions and statistics requirements.
(45)
Self-assessment has been introduced as a new simplification offered by the Code. Therefore, it is highly important
to define precisely the simplification related to the customs formalities and controls to be carried out by the holder of the authorisation. The relevant rules should ensure a clear application of self-assessment in the Member State through appropriate and proportionate controls.
(46)
The destruction, sale and abandonment of goods to the State requires procedural rules specifying the role of the
customs authorities in relation to the type and quantity of any waste or scrap resulting from the destruction of the goods and the procedures to be followed concerning the abandonment and sale of goods.
(47)
The relief from import duty in relation to returned goods should be supported by information establishing that the
conditions for such relief are fulfilled. Procedural rules on this subject related with the information required and the exchange of this information between economic operators and customs authorities and between customs authorities should apply.
(48)
The relief from import duty in relation to sea-fishing and products taken from the sea should be supported by the
provision of evidence that the conditions to benefit from this relief are fulfilled. Procedural rules on this subject related with the information required should apply.
(49)
Given that in case of an application for an authorisation for special procedures an examination of the economic
conditions is required, where evidence exists that the essential interests of Union producers are likely to be
adversely affected, clear and simple rules for a proper examination at Union level should be established.
(50)
It is necessary to lay down procedural rules on the discharge of a special procedure where goods have been placed
under such a procedure using two or more customs declarations so that it is clear in which sequence such discharge takes place.
(51)
The competent customs authorities should take a decision on a request to transfer rights and obligations from the
holder of the procedure to another person.
(52)
Movement of goods under a special procedure to the customs office of exit should be allowed if the formalities
pertaining to the export procedure are carried out.
(53)
Accounting segregation should be allowed where equivalent goods are used. The procedural rules about the change
of customs status of non-Unions goods and equivalent goods must ensure that an economic operator cannot get an unjustified import duty advantage.
(54)
With a view of facilitating legitimate trade and ensuring the effectiveness of customs controls, while avoiding any
discrepancies in the treatment by the customs administrations of the individual Member States, procedural rules should be determined governing the Union transit procedure, the transit procedure in accordance with the Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods under cover of TIR carnets (
1
), including any
subsequent amendments thereof (TIR Convention), Customs Convention on the ATA Carnet for the Temporary Admission of Goods done at Brussels on 6 December 1961, including any subsequent amendments thereof (ATA Convention) and the Convention on Temporary Admission (
1
), including any subsequent amendments thereof
(Istanbul Convention) and the transit procedures under cover of the form 302 and under the postal system. Those procedural rules determine the main elements of the processes and include simplifications and thereby allow both the customs administrations and the economic operators to fully benefit from harmonised efficient procedures as a concrete example of trade facilitation.
(55)
In view of the specificities of air and maritime transport, it is appropriate to provide additional simplifications for
those modes of transport allowing the use of the data available in the records of the air and maritime carriers to be used as transit declarations. Furthermore, additional simplifications should be introduced for the electronic dataprocessing techniques for goods carried by rail in order to reconcile the relevant provisions with the changes caused by the market liberalisation and the changes in rail procedural rules.
(56)
In order to strike the balance between the effectiveness of the customs authorities' tasks and the expectations of the
economic operators, risk analysis for security and safety purposes of a pre-departure declaration should be carried
out prior to the release of goods within a time-limit that takes into account the legitimate interest of unhindered trade in transport of goods.
(57)
Detailed rules for the presentation of goods, formalities at the office of export and the at the office of exit, in
particular those ensuring the effective and efficient confirmation of the exit as well as the information exchange between the office of export and office of exit should be laid down.
(58)
Given the existence of similarities between export and re-export, it is appropriate to extend the application of
certain rules on export of goods to goods that are re-exported.
(59)
For the sake of safeguarding the legitimate interests of economic operators and ensure the smooth transition to the
new legal rules, it is necessary to establish transitional provisions to set out the rules to be applied to goods placed under certain customs procedures before 1 May 2016 and to be released or discharged after this date. Likewise, economic operators should be allowed to submit applications for authorisations under the Code before its date of application, in order to be able to use the granted authorisations as of 1 May 2016.
(60)
The general rules for the implementation of the Code are closely interlinked, they cannot be separated due to the
interrelatedness of their subject matter while they contain horizontal rules that apply across several customs procedures. Therefore, it is appropriate to group them together in a single Regulation in order to ensure legal coherence.
(61)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee.
(62)
The provisions of this Regulation should apply as from 1 May 2016 in order to enable the full application of the
Code,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
## Title I General Provisions Chapter 1 Scope Of The Customs Legislation, Mission Of Customs And Definitions Article 1 Definitions
For the purposes of this Regulation, Article 1 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (
2
) shall apply.
(2)
For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) 'cabin baggage' means, in the case of air travel, the baggage that the natural person takes with him into and out of
the aircraft cabin;
(2) 'customs office of presentation' means the customs office competent for the place where the goods are presented;
(3) 'hold baggage', in the case of air travel, means the baggage that has been checked in at the airport of departure and
is not accessible to the natural person during the flight nor, where relevant, during any stopovers;
(4) 'identical goods' means, in the context of customs valuation, goods produced in the same country which are the
same in all respects, including physical characteristics, quality and reputation. Minor differences in appearance shall
not preclude goods otherwise conforming to the definition from being regarded as identical;
(5) 'international Union airport' means any Union airport which, having been so authorised by the customs authority, is
approved for air traffic with territories outside of the customs territory of the Union;
(6) 'intra-Union flight' means the movement of an aircraft between two Union airports, without any stopover, which
does not start from or end at a non-Union airport;
(7) 'main processed products' means the processed products for which the authorisation for inward processing has been
granted;
(8) 'marketing activities' means, in the context of customs valuation, all activities relating to advertising or marketing
and promoting the sale of the goods in question and all activities relating to warranties or guarantees in respect of
them;
(9) 'secondary processed products' means processed products which are a necessary by-product of the processing
operation other than the main processed products;
(10) 'business or tourist aircraft' means private aircraft intended for journeys whose itinerary depends on the wishes of
the user;
(11) 'public customs warehouse type III' means a customs warehouse which is operated by the customs authorities;
(12) 'fixed transport installation' means technical means used for continuous transport of goods such as electricity, gas
and oil;
(13) 'customs office of transit' means either of the following:
(a) the customs office competent for the point of exit from the customs territory of the Union when the goods are
leaving that territory in the course of a transit operation via a frontier with a territory outside the customs
territory of the Union other than a common transit country;
(b) the customs office competent for the point of entry into the customs territory of the Union when the goods
have crossed a territory outside the customs territory of the Union in the course of a transit operation;
(14) 'similar goods', in the context of customs valuation, means goods produced in the same country, which, although
not alike in all respects, have like characteristics and like component materials which enable them to perform the same functions and to be commercially interchangeable; the quality of the goods, their reputation and the existence of a trademark are among the factors to be considered in determining whether goods are similar.
# Chapter 2 Rights And Obligations Of Persons With Regard To The Customs Legislation S E C T I O N 1
P r o v i s i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n S u b s e c t i o n 1
F o r m a t s a n d c o d e s o f c o m m o n d a t a r e q u i r e m e n t s , d a t a - e x c h a n g e a n d s t o r a g e Article 2
## Formats And Codes For Common Data Requirements
(Article 6(2) of the Code)
1.
The formats and codes for the common data requirements referred to in Article 6(2) of the Code and in Article 2 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 for the exchange and storage of information required for applications and decisions are set out in Annex A.
2.
The formats and codes for the common data requirements referred to in Article 6(2) of the Code and in Article 2 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 for the exchange and storage of information required for declarations, notifications and proof of customs status are set out in Annex B.
3.
By way of derogation from paragraph 1 of this Article, until the date of deployment of the first phase of the upgrading of the BTI system and the Surveillance 2 system, the codes and formats of Annex A shall not apply and the respective codes and formats shall be those set out in Annexes 2-5 to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) …/…, establishing transitional rules for certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, laying down the Union Customs Code where the relevant electronic systems are not yet operational (
1
).
By way of derogation from paragraph 1 of this Article, until the date of the upgrading of the AEO system, the codes and formats of Annex A shall not apply and the respective codes and formats shall be those set out in Annexes 6-7 to Delegated Regulation (EU) …/…, establishing transitional rules for certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, laying down the Union Customs Code where the relevant electronic systems are not yet operational.
By way of derogation from paragraph 2 of this Article, until the dates of deployment or upgrading of the relevant IT
systems as set out in Annex 1 to Delegated Regulation (EU) …/…, establishing transitional rules for certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, laying down the Union Customs Code where the relevant electronic systems are not yet operational the formats and codes set out in Annex B shall be optional for Member States.
Until the dates of deployment or upgrading of the relevant IT systems as set out in Annex 1 to Delegated Regulation (EU)
…/…, establishing transitional rules for certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, laying down the Union Customs Code where the relevant electronic systems are not yet operational the formats and codes required for declarations, notifications and proof of customs status shall be subject to the data requirements set out in Annex 9 to Delegated Regulation (EU) …/…, establishing transitional rules for certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, laying down the Union Customs Code where the relevant electronic systems are not yet operational.
Until the respective dates of the deployment of the UCC Automated Export System and the upgrading of the National Import Systems, as referred to in the Annex to Commission Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU (
2
), Member States shall ensure that the codes and formats for the notification of presentation allow the presentation of goods in accordance with Article 139 of the Code.
4.
Until the date of deployment of the UCC Customs Decisions system, the formats and codes laid down for the following applications and authorisations in Annex A are optional to Member States:
(a) Applications and authorisations relating to the simplification for the determination of amounts being part of the
customs value of the goods;
(b) Applications and authorisations relating to comprehensive guarantees;
(c) Applications and authorisations for deferred payment;
(d) Applications and authorisations for the operation of temporary storage facilities, as referred to in Article 148 of the
Code;
(e) Applications and authorisations for regular shipping services;
(f)
Applications and authorisations for authorised issuer;
(g) Applications and authorisations for the use of simplified declaration;
(h) Applications and authorisations for centralised clearance;
(i)
Applications and authorisations for entry of data in the declarant's records;
(j)
Applications and authorisations for self-assessment;
(k) Application and authorisation for the status of authorised weigher of bananas;
(l)
Applications and authorisations for the use of inward processing;
(m) Applications and authorisations for the use of outward processing;
(n) Applications and authorisations for the use of end use;
(o) Applications and authorisations for the use of temporary admission;
(p) Applications and authorisations for the operation of storage facilities for customs warehousing;
(q) Applications and authorisations for the status of authorised consignee for TIR operations;
(r) Applications and authorisations for the status of authorised consignor for Union transit;
(s) Applications and authorisations for the status of authorised consignee for Union transit;
(t)
Applications and authorisations for the use of seals of a special type;
(u) Applications and authorisations for the use of a transit declaration with reduced dataset;
(v) Applications and authorisations for the use of an electronic transport document as customs declaration.
Where Member States waive certain codes and formats during the transitional period, they shall ensure that they have implemented effective procedures that allow them to verify that the conditions for granting the authorisation concerned are fulfilled.
## Article 3 Security Of Electronic Systems (Article 16(1) Of The Code)
1.
When developing, maintaining and employing electronic systems referred to in Article 16(1) of the Code the Member States shall establish and maintain adequate security arrangements for the effective, reliable and secure operation of the various systems. They shall also ensure that measures are in place for checking the source of data and for protecting data against the risk of unauthorised access, loss, alteration or destruction.
2.
Each input, modification and deletion of data shall be recorded together with information giving the reason for, and exact time of, such processing and identifying the person who carried it out.
3.
The Member States shall inform each other, the Commission and, where appropriate, the economic operator concerned of all actual or suspected breaches of security of the electronic systems.
## Article 4 Storage Of Data (Article 16(1) Of The Code)
All data validated by the relevant electronic system shall be kept for at least 3 years from the end of the year in which such data was validated, unless otherwise specified.
## Article 5 Availability Of Electronic Systems (Article 16(1) Of The Code)
1.
The Commission and the Member States shall conclude operational agreements laying down the practical requirements for the availability and performance of the electronic systems as well as for business continuity.
2.
Operational agreements referred to in paragraph 1 shall in particular lay down appropriate response time for the exchange and processing of information in the relevant electronic systems.
3.
The electronic systems shall be kept permanently available. However, that obligation shall not apply:
(a) in specific cases related to the use of the electronic systems laid down in the agreements referred to in paragraph 1 or,
at national level, in the absence of those agreements;
(b) in the case of *force majeure*.
## S U B S E C T I O N 2 R E G I S T R A T I O N O F P E R S O N S Article 6 Competent Customs Authority (Article 9 Of The Code)
The customs authorities responsible for registration shall be those designated by the Member States. The Member States shall communicate the name and address of those authorities to the Commission. The Commission shall publish that information on the Internet.
## Article 7 Electronic System Relating To Eori Number (Article 16 Of The Code)
1.
For the exchange and storage of information pertaining to EORI, an electronic system set up for those purposes pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Code ('EORI system') shall be used.
Information shall be made available through that system by the competent customs authority whenever new EORI
numbers are assigned or there are changes to data stored in respect of registrations already issued.
2.
Only one EORI number shall be assigned in respect of each person.
3.
The format and codes of the data stored in the EORI system are laid down in Annex 12-01.
Until the date of the upgrading of the central EORI system, the codes of the common data requirements for the registration of economic operators and other persons are set out in Annex 9 to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, establishing transitional rules for certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, laying down the Union Customs Code where the relevant electronic systems are not yet operational.
5.
Where Member States collect data listed in point 4 of Annex 12-01 they shall ensure that the formats and codes as set out in Annex 12-01 are used.
## S E C T I O N 2
D e c i s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f c u s t o m s l e g i s l a t i o n S u b s e c t i o n 1
D e c i s i o n s t a k e n b y t h e c u s t o m s a u t h o r i t i e s
## Article 8 General Procedure For The Right To Be Heard (Article 22(6) Of The Code)
1.
The communication referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 22(6) of the Code shall:
(a) include a reference to the documents and information on which the customs authorities intend to base their decision;
(b) indicate the period within which the person concerned shall express his point of view from the date on which he
receives that communication or is deemed to have received it;
(c) include a reference to the right of the person concerned to have access to the documents and information referred to
in point (a) in accordance with the applicable provisions.
2.
Where the person concerned gives his point of view before the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1(b)
the customs authorities may proceed with taking the decision unless the person concerned simultaneously expresses his intention to further express his point of view within the period prescribed.
## Article 9 Specific Procedure For The Right To Be Heard (Article 22(6) Of The Code)
1.
The customs authorities may make the communication referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 22(6) of the
Code as part of the process of verification or control where they intend to take a decision on the basis of any of the
following:
(a) the results of a verification following presentation of the goods;
(b) the results of a verification of the customs declaration as referred to in Article 191 of the Code;
(c) the results of post-release control as referred to in Article 48 of the Code, where the goods are still under customs
supervision;
(d) the results of a verification of proof of the customs status of Union goods or, where applicable, the results of
verification of the application for the registration of such proof or for the endorsement of such proof;
(e) the issuing of a proof of origin by the customs authorities;
(f) the results of control of goods for which no summary declaration, temporary storage declaration, re-export
declaration or customs declaration was lodged.
2.
Where a communication is made in accordance with paragraph 1 the person concerned may:
(a) immediately express his point of view by the same means as those used for the communication in accordance with
Article 9 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446; or
(b) demand a communication in accordance with Article 8 except in the cases referred to in paragraph 1(f).
The person concerned shall be informed by the customs authorities of those two options.
3.
Where the customs authorities take a decision adversely affecting the person concerned, they shall record whether that person has expressed his point of view in accordance with paragraph 2(a).
## S U B S E C T I O N 2 D E C I S I O N S T A K E N U P O N A P P L I C A T I O N Article 10 Electronic Systems Relating To Decisions (Article 16(1) Of The Code)
1.
For the exchange and storage of information pertaining to applications and decisions which may have an impact in more than one Member State and to any subsequent event which may affect the original application or decision, an electronic system set up for those purposes pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Code shall be used.
Information shall be made available through that system by the competent customs authority without delay and at the latest within 7 days of the authority gaining knowledge of the information.
2.
An EU harmonised trader interface designed by the Commission and the Member States in agreement with each other shall be used for the exchange of information pertaining to applications and decisions which may have an impact in more than one Member State.
3.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall be applicable from the date of deployment of the UCC Customs Decisions system as referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU.
## Article 11 Customs Authority Designated To Receive Applications (Third Subparagraph Of Article 22(1) Of The Code)
Member States shall communicate to the Commission a list of the customs authorities referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 22(1) of the Code designated to receive applications. Member States shall also communicate to the Commission any subsequent changes to that list.
## Article 12 Acceptance Of The Application (Article 22(2) Of The Code)
1.
Where the customs authority accepts an application pursuant to Article 11(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU)
2015/2446, the date of acceptance of that application shall be the date on which all the information required in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 22 of the Code was received by the customs authority.
2.
Where the customs authority establishes that the application does not contain all the information required, it shall ask the applicant to provide the relevant information within a reasonable time limit which shall not exceed 30 days.
Where the applicant does not provide the information requested by the customs authorities within the period set by them for that purpose, the application shall not be accepted and the applicant shall be notified accordingly.
3.
In the absence of any communication to the applicant in relation to whether the application has been accepted or not, that application shall be deemed to be accepted. The date of the acceptance shall be the date of submission of the application or, in those cases where additional information has been provided by the applicant following a request of the customs authority as referred to in paragraph 2, the date when the last piece of information has been provided.
## Article 13 Storage Of Information Relating To Decisions (Article 23(5) Of The Code)
The customs authority competent to take a decision shall retain all data and supporting information which was relied upon when taking the decision for at least 3 years after the end date of its validity.
## Article 14 Consultation Between The Customs Authorities (Article 22 Of The Code)
1.
Where a customs authority competent to take a decision needs to consult a customs authority of another Member State concerned about the fulfilment of the necessary conditions and criteria for taking a favourable decision, that consultation shall take place within the period prescribed for the decision concerned. The customs authority competent to take a decision shall establish a time-limit for the consultation that starts from the date of communication by that customs authority of the conditions and criteria which need to be examined by the consulted customs authority.
Where, following the examination referred to in the first subparagraph, the consulted customs authority establishes that the applicant does not fulfil one or more of the conditions and criteria for taking a favourable decision, the results, duly documented and justified, shall be transmitted to the customs authority competent to take the decision.
2.
The time-limit established for the consultation in accordance with paragraph 1 may be extended by the customs authority competent to take the decision in any of the following cases:
(a) where due to the nature of the examinations to be performed the consulted authority requests more time;
(b) where the applicant carries out adjustments in order to ensure the fulfilment of the conditions and criteria referred to
in paragraph 1 and communicates them to the customs authority competent to take the decision, which shall inform
the consulted customs authority accordingly.
3.
Where the consulted customs authority does not respond within the time-limit established for the consultation in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2, the conditions and criteria for which the consultation took place are deemed to be fulfilled.
4.
The consultation procedure laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2 may also be applied for the purposes of re-assessment and monitoring of a decision.
## Article 15 Revocation Of A Favourable Decision (Article 28 Of The Code)
A decision suspended in accordance with Article 16(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 shall be revoked by the customs authority competent to take a decision in cases referred to in Article 16(1)(b) and (c) of that Regulation, where the holder of the decision fails to take, within the prescribed period of time, the necessary measures to fulfil the conditions laid down for the decision or to comply with the obligations imposed under that decision.
## Article 16 Application For A Decision Relating To Binding Information (Article 22(1) Of The Code)
1.
Where an application for a decision relating to binding information is submitted pursuant to Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 in another Member State than the one in which the applicant is established the customs authority to which the application was submitted shall notify the customs authority of the Member State where the applicant is established within 7 days from the acceptance of the application.
Where the customs authority that receives the notification holds any information that it considers relevant for the processing of the application, it shall transmit such information to the customs authority to which the application was submitted as soon as possible and at the latest within 30 days from the date of the notification.
2.
An application for a binding tariff information (BTI) decision shall relate only to goods which have similar char
acteristics and between which the differences are irrelevant for the purposes of their tariff classification.
3.
An application for a binding origin information (BOI) decision shall relate to only one type of goods and one set of circumstances for the determination of origin.
4.
For the purposes of ensuring compliance with the requirement set out in point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 33(1) of the Code in relation to an application for a BTI decision, the customs authority referred to in Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 shall consult the electronic system referred to in Article 21 of this Regulation and keep a record of such consultations.
## Article 17 Consistency With Existing Bti Decisions (Article 22(3) Of The Code)
The customs authority competent to take a decision shall, for the purposes of ensuring that a BTI decision which it intends to issue is consistent with BTI decisions that have already been issued, consult the electronic system referred to in Article 21 and keep a record of such consultations.
## Article 18 Notification Of Boi Decisions (Article 6(3) Of The Code)
1.
Where, the customs authority competent to take the decision notifies the applicant of the BOI decision using means
other than electronic data-processing techniques, it shall do so using the form set out in Annex 12-02.
2.
Where the customs authority competent to take the decision notifies the applicant of the BOI decision using electronic data-processing techniques, that decision shall be printable in accordance with the format set out in Annex 12-02.
## Article 19 Exchange Of Data Relating To Boi Decisions (Article 23(5) Of The Code)
1.
The customs authorities shall transmit to the Commission the relevant details of the BOI decisions on a quarterly basis.
2.
The Commission shall make the details obtained in accordance with paragraph 1 available to the customs authorities of all Member States.
## Article 20 Monitoring Of Bti Decisions (Article 23(5) Of The Code)
When customs formalities are being fulfilled by or on behalf of the holder of a BTI decision in respect of goods covered by the BTI decision, this shall be indicated in the customs declaration by stating the BTI decision reference number.
## Article 21 Electronic System Relating To Bti (Articles 16(1) And 23(5) Of The Code)
1.
For the exchange and storage of information pertaining to applications and decisions related to BTI or to any subsequent event which may affect the original application or decision, an electronic system set up for those purposes pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Code shall be used.
Information shall be made available through that system by the competent customs authority without delay and at the latest within 7 days of the authority gaining knowledge of the information.
2.
In addition to the information referred to in paragraph 1:
(a) the surveillance referred to in Article 55 of this Regulation shall include data that are relevant for monitoring the
usage of BTI decisions;
(b) the customs authority that has received the application and has taken the BTI decision shall notify through the system
referred to in paragraph 1 if a period of extended use of the BTI decision is granted, indicating the end date of the
period of extended use and the quantities of the goods covered by this period.
3.
The Commission shall communicate the results of the monitoring referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 to the Member States on a regular basis in order to support the monitoring by the customs authorities of the compliance with the obligations resulting from the BTI.
4.
An EU harmonised trader interface designed by the Commission and the Member States in agreement with each other shall be used for the exchange of information pertaining to applications and decisions related to BTI.
5.
When processing an application for a BTI decision, the customs authorities shall indicate the status of the application in the system referred to in paragraph 1.
6.
By derogation from paragraph 1 of this Article, until the date of the upgrading of the system referred to therein in accordance with the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, Member States shall use the central database of the Commission set up by Article 8(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (
1
).
7.
Until the date of deployment of the first phase of the upgrading of the system referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and the system referred to in Article 56 of this Regulation, the customs authorities shall carry out the monitoring of the usage of BTI decisions when conducting customs controls or post-release controls in accordance with Articles 46 and 48 of the Code. By derogation from paragraph 3 of this Article, until that date of deployment, the Commission shall not be obliged to communicate results of the monitoring referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 of this Article to the Member States.
## Article 22 Extended Use Of Decisions Relating To Binding Information (Article 34(9) Of The Code)
1.
Where the customs authorities decide to grant a period of extended use in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 34(9) of the Code, they shall specify the date on which the period of extended use of the decision concerned expires.
2.
Where the customs authorities decide to grant a period of extended use of a BTI decision in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 34(9) of the Code, they shall specify, in addition to the date referred to in paragraph 1, the quantities of the goods that may be cleared during the period of extended use.
The use of a decision for which a period of extended use has been granted shall cease as soon as those quantities are reached.
On the basis of the surveillance referred to in Article 55, the Commission shall inform the Member States as soon as those quantities have been reached.
## Article 23 Actions To Ensure The Correct And Uniform Tariff Classification Or Determination Of Origin (Article 34(10) Of The Code)
1.
The Commission shall, without delay, notify the customs authorities of the suspension of the taking of BTI and BOI
decisions in accordance with Article 34(10)(a) of the Code where:
(a) the Commission has identified incorrect or non-uniform decisions;
(b) the customs authorities have submitted to the Commission cases where they failed to resolve, within a maximum
period of 90 days, their differences of opinion with regard to the correct and uniform classification or determination
of origin.
No decision related to binding information shall be issued for goods subject to point (a) or (b) from the date when the Commission has notified the customs authorities of the suspension until the correct and uniform classification or determination of origin is ensured.
2.
The correct and uniform classification or determination of origin shall be subject to consultation at Union level at the earliest opportunity and at the latest within 120 days of the Commission notification referred to in paragraph 1.
3.
The Commission shall notify the customs authorities immediately once the suspension is withdrawn.
4.
For the purposes of applying paragraphs 1 to 3, BOI decisions shall be deemed to be non-uniform where they confer different origin on goods which:
(a) fall under the same tariff heading and whose origin was determined in accordance with the same origin rules; and
(b) have been obtained under identical conditions using the same manufacturing process and equivalent materials as
regards notably their originating or non-originating status.
## Article 24 Compliance (Article 39(A) Of The Code)
1.
Where the applicant is a natural person, the criterion laid down in Article 39(a) of the Code shall be considered to be fulfilled if, over the last 3 years, the applicant and where applicable the employee in charge of the applicant's customs matters have not committed any serious infringement or repeated infringements of customs legislation and taxation rules and have had no record of serious criminal offences relating to their economic activity.
Where the applicant is not a natural person, the criterion laid down in Article 39(a) of the Code shall be considered to be fulfilled where, over the last 3 years, none of the following persons has committed a serious infringement or repeated infringements of customs legislation and taxation rules or has had a record of serious criminal offences relating to his economic activity:
(a) the applicant;
(b) the person in charge of the applicant or exercising control over its management;
(c) the employee in charge of the applicant's customs matters.
2.
However, the criterion referred to in Article 39(a) of the Code may be considered to be fulfilled where the customs authority competent to take the decision considers an infringement to be of minor importance, in relation to the number or size of the related operations, and the customs authority has no doubt as to the good faith of the applicant.
3.
Where the person referred to in paragraph 1(b) is established or has his residence in a third country, the customs authority competent to take the decision shall assess the fulfilment of the criterion referred to in Article 39(a) of the Code on the basis of records and information that are available to it.
4.
Where the applicant has been established for less than 3 years, the customs authority competent to take the decision shall assess the fulfilment of the criterion referred to in Article 39(a) of the Code on the basis of the records and information that are available to it.
## Article 25 Satisfactory System Of Managing Commercial And Transport Records (Article 39(B) Of The Code)
1.
The criterion laid down in Article 39(b) of the Code shall be considered to be fulfilled if the following conditions
are met:
(a) the applicant maintains an accounting system which is consistent with the generally accepted accounting principles
applied in the Member State where the accounts are held, allows audit-based customs control and maintains a
historical record of data that provides an audit trail from the moment the data enters the file;
(b) records kept by the applicant for customs purposes are integrated in the accounting system of the applicant or allow
cross checks of information with the accounting system to be made;
(c) the applicant allows the customs authority physical access to its accounting systems and, where applicable, to its
commercial and transport records;
(d) the applicant allows the customs authority electronic access to its accounting systems and, where applicable, to its
commercial and transport records where those systems or records are kept electronically;
(e) the applicant has a logistical system which identifies goods as Union or non-Union goods and indicates, where
appropriate, their location;
(f) the applicant has an administrative organisation which corresponds to the type and size of business and which is
suitable for the management of the flow of goods, and has internal controls capable of preventing, detecting and
correcting errors and of preventing and detecting illegal or irregular transactions;
(g) where applicable, the applicant has satisfactory procedures in place for the handling of licences and authorisations
granted in accordance with commercial policy measures or relating to trade in agricultural products;
(h) the applicant has satisfactory procedures in place for the archiving of its records and information and for protection
against the loss of information;
(i) the applicant ensures that relevant employees are instructed to inform the customs authorities whenever compliance
difficulties are discovered and establishes procedures for informing the customs authorities of such difficulties;
(j) the applicant has appropriate security measures in place to protect the applicant's computer system from unauth
orised intrusion and to secure the applicant's documentation;
(k) where applicable, the applicant has satisfactory procedures in place for the handling of import and export licences
connected to prohibitions and restrictions, including measures to distinguish goods subject to the prohibitions or
restrictions from other goods and measures to ensure compliance with those prohibitions and restrictions.
2.
Where the applicant applies only for an authorisation as an economic operator authorised for security and safety as referred to in Article 38(2)(b) of the Code (AEOS), the requirement laid down in paragraph 1(e) shall not apply.
## Article 26 Financial Solvency (Article 39(C) Of The Code)
1.
The criterion laid down in Article 39(c) of the Code shall be considered to be fulfilled where the applicant complies with the following:
(a) the applicant is not subject to bankruptcy proceedings;
(b) during the last 3 years preceding the submission of the application, the applicant has fulfilled his financial obligations
regarding payments of customs duties and all other duties, taxes or charges which are collected on or in connection
with the import or export of goods;
(c) the applicant demonstrates on the basis of the records and information available for the last 3 years preceding the
submission of the application that he has sufficient financial standing to meet his obligations and fulfil his commitments having regard to the type and volume of the business activity, including having no negative net
assets, unless where they can be covered.
2.
If the applicant has been established for less than 3 years, his financial solvency as referred to in Article 39(c) of the Code shall be checked on the basis of records and information that are available.
## Article 27 Practical Standards Of Competence Or Professional Qualifications (Article 39(D) Of The Code)
1.
The criterion laid down in Article 39(d) of the Code shall be considered to be fulfilled if any of the following conditions are met:
(a) the applicant or the person in charge of the applicant's customs matters complies with one of the following practical
standards of competence:
(i) a proven practical experience of a minimum of 3 years in customs matters;
(ii) a quality standard concerning customs matters adopted by a European Standardisation body;
(b) the applicant or the person in charge of the applicant's customs matters has successfully completed training covering
customs legislation consistent with and relevant to the extent of his involvement in customs related activities,
provided by any of the following:
(i) a customs authority of a Member State;
(ii) an educational establishment recognised, for the purposes of providing such qualification, by the customs
authorities or a body of a Member State responsible for professional training;
(iii) a professional or trade association recognised by the customs authorities of a Member State or accredited in the
Union, for the purposes of providing such qualification.
2.
Where the person in charge of the applicant's customs matters is a contracted person, the criterion laid down in Article 39(d) of the Code shall be considered to be fulfilled if the contracted person is an economic operator authorised for customs simplifications as referred to in Article 38(2)(a) of the Code (AEOC).
## Article 28 Security And Safety Standards (Article 39(E) Of The Code)
1.
The criterion laid down in Article 39(e) of the Code shall be considered to be fulfilled if the following conditions are met:
(a) buildings to be used in connection with the operations relating to the AEOS authorisation provide protection against
unlawful intrusion and are constructed of materials which resist unlawful entry;
(b) appropriate measures are in place to prevent unauthorised access to offices, shipping areas, loading docks, cargo areas
and other relevant places;
(c) measures for the handling of goods have been taken which include protection against the unauthorised introduction
or exchange, the mishandling of goods and against tampering with cargo units;
(d) the applicant has taken measures allowing to clearly identify his business partners and to ensure, through imple
mentation of appropriate contractual arrangements or other appropriate measures in accordance with the applicant's
business model, that those business partners ensure the security of their part of the international supply chain;
(e) the applicant conducts in so far as national law permits, security screening on prospective employees working in
security sensitive positions and carries out background checks of current employees in such positions periodically and
where warranted by circumstances;
(f) the applicant has appropriate security procedures in place for any external service providers contracted;
(g) the applicant ensures that its staff having responsibilities relevant for security issues regularly participate in
programmes to raise their awareness of those security issues;
(h) the applicant has appointed a contact person competent for safety and security related questions.
The criteria shall be deemed to be met to the extent that it is established that the criteria for issuing that certificate are identical or equivalent to those laid down in Article 39(e) of the Code.
The criteria shall be deemed to be met where the applicant is the holder of a security and safety certificate issued by a third country with which the Union has concluded an agreement which provides for the recognition of that certificate.
3.
Where the applicant is a regulated agent or a known consignor as defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No
300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (
1
) and fulfils the requirements laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 (
2
), the criteria laid down in paragraph 1 shall be deemed to be met in relation to the sites and the operations for which the applicant obtained the status of regulated agent or known consignor to the extent that the criteria for issuing the regulated agent or known consignor status are identical or equivalent to those laid down in Article 39(e) of the Code.
## Article 29 Examination Of The Criteria (Article 22 Of The Code)
1.
For the purposes of examining the criteria laid down in Article 39(b) and (e) of the Code, the customs authority competent to take the decision shall ensure that on-the-spot verifications are carried out at all the premises that are relevant to the customs related activities of the applicant.
Where the applicant has a large number of premises, and the applicable time-limit for taking the decision does not allow for examination of all those premises the customs authority may decide to examine only a representative proportion of those premises if it is satisfied that the applicant applies the same security and safety standards at all of its premises and apply the same common standards and procedures for maintaining its records at all of its premises.
2.
The customs authorities competent to take a decision may take into consideration the results of assessments or audits carried out in accordance with Union legislation to the extent they are relevant for the examination of the criteria referred to in Article 39 of the Code.
3.
For the purposes of examining whether the criteria laid down in Article 39(b), (c) and (e) of the Code are fulfilled, the customs authorities may take into account expert conclusions provided by the applicant, where the expert having drawn up the conclusions is not related to the applicant within the meaning of Article 127 of this Regulation.
4.
The customs authorities shall take due account of the specific characteristics of economic operators, in particular of small and medium-sized enterprises, when examining the fulfilment of criteria laid down in Article 39 of the Code.
5.
The examination of the criteria laid down in Article 39 of the Code as well as its results shall be documented by the customs authority competent to take the decision.
## Article 30 Electronic System Relating To The Aeo Status (Article 16(1) Of The Code)
1.
For the exchange and storage of information pertaining to applications for an authorisation as an authorised economic operator (AEO) and AEO authorisations granted and any further event or act which may subsequently affect the original decision, including annulment, suspension, revocation or amendment or the results of any monitoring or re-assessment, an electronic system set up for those purposes pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Code shall be used. The competent customs authority shall make information available through this system without delay and at the latest within
7 days.
An EU harmonised trader interface designed by the Commission and the Member States in agreement with each other shall be used for the exchange of information pertaining to applications and decisions related to AEO authorisations.
2.
Where applicable, in particular when AEO status is a basis for the grant of approval, authorisations or facilitations under other Union legislation, the competent customs authority may grant access to the electronic system referred to in paragraph 1 to the appropriate national authority responsible for civil aviation security. The access shall be related to the following information:
(a) the AEOS authorisations, including the name of the holder of the authorisation and, where applicable, their
amendment or revocation or the suspension of the status of authorised economic operator and the reasons therefor;
(b) any re-assessments of AEOS authorisations and the results thereof.
The national authorities responsible for civil aviation security handling the information concerned shall use it only for the purposes of the relevant programmes for regulated agent or known consignor and shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure the security of this information.
3.
By derogation from paragraph 1 of this Article, until the date of the upgrading of the AEO System referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, Member States shall use that system set up by Article 14x of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.
## Article 31 Consultation Procedure And Exchange Of Information Between Customs Authorities (Article 22 Of The Code)
1.
The customs authority competent to take the decision may consult customs authorities of other Member States which are competent for the place where necessary information is held or where checks have to be carried out for the purpose of examining one or more criteria laid down in Article 39 of the Code.
2.
The consultation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be mandatory, where:
(a) the application for the status of AEO is submitted in accordance with Article 12(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU)
2015/2446, to the customs authority - of the place where the applicant's main accounts for customs purposes are
held or are accessible;
(b) the application for the status of AEO is submitted in accordance with Article 27 of Delegated Regulation (EU)
2015/2446, to the customs authorities of the Member State where the applicant has a permanent business estab lishment and where the information about its general logistical management activities in the Union is kept or is
accessible;
(c) a part of the records and documentation of relevance for the application for the status of AEO is kept in a Member
State other than the one of the customs authority competent to take a decision;
(d) the applicant for the status of AEO maintains a storage facility or has other customs-related activities in a Member
State other than the one of the competent customs authority.
4.
Where the customs authority of another Member State has information of relevance for the granting of AEO status, it shall communicate that information to the customs authority competent to take a decision within 30 days starting from the date of the communication of the application through the electronic system referred to in Article 30 of this Regulation.
## Article 32 Rejection Of An Application (Article 22 Of The Code)
The rejection of an AEO application shall not affect existing favourable decisions taken with regard to the applicant in accordance with the customs legislation, unless the granting of those favourable decisions is based on the fulfilment of any of the AEO criteria that have been proven not to be met during the examination of the AEO application.
## Article 33 Combination Of Both Types Of Authorisations
(Article 38(3) of the Code)
Where an applicant is entitled to be granted both an AEOC and an AEOS authorisation, the customs authority competent to take the decision shall issue one combined authorisation.
## Article 34 Revocation Of An Authorisation (Article 28 Of The Code)
1.
The revocation of an AEO authorisation shall not affect any favourable decision which has been taken with regard to the same person unless AEO status was a condition for that favourable decision, or that decision was based on a criterion listed in Article 39 of the Code which is no longer met.
2.
The revocation or amendment of a favourable decision which has been taken with regard to the holder of the authorisation shall not automatically affect the AEO authorisation of that person.
3.
Where the same person is both an AEOC and an AEOS, and Article 28 of the Code or Article 15 of this Regulation is applicable owing to the non-fulfilment of the conditions laid down in Article 39(d) of the Code, the AEOC author
isation shall be revoked and AEOS authorisation shall remain valid.
Where the same person is both an AEOS and an AEOC, and Article 28 of the Code or Article 15 of this Regulation is applicable owing to the non-fulfilment of the conditions laid down in Article 39(e) of the Code, the AEOS authorisation shall be revoked and AEOC authorisation shall remain valid.
## Article 35 Monitoring
(Article 23(5) of the Code)
1.
The customs authorities of the Member States shall inform the competent customs authority without delay of any factors arising after the grant of the status of AEO which may influence its continuation or content.
2.
The competent customs authority shall make available all relevant information at its disposal to the customs authorities of the other Member States where the AEO carries out customs-related activities.
3.
Where a customs authority revokes a favourable decision which has been taken on the basis of the status of AEO, it shall notify the customs authority which granted the status.
4.
Where the AEOS is a regulated agent or a known consignor as defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No
300/2008 and fulfils the requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) No 185/2010, the competent customs authority shall immediately make available to the appropriate national authority responsible for civil aviation security the following minimum information related to the AEO status which it has at its disposal:
(a) the AEOS authorisation, including the name of the holder of the authorisation and, where applicable, its amendment
or revocation or the suspension of the status of authorised economic operator and the reasons therefor;
(b) information about whether the specific site concerned has been visited by customs authorities, the date of the last
visit, and whether the visit took place with a view to the authorisation process, re-assessment or monitoring;
(c) any re-assessments of the AEOS authorisation and the results thereof.
The national customs authorities shall, in agreement with the appropriate national authority responsible for civil aviation security, establish detailed modalities for the exchange of any information which is not covered by the electronic system referred to in Article 30 of this Regulation.
The national authorities responsible for civil aviation security handling the information concerned shall use it only for the purposes of the relevant programmes for regulated agent or known consignor and shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure the security of the information.
## S E C T I O N 4
C o n t r o l o f g o o d s S u b s e c t i o n 1
C u s t o m s c o n t r o l s a n d r i s k m a n a g e m e n t
## Article 36 Electronic System Relating To Risk Management And Customs Controls (Article 16(1) Of The Code)
1.
For the exchange and storage of information pertaining to the communication among the customs authorities of the Member States and the Commission of any risk-related information, an electronic system set up for those purposes pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Code ('customs risk management system') shall be used.
2.
The system mentioned in paragraph 1 shall also be used for communication between customs authorities and between customs authorities and the Commission in the implementation of common risk criteria and standards, common priority control areas, customs crisis management, the exchange of risk-related information and risk analysis results as referred to in Article 46(5) of the Code as well as the results of customs controls.
## S U B S E C T I O N 2 C A B I N A N D H O L D B A G G A G E T R A N S P O R T E D B Y A I R Article 37 Transit Flights (Article 49 Of The Code)
1.
Customs controls and formalities applicable to the cabin and hold baggage of persons taking a flight from a non-
Union airport in an aircraft which, after a stopover at a Union airport, continues to another Union airport shall be carried out at the last international Union airport.
The cabin and hold baggage shall be subject to the rules applicable to the baggage of persons coming from a third country unless the person carrying such baggage proves the status of the goods contained therein as Union goods.
2.
Customs controls and formalities applicable to the cabin and hold baggage of persons taking a flight from a Union airport in an aircraft which stops over at another Union airport before continuing to a non-Union airport, shall be carried out at the first international Union airport.
The cabin baggage may be subject to control at the last international Union airport where the aircraft stops over in order to ascertain their customs status of Union goods.
## Article 38 Transit Flights In Business And Tourist Aircraft (Article 49 Of The Code)
Customs controls and formalities applicable to the baggage of persons on board business or tourist aircraft shall be carried out at the following airports:
(a) for flights coming from a non-Union airport and where the aircraft, after a stopover at a Union airport, continues to
another Union airport, at the first international Union airport;
(b) for flights coming from a Union airport and where the aircraft, after a stopover at a Union airport, continues to a
non-Union airport, at the last international Union airport.
## Article 39 Inbound Transfer Flights (Article 49 Of The Code)
1.
Where baggage arriving at a Union airport on board an aircraft coming from a non-Union airport is transferred, at that Union airport, to another aircraft proceeding on an intra-Union flight, paragraphs 2 and 3 shall apply.
2.
Customs controls and formalities applicable to hold baggage shall be carried out at the last international Union airport of arrival of the intra-Union flight. However, customs controls and formalities applicable to hold baggage coming from a non-Union airport and transferred at an international Union airport to an aircraft bound for another international Union airport in the territory of the same Member State may be carried out at the international Union airport where the transfer of hold baggage takes place.
Customs controls and formalities applicable to hold baggage may, in exceptional cases and in addition to the controls and formalities referred to in the first subparagraph, be carried out at the first international Union airport where they prove necessary following controls on cabin baggage.
3.
Customs controls and formalities applicable to cabin baggage shall be carried out at the first international Union airport.
Additional customs controls and formalities applicable to cabin baggage may be carried out at the airport of arrival of an intra-Union flight only in exceptional cases where they prove necessary following controls on hold baggage.
## Article 40 Outbound Transfer Flights (Article 49 Of The Code)
1.
Where baggage is loaded at a Union airport onto an aircraft proceeding on an intra-Union flight and subsequently transferred, at another Union airport, onto another aircraft whose destination is a non-Union airport, paragraphs 2 and 3
shall apply.
2.
Customs controls and formalities applicable to hold baggage shall be carried out at the first international Union airport of departure. However, customs controls and formalities applicable to hold baggage having been loaded on an aircraft at an international Union airport and transferred at another international Union airport in the territory of the same Member State to an aircraft bound for a non-Union airport may be carried out at the international Union airport where the transfer of hold baggage takes place.
Customs controls and formalities applicable to hold baggage may, in exceptional cases and in addition to the controls and formalities referred to in the first subparagraph, be carried out at the last international Union airport where they prove necessary following controls on cabin baggage.
3.
Customs controls and formalities applicable to cabin baggage shall be carried out at the last international Union airport.
Additional customs controls and formalities applicable to cabin baggage may be carried out at the airport of departure of an intra-Union flight only in exceptional cases where they prove necessary following controls on hold baggage.
## Article 41 Transfer To A Tourist Or Business Aircraft (Article 49 Of The Code)
1.
Customs controls and formalities applicable to baggage arriving at a Union airport on board a scheduled or charter flight from a non-Union airport and transferred, at that Union airport, to a tourist or business aircraft proceeding on an intra-Union flight shall be carried out at the airport of arrival of the scheduled or charter flight.
2.
Customs controls and formalities applicable to baggage loaded at a Union airport onto a tourist or business aircraft proceeding on an intra-Union flight for transfer, at another Union airport, to a scheduled or charter flight whose destination is a non-Union airport, shall be carried out at the airport of departure of the scheduled or charter flight.
## Article 42 Transfers Between Airports On The Territory Of The Same Member State (Article 49 Of The Code)
The customs authorities may carry out controls, at the international Union airport where the transfer of hold baggage takes place, on the following:
(a) baggage coming from a non-Union airport and transferred in an international Union airport to an aircraft bound for
an international Union airport in the same national territory;
(b) baggage having been loaded on an aircraft in an international Union airport for transfer in another international
Union airport in the same national territory to an aircraft bound for a non-Union airport.
## Article 43 Measures To Prevent Illegal Transfer (Article 49 Of The Code)
The Member States shall ensure that:
(a) on arrival at an international Union airport where customs controls are to be carried out, any transfer of goods
contained in cabin baggage before those controls have been carried out on that baggage is monitored;
(b) on departure from an international Union airport where customs controls are to be carried out, any transfer of goods
contained in cabin baggage after those controls have been carried out on that baggage is monitored;
(c) on arrival at an international Union airport where customs controls are to be carried out, the appropriate
arrangements have been made to prevent any transfer of goods contained in hold baggage before those controls
have been carried out on that baggage;
(d) on departure from an international Union airport where customs controls are to be carried out, the appropriate
arrangements have been made to prevent any transfer of goods contained in hold baggage after those controls have been carried out on the hold baggage.
## Article 44 Baggage Tag
(Article 49 of the Code)
Hold baggage registered at a Union airport shall be identified by a tag affixed on the baggage. A specimen and the technical characteristics of the tag are set out in Annex 12-03.
## Article 45 List Of International Union Airports (Article 49 Of The Code)
Each Member State shall provide the Commission with a list of its international Union airports and shall inform the Commission of any changes to that list.
## S U B S E C T I O N 3 B A G G A G E T R A N S P O R T E D B Y S E A Article 46 Pleasure Crafts
(Article 49 of the Code)
Customs controls and formalities applicable to the baggage of persons on board pleasure craft shall be carried out at all ports of call in the Union, whatever the origin or destination of the craft. Pleasure craft is a recreational craft as defined in Directive 94/25/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council (
1
).
## Article 47 Transfer Crossings (Article 49 Of The Code)
Customs controls and formalities applicable to the baggage of persons using a maritime service provided by the same vessel and comprising successive legs departing from, calling at or terminating in a non-Union port shall be carried out at any Union port at which the baggage is loaded or unloaded.
## Chapter 3 Currency Conversion Article 48 Provisions On Tariff Exchange Rate
(Article 53 of the Code)
1.
The value of the euro, where required in accordance with Article 53(1)(b) of the Code, shall be fixed once a month.
The exchange rate to be used shall be the most recent rate set by the European Central Bank prior to the penultimate day of the month and shall apply throughout the following month.
However, where the rate applicable at the start of the month differs by more than 5 % from the rate set by the European Central Bank prior to the 15th of that same month, the latter rate shall apply from the 15th until the end of the month in question.
2.
Where the conversion of currency is necessary for any of the reasons referred to in Article 53(2) of the Code, the value of the euro in national currencies to be applied shall be the rate set by the European Central Bank on the first working day of October; this rate shall apply with effect from 1 January of the following year.
3.
Member States may maintain unchanged the value in national currency of the amount determined in euro if, at the time of the annual adjustment, the conversion of that amount, leads to an alteration of less than 5 % in the value expressed in national currency.
Member States may round upwards or downwards to the nearest decimal point the sum arrived at after conversion.
## Title Ii Factors On The Basis Of Which Import Or Export Duty And Other Measures In Respect Of Trade In Goods Are Applied Chapter 1 Common Customs Tariff And Tariff Classification Of Goods S E C T I O N 1
M a n a g e m e n t o f t a r i f f q u o t a s
## Article 49 General Rules On The Uniform Management Of Tariff Quotas (Article 56(4) Of The Code)
1.
Tariff quotas opened in accordance with Union legislation referring to the method of administration in this article and in Articles 50 to 54 of this Regulation shall be managed in accordance with the chronological order of dates of acceptance of customs declarations for release for free circulation.
2.
Each tariff quota is identified in the Union legislation by an order number that facilitates its management.
3.
For the purposes of this Section, declarations for release for free circulation accepted by the customs authorities on
1, 2 or 3 January shall be regarded as being accepted on 3 January of the same year. However, where one of those days falls on a Saturday or a Sunday, such acceptance shall be regarded as having taken place on 4 January of that year.
4.
For the purposes of this Section, working days shall mean days which are not public holidays for the Union institutions in Brussels.
## Article 50 Responsibilities Of The Customs Authorities Of The Member States For The Uniform Management Of Tariff Quotas (Article 56(4) Of The Code)
1.
The customs authorities shall examine whether a request to benefit from a tariff quota made by the declarant in a customs declaration for release for free circulation is valid in accordance with the Union legislation opening the tariff quota.
2.
Where a customs declaration for release for free circulation containing a valid request by the declarant to benefit from a tariff quota is accepted and all the supporting documents required for the granting of the tariff quota have been provided to the customs authorities, the customs authorities shall transmit that request to the Commission without delay specifying the date of acceptance of the customs declaration and the exact amount for which the request is made.
## Article 51 Allocation Of Quantities Under Tariff Quotas (Article 56(4) Of The Code)
1.
The Commission shall make allocations on working days. However, the Commission may decide not to allocate quantities on a given working day provided that the competent authorities of the Member States have been informed in advance.
2.
Quantities under tariff quotas may not be allocated earlier than on the second working day after the date of acceptance of the customs declaration in which the declarant made the request to benefit from the tariff quota.
Any allocation by the Commission shall take into account all unanswered requests to benefit from tariff quotas based on customs declarations accepted up to and including the second previous working day to the day of the allocation, and which the customs authorities have transmitted to the system referred to in Article 54 of this Regulation.
3.
For each tariff quota, the Commission shall allocate quantities on the basis of requests to benefit from that tariff quota received by it following the chronological order of the dates of acceptance of the relevant customs declarations, and to the extent that the remaining balance of the tariff quota so permits.
4.
Where on an allocation day, the sum of quantities of all requests to benefit from a tariff quota which relate to declarations accepted on the same date are greater than the remaining balance of the tariff quota, the Commission shall allocate quantities in respect of those requests on a pro rata basis with respect to the requested quantities.
5.
Where a new tariff quota is opened, the Commission shall not allocate quantities under that tariff quota before the
11th working day following the date of publication of the Union act opening that tariff quota.
## Article 52 Cancellation Of Requests And Returns Of Unused Allocated Quantities Under Tariff Quotas (Article 56(4) Of The Code)
1.
Customs authorities shall immediately return to the electronic system referred to in Article 54 of this Regulation any quantity that has been erroneously allocated. However the obligation to return shall not apply where an erroneous allocation representing a customs debt of less than EUR 10 is discovered after the first month following the end of the period of validity of the tariff quota concerned.
2.
Where the customs authorities invalidate a customs declaration in respect of goods which are the subject of a request to benefit from a tariff quota before the Commission has allocated the requested quantity, the customs authorities shall cancel the entire request to benefit from the tariff quota.
Where the Commission has already allocated the requested quantity on the basis of an invalidated customs declaration, the customs authority shall immediately return the allocated quantity to the electronic system referred to in Article 54 of this Regulation.
## Article 53 Critical Status Of Tariff Quotas (Article 56(4) Of The Code)
1.
For the purposes of Article 153 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, a tariff quota shall be considered critical as soon as 90 % of the complete volume of the tariff quota has been used.
2.
By way of derogation from paragraph 1, a tariff quota shall be considered critical from the date of its opening in any of the following cases:
(a) the tariff quota is opened for less than 3 months;
(b) tariff quotas having the same product coverage and origin and an equivalent quota period as the tariff quota in
question ('equivalent tariff quotas') have not been opened in the previous 2 years;
(c) an equivalent tariff quota opened in the previous 2 years had been exhausted on or before the last day of the third
month of its quota period or had a higher initial volume than the tariff quota in question.
3.
A tariff quota whose sole purpose is the application of either a safeguard measure or a measure resulting from a suspension of concessions as provided for in Regulation (EU) No 654/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (
1
) shall be considered as critical as soon as 90 % of the complete volume has been used irrespective of whether or not equivalent tariff quotas were opened in the previous 2 years.
## Article 54 Electronic System Relating To The Management Of Tariff Quotas (Articles 16(1) And 56(4) Of The Code)
1.
For the management of tariff quotas, an electronic system set up for those purposes pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Code shall be used for:
(a) the exchange of information between the customs authorities and the Commission pertaining to requests to benefit
from and returns on tariff quotas and to the status of tariff quotas and the storage of that information;
(b) the management by the Commission of the requests to benefit from and returns on tariff quotas;
(c) the exchange of information between the customs authorities and the Commission relating to the allocation of
quantities under tariff quotas and the storage of that information;
(d) the recording of any further event or act which may affect the original drawings or returns on tariff quotas or their
allocation.
2.
The Commission shall make available the information related to the allocation results through that system.
## S E C T I O N 2 S U R V E I L L A N C E O F T H E R E L E A S E F O R F R E E C I R C U L A T I O N O R T H E E X P O R T O F G O O D S Article 55 General Rules On Surveillance Of The Release For Free Circulation Or The Export Of Goods (Article 56(5) Of The Code)
1.
Where the Commission lays down a requirement that certain goods shall be subject to surveillance at release for free circulation or at export, it shall inform the customs authorities of the CN codes of those goods and of the data necessary for the purposes of the surveillance, in due time before the surveillance requirement becomes applicable.
The list of data which may be required by the Commission for the purposes of surveillance is laid down in Annex 21-01.
2.
Where goods have been made subject to surveillance at release for free circulation or at export, the customs authorities shall provide the Commission with data on customs declarations for the relevant procedure at least once a week.
Where the goods are released in accordance with Article 194(1) of the Code, the customs authorities shall provide the Commission with the data without delay.
3.
The Commission shall only disclose the data referred in paragraph 1 provided by the customs authorities in aggregated form and only to users authorised in accordance with Article 56(2) of this Regulation.
4.
Where goods are placed under a customs procedure on the basis of a simplified declaration as referred to in Article 166 of the Code or by entry in the declarant's records as referred to in Article 182 of the Code, and the data required by the Commission were not available at the time when the goods were released in accordance with Article 194(1) of the Code, the customs authorities shall provide the Commission with that information without delay after receiving the supplementary declaration lodged in accordance with Article 167 of the Code.
5.
Where the obligation to lodge a supplementary declaration is waived in accordance with Article 167(3) of the Code or the supplementary declaration is lodged or made available in accordance with Article 225 of this Regulation, the authorisation holder shall send to the customs authorities at least once a month the data required by the Commission or the customs authorities shall collect that data from the system of the declarant.
The customs authorities shall enter the data in the electronic system referred to in Article 56 of this Regulation without delay.
6.
By derogation from paragraph 1 of this Article, until the date of deployment of the first phase of the upgrading of the system referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 56 and of the national import and export systems referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, the list of data which may be required by the Commission for the purposes of surveillance is laid down in Annex 21-02.
## Article 56 Electronic System Relating To Surveillance Of The Release For Free Circulation Or The Export Of Goods (Articles 16(1) And 56(5) Of The Code)
1.
For the surveillance of the release for free circulation or the export of goods, an electronic system set up pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Code shall be used for the transmission and storage of the following information:
(a) surveillance data on the release for free circulation or the export of goods;
(b) information which may update the surveillance data introduced and stored in the electronic system on the release for
free circulation or the export of goods.
2.
The Commission may authorise users to access the electronic system referred to in paragraph 1 based on requests of the Member States.
3.
By derogation from paragraph 1 of this Article, until the date of the deployment of the first phase of the upgrading of the system referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, the Commission's Surveillance 2 system shall be used for the transmission and storage of the data referred to in points (a) and (b) of that paragraph.
## Chapter 2 Origin Of Goods S E C T I O N 1 P R O O F O F N O N - P R E F E R E N T I A L O R I G I N Article 57 Certificate Of Origin For Products Subject To Special Non-Preferential Import Arrangements (Article 61(1) And (2) Of The Code)
1.
A certificate of origin relating to products having their origin in a third country for which special non-preferential import arrangements are established shall, where those arrangements refer to this Article, be issued using the form set out in Annex 22-14 in compliance with the technical specifications laid down therein.
2.
Certificates of origin shall be issued by the competent authorities of the third country where the products to which the special non-preferential import arrangements apply originate, or by a reliable agency duly authorised by those authorities for that purpose (issuing authorities), provided that the origin of the products has been determined in accordance with Article 60 of the Code.
The issuing authorities shall keep a copy of each certificate of origin issued.
3.
Certificates of origin shall be issued before the products to which they relate are declared for export in the third country of origin.
4.
By way of derogation from paragraph 3, certificates of origin may exceptionally be issued after the export of the products to which they relate where the failure to issue them at the time of export was the result of an error, an involuntary omission or special circumstances.
The issuing authorities may not issue retrospectively a certificate of origin provided for in paragraph 1 unless they are satisfied that the particulars in the exporter's application correspond to those in the relevant export file.
## Article 58 Provision Of Information Concerning Administrative Cooperation Relating To Special Non-Preferential Import Arrangements (Article 61 Of The Code)
1.
Where the special non-preferential import arrangements for certain products provide for the use of the certificate of origin laid down in Article 57 of this Regulation, the use of such arrangements shall be subject to the condition that an administrative cooperation procedure has been set up unless otherwise specified in the arrangements concerned.
For the purpose of setting up that administrative cooperation procedure, the third countries concerned shall send to the Commission:
(a) the names and addresses of the issuing authorities together with specimens of the stamps used by those authorities;
(b) the names and addresses of the governmental authorities to which requests for the subsequent verification of
certificates of origin provided for in Article 59 of this Regulation are to be sent.
The Commission shall transmit the above information to the competent authorities of the Member States.
2.
Where a third country fails to send the information specified in paragraph 1 to the Commission, the competent authorities in the Union shall refuse use of the special non-preferential import arrangement.
## Article 59 Subsequent Verification Of The Certificates Of Origin For Products Subject To Special Non-Preferential Import Arrangements (Article 61 Of The Code)
1.
Verification of the certificates of origin referred to in Article 57 of this Regulation shall be carried out in accordance with this Article after the acceptance of the customs declaration (subsequent verification).
2.
Where the customs authorities have reasonable doubts as to the authenticity of a certificate of origin or the accuracy of the information it contains and where they carry out random subsequent verifications, they shall request the authority referred to in Article 58(1)(b) of this Regulation to verify whether that certificate of origin is authentic or the declared origin was established correctly and in accordance with Article 60 of the Code or both.
For those purposes, the customs authorities shall return the certificate of origin or a copy thereof to the authority referred to in Article 58(1)(b) of this Regulation. If an invoice has accompanied the declaration, the original invoice or a copy thereof shall be attached to the returned certificate of origin.
The customs authorities shall give, where appropriate, the reasons for the subsequent verification and provide any information in their possession suggesting that the particulars given on the certificate of origin are inaccurate or that the certificate of origin is not authentic.
3.
The authority referred to in Article 58(1)(b) of this Regulation shall communicate the results of the verifications to the customs authorities as soon as possible.
Where there is no reply within 6 months after sending a request in accordance with paragraph 2, the customs authorities shall refuse use of the special non-preferential import arrangement for the products in question.
## S E C T I O N 2 P R E F E R E N T I A L O R I G I N Article 60
For the purposes of this Section, the definitions laid down in Article 37 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 shall apply.
## Article 61 Supplier'S Declarations And Their Use (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Where a supplier provides the exporter or the trader with the information necessary to determine the originating status of goods for the purposes of the provisions governing preferential trade between the Union and certain countries or territories (preferential originating status), the supplier shall do so by means of a supplier's declaration.
A separate supplier's declaration shall be established for each consignment of goods, except in the cases provided for in Article 62 of this Regulation.
2.
The supplier shall include the declaration on the commercial invoice relating to that consignment, on a delivery note or on any other commercial document which describes the goods concerned in sufficient detail to enable them to be identified.
3.
The supplier may provide the declaration at any time, even after the goods have been delivered.
## Article 62 Long-Term Supplier'S Declaration (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Where a supplier regularly supplies an exporter or trader with consignments of goods, and the originating status of the goods of all those consignments is expected to be the same, the supplier may provide a single declaration covering subsequent consignments of those goods (long-term supplier's declaration). A long-term supplier's declaration may be made out for a validity period of up to 2 years from the date on which it is made out.
2.
A long-term supplier's declaration may be made out with retroactive effect for goods delivered before the making out of the declaration. Such a long-term supplier's declaration may be made out for a validity period of up to 1 year prior to the date on which the declaration was made out. The validity period shall end on the date on which the long term supplier's declaration was made out.
3.
The supplier shall inform the exporter or trader concerned immediately where the long-term supplier's declaration is not valid in relation to some or all consignments of goods supplied and to be supplied.
## Article 63 Making-Out Of Supplier'S Declarations (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
For products having obtained preferential originating status, the supplier's declarations shall be made out as laid down in Annex 22-15. However, long-term suppliers' declarations for those products shall be made out as laid down in Annex 22-16.
2.
For products which have undergone working or processing in the Union without having obtained preferential originating status, the supplier's declarations shall be made out as laid down in Annex 22-17. However, for long-term supplier's declarations, the supplier's declarations shall be made out as laid down in Annex 22-18.
3.
The supplier's declaration shall bear a handwritten signature of the supplier. However, where both the supplier's declaration and the invoice are drawn up by electronic means, these can be electronically authenticated or the supplier can give the exporter or trader a written undertaking accepting complete responsibility for every supplier's declaration which identifies him as if it had been signed with his handwritten signature.
## Article 64 Issuing Of Information Certificates Inf 4 (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
The customs authorities may request the exporter or trader to obtain from the supplier an Information Certificate INF 4 certifying the accuracy and authenticity of the supplier's declaration.
2.
On application from the supplier, the Information Certificate INF 4 shall be issued by the customs authorities of the Member State in which the supplier's declaration has been made out using the form set out in Annex 22-02 in compliance with the technical specifications laid down therein. The authorities may require any evidence and may carry out inspections of the supplier's accounts or other checks that they consider appropriate.
3.
The customs authorities shall issue the Information Certificate INF 4 to the supplier within 90 days of receipt of his application, indicating whether the supplier's declaration is accurate and authentic.
4.
A customs authority to which an application for the issue of an information certificate INF 4 has been made shall keep the application form for at least 3 years or for a longer period of time if necessary in order to ensure compliance with the provisions governing preferential trade between the Union and certain countries or territories.
## Article 65 Administrative Cooperation Between The Member States (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
The customs authorities shall assist each other in checking the accuracy of the information given in suppliers' declar
ations.
## Article 66 Checking Suppliers' Declarations (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Where an exporter is unable to present an Information Certificate INF 4 within 120 days of the request of the customs authorities, the customs authorities of the Member State of export may ask the customs authorities of the Member State in which the supplier's declaration has been made out to confirm the origin of the products concerned for the purposes of the provisions governing preferential trade between the Union and certain countries.
2.
For the purposes of paragraph 1, the customs authorities of the Member State of export shall send the customs authorities of the Member State in which the supplier's declaration has been made out all available information and documents and give the reasons for their enquiry.
3.
For the purposes of paragraph 1 the customs authorities of the Member State in which the supplier's declaration has been made out may request evidence from the supplier or carry out appropriate verifications of that declaration.
4.
The customs authorities requesting the verification shall be informed of the results as soon as possible by means of an Information Certificate INF 4.
5.
Where there is no reply within 150 days of the date of the verification request or where the reply does not contain sufficient information to determine the origin of the products concerned, the customs authorities of the country of export shall declare invalid the proof of origin established on the basis of the supplier's declaration.
## Article 67 Approved Exporter Authorisation (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Where the Union has a preferential arrangement with a third country which provides that a proof of origin is to take the form of an invoice declaration or an origin declaration made out by an approved exporter, exporters established in the customs territory of the Union may apply for an authorisation as an approved exporter for the purposes of making out and replacing those declarations.
2.
Articles 11(1)(d), 16, 17 and 18 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 concerning the conditions for accepting applications and the suspension of decisions and Articles 10 and 15 of this Regulation concerning the use of electronic means for exchanging and storing information and the revocation of favourable decisions pertaining to applications and decisions shall not apply to decisions relating to approved exporter authorisations.
3.
Approved exporter authorisations shall be granted solely to persons who fulfil the conditions set out in the origin provisions either of agreements which the Union has concluded with certain countries or territories outside the customs territory of the Union or of measures adopted unilaterally by the Union in respect of such countries or territories.
4.
The customs authorities shall grant to the approved exporter a customs authorisation number which shall appear on the proofs of preferential origin. The customs authorisation number shall be preceded by ISO 3166-1-alpha- 2
country code of the Member State issuing the authorisation.
5.
The Commission shall provide the third countries concerned with the addresses of the customs authorities responsible for the control of the proofs of preferential origin made out by approved exporters.
6.
Where the applicable preferential arrangement does not specify the form that invoice declarations or origin declarations shall take, those declarations shall be drawn up in accordance with the form set out in Annex 22-09.
7.
Where the applicable preferential arrangement does not specify the value threshold up to which an exporter who is not an approved exporter may make out an invoice declaration or an origin declaration, the value threshold shall be EUR
6 000 for each consignment.
## Article 68 Registration Of Exporters Outside The Framework Of The Gsp Scheme Of The Union (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Where the Union has a preferential arrangement with a third country which provides that a document on origin may be completed by an exporter in accordance with the relevant Union legislation, an exporter being established in the customs territory of the Union may request to be registered for that purpose. Subsection 2 to Subsection 9 of this Section shall apply *mutatis mutandis*.
2.
For the purposes of this Article, Articles 11(1)(d), 16, 17 and 18 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446
concerning the conditions for accepting applications and the suspension of decisions and Articles 10 and 15 of this Regulation shall not apply. Applications and decisions related to this Article shall not be exchanged and stored in an electronic information and communication system as laid down in Article 10 of this Regulation.
3.
The Commission shall provide the third country with which the Union has a preferential arrangement with the addresses of the customs authorities responsible for the verification of a document on origin completed by a registered exporter in the Union in accordance with this Article.
4.
Where the applicable preferential arrangement does not specify the value threshold up to which an exporter who is not a registered exporter may complete a document on origin, the value threshold shall be EUR 6 000 for each consignment.
5.
Until the dates of deployment of the Registered Exporter System (REX) referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, the following provisions shall apply:
(a) an exporter being established in the customs territory of the Union may request to be approved in accordance with
Article 67 of this Regulation for the purpose of acting as a registered exporter in accordance with paragraph 1;
(b) an exporter being already the holder of an approved exporter authorisation in the Union may request it to be
extended for the purpose of acting as a registered exporter in accordance with paragraph 1;
and their approved exporter authorisation number shall be used as a registered exporter number.
As from the dates of deployment of the Registered Exporter System (REX), an exporter referred to in either point (a) or point (b) of the first subparagraph, who wants to continue acting as a registered exporter in accordance with paragraph 1, shall be registered in that system.
## Article 69 Replacement Of Proofs Of Preferential Origin Issued Or Made Out Outside The Framework Of The Gsp Scheme Of The Union (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Where originating products covered by a proof of preferential origin issued or made out previously for the purposes of a preferential tariff measure as referred to in Article 56(2)(d) or (e) of the Code other than the GSP of the Union have not yet been released for free circulation and are placed under the control of a customs office in the Union, the initial proof of origin may be replaced by one or more replacement proofs for the purposes of sending all or some of those products elsewhere within the Union.
2.
Where the proof of origin required for the purposes of the preferential tariff measure as referred to in paragraph 1
is a movement certificate EUR.1, another governmental certificate of origin, an origin declaration or an invoice declar
ation, the replacement proof of origin shall be issued or made out in the form of one of the following documents:
(a) a replacement origin declaration or a replacement invoice declaration made out by an approved exporter reconsigning the goods;
(b) a replacement origin declaration or a replacement invoice declaration made out by any re-consignor of the goods
where the total value of originating products in the initial consignment to be split does not exceed the applicable
value threshold;
(c) a replacement origin declaration or invoice declaration made out by any re-consignor of the goods where the total
value of originating products in the initial consignment to be split exceeds the applicable value threshold, and the reconsignor attaches a copy of the initial proof of origin to the replacement origin declaration or invoice declaration;
(d) a movement certificate EUR.1 issued by the customs office under whose control the goods are placed where the following conditions are fulfilled:
(i) the re-consignor is not an approved exporter and does not consent to a copy of the initial proof of origin being
attached to the replacement proof;
(ii) the total value of the originating products in the initial consignment exceeds the applicable value threshold above
which the exporter must be an approved exporter in order to make out a replacement proof.
3.
Where the replacement proof of origin is issued in accordance with paragraph 2(d), the endorsement made by the customs office issuing the replacement movement certificate EUR.1 shall be placed in box 11 of the certificate. The particulars in box 4 of the certificate concerning the country of origin shall be identical to those particulars in the initial proof of origin. Box 12 shall be signed by the re-consignor. A re-consignor who signs box 12 in good faith shall not be responsible for the accuracy of the particulars entered on the original proof of origin.
The customs office which is requested to issue the replacement certificate shall note on the initial proof of origin or on an attachment to it the weights, numbers, nature of the products forwarded and their country of destination and indicate thereon the serial numbers of the corresponding replacement certificate or certificates. It shall keep the initial proof of origin for at least 3 years.
4.
Where the proof of origin required for the purposes of the preferential tariff measure as referred to in paragraph 1
is a statement on origin, the replacement proof of origin shall be made out by the re-consignor in the form of a replacement statement.
Where the total value of the products of the consignment for which a proof of origin has been made out, does not exceed the applicable value threshold, the re-consignor of parts of the consignment need not be a registered exporter itself in order to make out replacement statements on origin.
Where the total value of the products of the consignment for which a proof of origin has been made out exceeds the applicable value threshold, in order to make out replacement statements on origin, the re-consignor shall fulfil either of the following conditions:
(a) be a registered exporter in the Union;
(b) attach a copy of the initial statement on origin to the replacement statement on origin.
## S U B S E C T I O N 2
O b l i g a t i o n s o f B e n e f i c i a r y C o u n t r i e s w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f t h e G S P s c h e m e o f t h e U n i o n
## Article 70 Obligation To Provide Administrative Cooperation Within The Framework Of The Rex System
(Article 64(1) of the Code)
1.
In order to ensure the proper application of the GSP scheme beneficiary countries shall undertake:
(a) to put in place and to maintain the necessary administrative structures and systems required for the implementation
and management in that country of the rules and procedures laid down in this Subsection and Subsections 3 to 9 of this Section and Subsections 2 and 3 of Title II Chapter 1 Section 2 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446,
including where appropriate the arrangements necessary for the application of cumulation;
(b) that their competent authorities will cooperate with the Commission and the customs authorities of the Member
States.
2.
The cooperation referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 shall consist of:
(c) providing all necessary support in the event of a request by the Commission for the monitoring by it of the proper
management of the GSP scheme in the country concerned, including verification visits on the spot by the
Commission or the customs authorities of the Member States;
(d) without prejudice to Articles 108 and 109 of this Regulation, verifying the originating status of products and the
compliance with the other conditions laid down in this Subsection, Subsections 3 to 9 of this Section and Subsections 2 and 3 of Title II Chapter 1 Section 2 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, including visits on the spot, where requested by the Commission or the customs authorities of the Member States in the context of
origin investigations.
3.
To be entitled to apply the registered exporters system, the beneficiary countries shall submit the undertaking referred to in paragraph 1 to the Commission at least 3 months before the date on which they intend to start the registration of exporters.
4.
Where a country or territory has been removed from Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (
1
), the obligation to provide administrative cooperation laid down in Articles 55(8) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 and Articles 72, 80 and 108 of this Regulation shall continue to apply to that country or territory for a period of 3 years from the date of its removal from that annex.
## Article 71 Procedures And Methods Of Administrative Cooperation Applicable With Regard To Exports Using Certificates Of Origin Form A And Invoice Declarations (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Every beneficiary country shall comply or ensure compliance with:
(a) the rules on the origin of the products being exported, laid down in Subsection 2 of Title II Chapter 1 Section 2 of
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446;
(b) the rules for completion and issue of certificates of origin Form A;
(c) the provisions for the use of invoice declarations, to be drawn up in accordance with the requirements set out in
Annex 22-09;
(d) the provisions concerning the obligations of notifications referred to in Article 73 of this Regulation;
(e) the provisions concerning granting of derogations referred to in Article 64(6) of the Code.
2.
The competent authorities of the beneficiary countries shall cooperate with the Commission or the Member States by, in particular:
(a) providing all necessary support in the event of a request by the Commission for the monitoring by it of the proper
management of the GSP scheme in the country concerned, including verification visits on the spot by the
Commission or the customs authorities of the Member States;
(b) without prejudice to Articles 73 and 110 of this Regulation, verifying the originating status of products and the
compliance with the other conditions laid down in this Subsection, Subsections 3 to 9 of this Section and Subsections 2 and 3 of Title II Chapter 1 Section 2 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, including visits on
the spot, where requested by the Commission or the customs authorities of the Member States in the context of
origin investigations.
3.
Where, in a beneficiary country, a competent authority for issuing certificates of origin Form A is designated, documentary proofs of origin are verified, and certificates of origin Form A for exports to the Union are issued, that beneficiary country shall be considered to have accepted the conditions laid down in paragraph 1.
4.
When a country is admitted or readmitted as a beneficiary country in respect of products referred to in Regulation
(EU) No 978/2012, goods originating in that country shall benefit from the generalised system of preferences on condition that they were exported from the beneficiary country on or after the date referred to in Article 73(2) of this Regulation.
5.
Where a country or territory has been removed from Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012, the obligation to provide administrative cooperation laid down in Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 and Articles 110 and 111 of this Regulation shall continue to apply to that country or territory for a period of 3 years from the date of its removal from that annex.
6.
The obligations referred to in paragraph 5 shall apply to Singapore for a period of 3 years starting from 1 January
2014.
## Article 72 Notification Obligations Applicable After The Date Of Application Of The Registered Exporter (Rex) System (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Beneficiary countries shall notify the Commission of the names and addresses and contact details of the authorities situated in their territory which are:
(a) part of the governmental authorities of the country concerned, or act under the authority of the government thereof,
and competent to register exporters in the REX system, modify and update registration data and revoke registrations;
(b) part of the governmental authorities of the country concerned and responsible for ensuring the administrative
cooperation with the Commission and the customs authorities of the Member States as provided for in this Subsection, Subsections 3 to 9 of this Section and Subsections 2 and 3 of Title II Chapter 1 Section 2 of
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
2.
The notification shall be sent to the Commission at the latest 3 months before the date on which the beneficiary countries intend to start the registration of exporters.
3.
Beneficiary countries shall inform the Commission immediately of any changes to the information notified under the first paragraph.
## Article 73
# Notification Obligations Applicable Until The Date Of Application Of The Registered Exporter (Rex) System
## (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
The beneficiary countries shall inform the Commission of the names and addresses of the governmental authorities situated in their territory which are empowered to issue certificates of origin Form A, together with specimen impressions of the stamps used by those authorities, and the names and addresses of the relevant governmental authorities responsible for the control of the certificates of origin Form A and the invoice declarations.
The Commission will forward this information to the customs authorities of the Member States. When this information is communicated within the framework of an amendment of previous communications, the Commission will indicate the date of entry into use of those new stamps according to the instructions given by the competent governmental authorities of the beneficiary countries. This information is for official use; however, when goods are to be released for free circulation, the customs authorities in question may allow the importer to consult the specimen impressions of the stamps.
Beneficiary countries which have already provided the information required under the first sub-paragraph shall not be obliged to provide it again, unless there has been a change.
2.
For the purpose of Article 71(4) of this Regulation, the Commission will publish, on its website, the date on which a country admitted or readmitted as a beneficiary country in respect of products referred to in Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 met the obligations set out in paragraph 1 of this Article.
## S U B S E C T I O N 3
P r o c e d u r e s a t e x p o r t i n b e n e f i c i a r y c o u n t r i e s a n d i n t h e U n i o n a p p l i c a b l e w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f t h e G S P s c h e m e o f t h e U n i o n u n t i l t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e r e g i s t e r e d e x p o r t e r s y s t e m
## Article 74 Procedure For The Issue Of A Certificate Of Origin Form A (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Certificates of origin Form A shall be issued on written application from the exporter or its representative, together with any other appropriate supporting documents proving that the products to be exported qualify for the issue of a certificate of origin Form A. Certificates of origin Form A shall be issued using the form set out in Annex 22-08.
2.
The competent authorities of beneficiary countries shall make available the certificate of origin Form A to the exporter as soon as the exportation has taken place or is ensured. However, the competent authorities of beneficiary countries may also issue a certificate of origin Form A after exportation of the products to which it relates, if:
(a) it was not issued at the time of exportation because of errors or involuntary omissions or special circumstances; or
(b) it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the competent authorities that a certificate of origin Form A was issued but
was not accepted at importation for technical reasons; or
(c) the final destination of the products concerned was determined during their transportation or storage and after
possible splitting of a consignment, in accordance with Article 43 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
3.
The competent authorities of beneficiary countries may issue a certificate retrospectively only after verifying that the information supplied in the exporter's application for a certificate of origin Form A issued retrospectively is in accordance with that in the corresponding export file and that a certificate of origin Form A was not issued when the products in question were exported, except when the certificate of origin Form A was not accepted for technical reasons. The words 'Issued retrospectively', 'Délivré a posteriori' or 'emitido a posteriori' shall be indicated in box 4 of the certificate of origin Form A issued retrospectively.
4.
In the event of theft, loss or destruction of a certificate of origin Form A, the exporter may apply to the competent authorities which issued it for a duplicate to be made out on the basis of the export documents in their possession. The
5.
For the purposes of verifying whether the product for which a certificate of origin Form A is requested complies with the relevant rules of origin, the competent governmental authorities shall be entitled to call for any documentary evidence or to carry out any check which they consider appropriate.
6.
Completion of boxes 2 and 10 of the certificate of origin Form A shall be optional. Box 12 shall bear the mention
'Union' or the name of one of the Member States. The date of issue of the certificate of origin Form A shall be indicated in box 11. The signature to be entered in that box, which is reserved for the competent governmental authorities issuing the certificate, as well as the signature of the exporter's authorised signatory to be entered in box 12, shall be hand
written.
## Article 75 Conditions For Making Out An Invoice Declaration (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
The invoice declaration may be made out by any exporter operating in a beneficiary country for any consignment consisting of one or more packages containing originating products whose total value does not exceed EUR 6 000, and provided that the administrative cooperation referred to in Article 67(2) of this Regulation applies to this procedure.
2.
The exporter making out an invoice declaration shall be prepared to submit at any time, at the request of the customs or other competent governmental authorities of the exporting country, all appropriate documents proving the originating status of the products concerned.
3.
An invoice declaration shall be made out by the exporter in either French, English or Spanish by typing, stamping or printing on the invoice, the delivery note or any other commercial document, the declaration, the text of which appears in Annex 22-09. If the declaration is handwritten, it shall be written in ink in printed characters. Invoice declarations shall bear the original handwritten signature of the exporter.
4.
The use of an invoice declaration shall be subject to the following conditions:
(a) one invoice declaration shall be made out for each consignment;
(b) if the goods contained in the consignment have already been subject to verification in the exporting country by
reference to the definition of 'originating products', the exporter may refer to that verification in the invoice
declaration.
## Article 76 Conditions For Issuing A Certificate Of Origin Form A In Case Of Cumulation (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
When cumulation under Articles 53, 54, 55 or 56 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 applies, the competent governmental authorities of the beneficiary country called on to issue a certificate of origin Form A for products in the manufacture of which materials originating in a party with which cumulation is permitted are used shall rely on the following:
(a) in the case of bilateral cumulation, on the proof of origin provided by the exporter's supplier and issued in
accordance with the provisions of Article 77 of this Regulation;
(b) in the case of cumulation with Norway, Switzerland or Turkey, on the proof of origin provided by the exporter's
supplier and issued in accordance with the relevant rules of origin of Norway, Switzerland or Turkey, as the case may
be;
(c) in the case of regional cumulation, on the proof of origin provided by the exporter's supplier, namely a certificate of
origin Form A, issued using the form set out in Annex 22-08 or, as the case may be, an invoice declaration, the text
of which appears in Annex 22-09;
(d) in the case of extended cumulation, on the proof of origin provided by the exporter's supplier and issued in
accordance with the provisions of the relevant free-trade agreement between the Union and the country concerned.
In the cases referred to in points (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the first sub-paragraph, Box 4 of certificate of origin Form A shall, as the case may be, contain the indication:
- 'EU cumulation', 'Norway cumulation', 'Switzerland cumulation', 'Turkey cumulation', 'regional cumulation', 'extended
cumulation with country x', or
- 'Cumul UE', 'Cumul Norvège', 'Cumul Suisse', 'Cumul Turquie', 'cumul régional', 'cumul étendu avec le pays x', or
- 'Acumulación UE', 'Acumulación Noruega', 'Acumulación Suiza', 'Acumulación Turquía', 'Acumulación regional',
'Acumulación ampliada con el país x'.
## Article 77 Proof Of Union'S Originating Status For The Purpose Of Bilateral Cumulation And Approved Exporter (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Evidence of the originating status of Union products shall be furnished by either of the following:
(a) the production of a movement certificate EUR.1, issued using the form set out in Annex 22-10; or
(b) the production of an invoice declaration, the text of which is set out in Annex 22-09 of Delegated Regulation (EU)
2015/2446. An invoice declaration may be made out by any exporter for consignments containing originating
products whose total value does not exceed EUR 6 000 or by an approved Union exporter.
2.
The exporter or its representative shall enter 'GSP beneficiary countries' and 'EU', or 'Pays bénéficiaires du SPG' and
'UE', in box 2 of the movement certificate EUR.1.
3.
The provisions of this Subsection, Subsections 3 to 9 of this Section and Subsections 2 and 3 of Title II Chapter 1
Section 2 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 concerning the issue, use and subsequent verification of certificates of origin Form A shall apply *mutatis mutandis* to EUR.1 movement certificates and, with the exception of the provisions concerning their issue, to invoice declarations.
4.
The customs authorities of the Member States may authorise any exporter established in the customs territory of the Union, hereinafter referred to as an 'approved exporter', who makes frequent shipments of products originating in the Union within the framework of bilateral cumulation to make out invoice declarations, irrespective of the value of the products concerned, where that exporter offers, to the satisfaction of the customs authorities, all guarantees necessary to verify the following:
(a) the originating status of the products;
(b) the fulfilment of other requirements applicable in that Member State.
5.
The customs authorities may grant the status of approved exporter subject to any conditions which they consider appropriate. The customs authorities shall grant to the approved exporter a customs authorisation number which shall appear on the invoice declaration.
6.
The customs authorities shall monitor the use of the authorisation by the approved exporter. The customs authorities may withdraw the authorisation at any time.
They shall withdraw the authorisation in each of the following cases:
(a) the approved exporter no longer offers the guarantees referred to in paragraph 4;
(b) the approved exporter does not fulfil the conditions referred to in paragraph 5;
(c) the approved exporter otherwise makes improper use of the authorisation.
7.
An approved exporter shall not be required to sign invoice declarations provided that the approved exporter gives the customs authorities a written undertaking accepting full responsibility for any invoice declaration which identifies the approved exporter as if the approved exporter had signed it with his handwritten signature.
## S U B S E C T I O N 4
P r o c e d u r e s a t e x p o r t i n b e n e f i c i a r y c o u n t r i e s a n d i n t h e U n i o n a p p l i c a b l e w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f t h e G S P s c h e m e o f t h e U n i o n f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e r e g i s t e r e d e x p o r t e r s y s t e m
## Article 78 Obligation For Exporters To Be Registered And Waiver Thereof (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
The GSP scheme shall apply in the following cases:
(a) in cases of goods satisfying the requirements of this Subsection, Subsections 3 to 9 of this Section and Subsections 2
and 3 of Title II Chapter 1 Section 2 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 exported by a registered exporter;
(b) in cases of any consignment of one or more packages containing originating products exported by any exporter,
where the total value of the originating products consigned does not exceed EUR 6 000.
2.
The value of originating products in a consignment is the value of all originating products within one consignment covered by a statement on origin made out in the country of exportation.
## Article 79 Registration Procedure In The Beneficiary Countries And Procedures At Export Applicable During The Transition Period To The Application Of The Registered Exporter System (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Beneficiary countries shall start the registration of exporters on 1 January 2017.
However, where the beneficiary country is not in a position to start registration on that date, it shall notify the Commission in writing by 1 July 2016 that it postpones the registration of exporters until 1 January 2018 or
1 January 2019.
2.
During a period of 12 months following the date on which the beneficiary country starts the registration of exporters, the competent authorities of that beneficiary country shall continue to issue certificates of origin Form A at the request of exporters who are not yet registered at the time of requesting the certificate.
Without prejudice to Article 94(2) of this Regulation, certificates of origin Form A issued in accordance with the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall be admissible in the Union as proof of origin if they are issued before the date of registration of the exporter concerned.
The competent authorities of a beneficiary country experiencing difficulties in completing the registration process within the above 12-month period may request its extension to the Commission. Such extensions shall not exceed 6 months.
3.
Exporters in a beneficiary country, registered or not, shall make out statements on origin for originating products consigned, where the total value thereof does not exceed EUR 6 000, as of the date from which the beneficiary country intends to start the registration of exporters.
Exporters, once registered, shall make out statements on origin for originating products consigned, where the total value thereof exceeds EUR 6 000, as of the date from which their registration is valid in accordance with Article 86(4) of this Regulation.
4.
All beneficiary countries shall apply the registered exporter system as of 30 June 2020 at the latest.
## S U B S E C T I O N 5 Article 80 Registered Exporter Database: Obligations Of The Authorities (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
The Commission shall set up a system for registering exporters authorised to certify the origin of goods (the REX
system) and make it available by 1 January 2017.
2.
The competent authorities of beneficiary countries and the customs authorities of Member States shall upon receipt of the complete application form referred to in Annex 22-06 assign without delay the number of registered exporter to the exporter or, where appropriate, the re-consignor of goods and enter into the REX system the number of registered exporter, the registration data and the date from which the registration is valid in accordance with Article 86(4) of this Regulation.
The competent authorities of a beneficiary country or the customs authorities of a Member State shall inform the exporter or, where appropriate, the re-consignor of goods of the number of registered exporter assigned to that exporter or re-consignor of goods and of the date from which the registration is valid.
3.
Where the competent authorities consider that the information provided in the application is incomplete, they shall inform the exporter thereof without delay.
4.
The competent authorities of beneficiary countries and the customs authorities of Member States shall keep the data registered by them up-to-date. They shall modify those data immediately after having been informed by the registered exporter in accordance with Article 89 of this Regulation.
## Article 81 Date Of Application Of Certain Provisions (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Articles 70, 72, 78 to 80, 82 to 93, 99 to 107, 108, 109 and 112 of this Regulation shall apply in respect of export of goods by exporters registered under the REX system in a beneficiary country from the date on which that beneficiary country starts registering exporters under that system. In so far as exporters in the Union are concerned, these Articles shall apply from 1 January 2017.
2.
Articles 71, 73, 74 to 77, 94 to 98 and 110 to 112 of this Regulation shall apply in respect of export of goods by exporters who are not registered under the REX system in a beneficiary country. In so far as exporters in the Union are concerned, these Articles shall apply until 31 December 2017.
## Article 82 Registered Exporter Database: Access Rights To The Database (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
The Commission shall ensure that access to the REX system is given in accordance with this Article.
2.
The Commission shall have access to consult all the data.
3.
The competent authorities of a beneficiary country shall have access to consult the data concerning exporters registered by them.
4.
The customs authorities of the Member States shall have access to consult the data registered by them, by the customs authorities of other Member States and by the competent authorities of beneficiary countries as well as by Norway, Switzerland or Turkey. This access to the data shall take place for the purpose of carrying out verifications of customs declarations under Article 188 of the Code or post-release control under Article 48 of the Code.
5.
The Commission shall provide secure access to the REX system to the competent authorities of beneficiary coun
tries.
6.
Where a country or territory has been removed from Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012, its competent authorities shall keep the access to the REX system as long as required in order to enable them to comply with their obligations under Article 70 of this Regulation.
7.
The Commission shall make the following data available to the public with the consent given by the exporter by signing box 6 of the form set out in Annex 22-06:
(a) name of the registered exporter;
(b) address of the place where the registered exporter is established;
(c) contact details as specified in box 2 of the form set out in Annex 22-06;
(d) indicative description of the goods which qualify for preferential treatment, including indicative list of Harmonised
System headings or chapters, as specified in box 4 of the form set out in Annex 22-06;
(e) EORI number or the trader identification number (TIN) of the registered exporter.
The refusal to sign box 6 shall not constitute a ground for refusing to register the exporter.
8.
The Commission shall always make the following data available to the public
(a) the number of registered exporter;
(b) the date from which the registration is valid;
(c) the date of the revocation of the registration where applicable;
(d) information whether the registration applies also to exports to Norway, Switzerland or Turkey;
(e) the date of the last synchronisation between the REX system and the public website.
## Article 83 Registered Exporter Database: Data Protection (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
The data registered in the REX system shall be processed solely for the purpose of the application of the GSP
scheme as set out in this Subsection.
2.
Registered exporters shall be provided with the information laid down in Article 11(1)(a) to (e) of Regulation (EC)
No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (
1
) or Article 10 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (
2
). In addition, they shall also be provided with the following information:
(a) information concerning the legal basis of the processing operations for which the data is intended;
(b) the data retention period.
Registered exporters shall be provided with that information via a notice attached to the application to become a registered exporter as set out in Annex 22-06.
3.
Each competent authority in a beneficiary country and each customs authority in a Member State that has introduced data into the REX system shall be considered the controller with respect to the processing of those data.
The Commission shall be considered as a joint controller with respect to the processing of all data to guarantee that the registered exporter will obtain his rights.
4.
The rights of registered exporters with regard to the processing of data which is stored in the REX system listed in Annex 22-06 and processed in national systems shall be exercised in accordance with the data protection legislation implementing Directive 95/46/EC of the Member State which is storing their data.
5.
Member States who replicate in their national systems the data of the REX system they have access to shall keep the replicated data-up-to date.
6.
The rights of registered exporters with regard to the processing of their registration data by the Commission shall be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.
7.
Any request by a registered exporter to exercise the right of access, rectification, erasure or blocking of data in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 shall be submitted to and processed by the controller of data.
Where a registered exporter has submitted such a request to the Commission without having tried to obtain his rights from the controller of data, the Commission shall forward that request to the controller of data of the registered exporter.
If the registered exporter fails to obtain his rights from the controller of data, the registered exporter shall submit such request to the Commission acting as controller. The Commission shall have the right to rectify, erase or block the data.
8.
The national supervisory data protection authorities and the European Data Protection Supervisor, each acting within the scope of their respective competence, shall cooperate and ensure coordinated supervision of the registration data.
They shall, each acting within the scope of their respective competences, exchange relevant information, assist each other in carrying out audits and inspections, examine difficulties of interpretation or application of this Regulation, study problems with the exercise of independent supervision or in the exercise of the rights of data subjects, draw up harmonised proposals for joint solutions to any problems and promote awareness of data protection rights, as necessary.
## Article 84 Notification Obligations Applicable To Member States For The Implementation Of The Registered Exporter (Rex) System (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
Member States shall notify the Commission of the names, addresses and contact details of their customs authorities which are:
(a) competent to register exporters and re-consignors of goods in the REX system, modify and update registration data
and revoke registration;
(b) responsible for ensuring the administrative cooperation with the competent authorities of the beneficiary countries as
provided for in this Subsection, Subsections 3 to 9 of this Section and Subsections 2 and 3 of Title II Chapter 1
Section 2 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
The notification shall be sent to the Commission by 30 September 2016.
Member States shall inform the Commission immediately of any changes to the information notified under the first subparagraph.
## Article 85 Registration Procedure In The Member States And Procedures At Export Applicable During The Transition Period To The Application Of The Registered Exporter System (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
On 1 January 2017, the customs authorities of Member States shall start the registration of exporters established in their territories.
2.
As of 1 January 2018, the customs authorities in all Member States shall cease to issue movement certificates EUR.1
for the purpose of cumulation under Article 53 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
3.
Until 31 December 2017, the customs authorities of Member States shall issue movement certificates EUR.1 or replacement certificates of origin Form A at the request of exporters or re-consignors of goods who are not yet registered. This shall also apply if the originating products sent to the Union are accompanied by statements on origin made out by a registered exporter in a beneficiary country.
4.
Exporters in the Union, registered or not, shall make out statements on origin for originating products consigned, where the total value thereof does not exceed EUR 6 000, as from 1 January 2017.
Exporters, once registered, shall make out statements on origin for originating products consigned, where the total value thereof exceeds EUR 6 000, as of the date on which their registration is valid in accordance with Article 86(4) of this Regulation.
5.
Re-consignors of goods who are registered may make out replacement statements on origin from the date from which their registration is valid in accordance with Article 86(4) of this Regulation. This shall apply regardless of whether the goods are accompanied by a certificate of origin Form A issued in the beneficiary country or an invoice declaration or a statement on origin made out by the exporter.
## Article 86 Application To Become A Registered Exporter (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
To become a registered exporter, an exporter shall lodge an application with the competent authorities of the beneficiary country where he has his headquarters or where he is permanently established.
The application shall be made using the form set out in Annex 22-06.
2.
To become a registered exporter, an exporter or a re-consignor of goods established in the customs territory of the Union shall lodge an application with the customs authorities of that Member States. The application shall be made using the form set out in Annex 22-06.
3.
For the purposes of exports under the GSP and under the generalised schemes of preferences of Norway, Swit
zerland or Turkey exporters shall only be required to be registered once.
A registered exporter number shall be assigned to the exporter by the competent authorities of the beneficiary country with a view to exporting under the GSP schemes of the Union, Norway and Switzerland as well as Turkey, to the extent that those countries have recognised the country where the registration has taken place as a beneficiary country.
4.
The registration shall be valid as of the date on which the competent authorities of a beneficiary country or the customs authorities of a Member State receive a complete application for registration, in accordance with paragraphs 1
and 2.
5.
Where the exporter is represented for the purpose of carrying out export formalities and the representative of the exporter is also a registered exporter, this representative shall not use his own registered exporter number.
## Article 87 Registered Exporter Database: Publicity Measures (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
For the purpose of Article 70(4) of this Regulation, the Commission will publish on its website the date on which beneficiary countries start applying the registered exporter system. The Commission will keep the information up-to-date.
## Article 88 Automatic Registration Of Exporters For A Country Becoming A Beneficiary Country Of The Gsp Scheme Of The Union (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
Where a country is added to the list of beneficiary countries in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012, the Commission shall automatically activate for its GSP scheme the registrations of all exporters registered in that country provided that the registration data of the exporters are available in the REX system and are valid for at least the GSP
scheme of Norway, Switzerland or Turkey.
In this case, an exporter who is already registered for at least the GSP scheme of either, Norway, Switzerland or Turkey, need not lodge an application with his competent authorities to be registered for the GSP scheme of the Union.
## Article 89 Withdrawal From The Record Of Registered Exporters (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Registered exporters shall immediately inform the competent authorities of the beneficiary country or the customs authorities of the Member State of changes to the information which they have provided for the purposes of their registration.
2.
Registered exporters who no longer meet the conditions for exporting goods under the GSP scheme, or no longer intend to export goods under the GSP scheme shall inform the competent authorities in the beneficiary country or the customs authorities in the Member State accordingly.
3.
The competent authorities in a beneficiary country or the customs authorities in a Member State shall revoke the registration if the registered exporter:
(a) no longer exists;
(b) no longer meets the conditions for exporting goods under the GSP scheme;
(c) has informed the competent authority of the beneficiary country or the customs authorities of the Member State that
he no longer intends to export goods under the GSP scheme;
(d) intentionally or negligently draws up, or causes to be drawn up, a statement on origin which contains incorrect
information and leads to wrongfully obtaining the benefit of preferential tariff treatment.
4.
The competent authority of a beneficiary country or the customs authorities of a Member State may revoke the registration if the registered exporter fails to keep the data concerning his registration up-to-date.
5.
Revocation of registrations shall take effect for the future, i.e. in respect of statements on origin made out after the date of revocation. Revocation of registration shall have no effect on the validity of statements on origin made out before the registered exporter is informed of the revocation.
6.
The competent authority of a beneficiary country or the customs authorities of a Member State shall inform the registered exporter about the revocation of his registration and of the date from which the revocation will take effect.
7.
Judicial remedy shall be available to the exporter or the re-consignor of goods in the event of revocation of his registration.
8.
The revocation of a registered exporter shall be cancelled in case of an incorrect revocation. The exporter or the reconsignor of goods shall be entitled to use the registered exporter number assigned to him at the time of the registration.
9.
Exporters or re-consignors of goods whose registration has been revoked may make a new application to become a registered exporter in accordance with Article 86 of this Regulation. Exporters or re-consignors of goods whose regis tration has been revoked in accordance with paragraphs 3(d) and 4 may only be registered again if they prove to the competent authorities of the beneficiary country or to the customs authorities of the Member State which had registered them that they have remedied the situation which led to the revocation of their registration.
10.
The data relating to a revoked registration shall be kept in the REX system by the competent authority of the beneficiary country or by the customs authorities of the Member State, which introduced them into that system, for a maximum of 10 calendar years after the calendar year in which the revocation took place. After those 10 calendar years, the competent authority of a beneficiary country or the customs authorities of the Member State shall delete the data.
## Article 90 Automatic Withdrawal From The Record Of Registered Exporters When A Country Is Withdrawn From The List Of Beneficiary Countries (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
The Commission shall revoke all registrations of exporters registered in a beneficiary country if the beneficiary country is removed from the list of beneficiary countries in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 or if the tariff preferences granted to the beneficiary country have been temporarily withdrawn in accordance with Regulation (EU) No
978/2012.
2.
Where that country is reintroduced in that list or where the temporary withdrawal of the tariff preferences granted to the beneficiary country is terminated, the Commission shall re-activate the registrations of all exporters registered in that country provided that the registration data of the exporters are available in the system and have remained valid for at least the GSP scheme of Norway or Switzerland, or Turkey. Otherwise, exporters shall be registered again in accordance with Article 86 of this Regulation.
3.
In the event of revocation of the registrations of all registered exporters in a beneficiary country in accordance with the first paragraph, the data of the revoked registrations will be kept in the REX system for at least 10 calendar years after the calendar year in which the revocation took place. After that 10-year period, and when the beneficiary country has not been a beneficiary country of the GSP scheme of Norway, Switzerland, nor Turkey for more than 10 years, the Commission will delete the data of the revoked registrations from the REX system.
## Article 91 Obligations Of Exporters (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Exporters and registered exporters shall comply with the following obligations:
(a) they shall maintain appropriate commercial accounting records concerning the production and supply of goods
qualifying for preferential treatment;
(b) they shall keep available all evidence relating to the materials used in the manufacture;
(c) they shall keep all customs documentation relating to the materials used in the manufacture;
(d) they shall keep for at least 3 years from the end of the calendar year in which the statement on origin was made out,
or longer if required by national law, records of:
(i) the statements on origin they made out;
(ii) their originating and non-originating materials, production and stock accounts.
Those records and those statements on origin may be kept in an electronic format but shall allow the materials used in the manufacture of the exported products to be traced and their originating status to be confirmed.
2.
The obligations provided for in paragraph 1 shall also apply to suppliers who provide exporters with suppliers'
declarations certifying the originating status of the goods they supply.
3.
The re-consignors of goods, whether registered or not, who make out replacement statements on origin shall keep the initial statements on origin they replaced for at least 3 years from the end of the calendar year in which the replacement statement on origin was made out, or longer if required by national law.
## Article 92 General Provisions On The Statement On Origin (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
A statement on origin may be made out at the time of exportation to the Union or when the exportation to the Union is ensured.
Where the products concerned are considered as originating in the beneficiary country of export or another beneficiary country in accordance with the second sub-paragraph of Article 55(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 or with the second sub-paragraph of Article 55(6) of that Regulation, the statement on origin shall be made out by the exporter in the beneficiary country of export.
Where the products concerned are exported without further working or processing or after being only subject to operations described in Article 47(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 and have therefore retained their origin in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 55(4) and with the third subparagraph of Article 55(6) of that Regulation, the statement on origin shall be made out by the exporter in the beneficiary country of origin.
2.
A statement on origin may also be made out after exportation ('retrospective statement') of the products concerned.
Such a retrospective statement on origin shall be admissible if presented to the customs authorities in the Member State of lodging of the customs declaration for release for free circulation at the latest 2 years after the importation.
Where the splitting of a consignment takes place in accordance with Article 43 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446
and provided that the 2-year deadline referred to in the first sub-paragraph is respected, the statement on origin may be made out retrospectively by the exporter of the country of exportation of the products. This applies *mutatis mutandis* if the splitting of a consignment takes place in another beneficiary country or in Norway, Switzerland or Turkey.
3.
The statement on origin shall be provided by the exporter to its customer in the Union and shall contain the particulars specified in Annex 22-07 of. It shall be made out in English, French or Spanish.
It may be made out on any commercial document allowing identification of the exporter concerned and the goods involved.
4.
Paragraphs 1 to 3 shall apply *mutatis mutandis* to statements on origin made out in the Union for the purpose of bilateral cumulation.
## Article 93 Statement On Origin In The Case Of Cumulation (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
For the purpose of establishing the origin of materials used under bilateral or regional cumulation, the exporter of a product manufactured using materials originating in a country with which cumulation is permitted shall rely on the statement on origin provided by the supplier of those materials. In these cases, the statement on origin made out by the exporter shall, as the case may be, contain the indication 'EU cumulation', 'regional cumulation', 'Cumul UE', 'Cumul regional' or 'Acumulación UE', 'Acumulación regional'.
2.
For the purpose of establishing the origin of materials used within the framework of cumulation under Article 54 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, the exporter of a product manufactured using materials originating in Norway, Switzerland or Turkey shall rely on the proof of origin provided by the supplier of those materials on condition that that proof has been issued in accordance with the provisions of the GSP rules of origin of Norway, Switzerland or Turkey, as the case may be. In this case, the statement on origin made out by the exporter shall contain the indication 'Norway cumulation', 'Switzerland cumulation', 'Turkey cumulation', 'Cumul Norvège', 'Cumul Suisse', 'Cumul Turquie' or 'Acumu lación Noruega', 'Acumulación Suiza', 'Acumulación Turquía'.
3.
For the purpose of establishing the origin of materials used within the framework of extended cumulation under Article 56 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, the exporter of a product manufactured using materials originating in a party with which extended cumulation is permitted shall rely on the proof of origin provided by the supplier of those materials on condition that that proof has been issued in accordance with the provisions of the relevant free-trade agreement between the Union and the party concerned.
In this case, the statement on origin made out by the exporter shall contain the indication 'extended cumulation with country x', 'cumul étendu avec le pays x' or 'Acumulación ampliada con el país x'.
## S U B S E C T I O N 6
P r o c e d u r e s a t r e l e a s e f o r f r e e c i r c u l a t i o n i n t h e U n i o n a p p l i c a b l e w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f t h e G S P s c h e m e o f t h e U n i o n u n t i l t h e d a t e o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e r e g i s t e r e d e x p o r t e r s y s t e m
## Article 94 Submission And Validity Of Certificates Of Origin Form A Or Invoice Declarations And Belated Presentation Thereof (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Certificates of origin Form A or invoice declarations shall be submitted to the customs authorities of the Member States of importation in accordance with the procedures concerning the customs declaration.
2.
A proof of origin shall be valid for 10 months from the date of issue in the exporting country and shall be submitted within the said period to the customs authorities of the importing country.
Proofs of origin submitted to the customs authorities of the importing country after the lapsing of their period of validity may be accepted for the purpose of applying the tariff preferences, where failure to submit these documents by the final date set is due to exceptional circumstances.
In other cases of belated presentation, the customs authorities of the importing country may accept the proofs of origin where the products have been presented to customs before the said final date.
## Article 95 Replacement Of Certificates Of Origin Form A And Invoice Declarations (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Where originating products not yet released for free circulation are placed under the control of a customs office of a Member State, that customs office shall, on written request from the re-consignor, replace the initial certificate of origin Form A or invoice declaration by one or more certificates of origin Form A (replacement certificate) for the purposes of sending all or some of these products elsewhere within the Union or to Norway or Switzerland. The re-consignor shall indicate in his request whether a photocopy of the initial proof of origin is to be annexed to the replacement certificate.
2.
The replacement certificate shall be drawn up in accordance with Annex 22-19.
The customs office shall verify that the replacement certificate is in conformity with the initial proof of origin.
3.
Where the request for a replacement certificate is made by a re-consignor acting in good faith, he shall not be responsible for the accuracy of the particulars entered on the initial proof of origin.
4.
The customs office which is requested to issue the replacement certificate shall note on the initial proof of origin or on an attachment thereto the weights, numbers, nature of the products forwarded and their country of destination and indicate thereon the serial numbers of the corresponding replacement certificate or certificates. It shall keep the initial proof of origin for at least 3 years.
5.
In the case of products which benefit from the tariff preferences under a derogation granted in accordance with Article 64(6) of the Code, the procedure laid down in this Article shall apply only when such products are intended for the Union.
## Article 96 Importation By Instalments Using Certificates Of Origin Form A Or Invoice Declarations (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Where, at the request of the importer and on the conditions laid down by the customs authorities of the importing Member State, unassembled or disassembled products within the meaning of general interpretative rule 2(a) of the Harmonised System and falling within Section XVI or XVII or heading 7308 or 9406 of the Harmonised System are imported by instalments, a single proof of origin for such products may be submitted to the customs authorities on importation of the first instalment.
2.
At the request of the importer and having regard to the conditions laid down by the customs authorities of the importing Member State, a single proof of origin may be submitted to the customs authorities at the importation of the first consignment when the goods:
(a) are imported within the framework of frequent and continuous trade flows of a significant commercial value;
(b) are the subject of the same contract of sale, the parties of this contract established in the exporting country or in the
Member State(s);
(c) are classified in the same code (eight digits) of the Combined Nomenclature;
(d) come exclusively from the same exporter, are destined for the same importer, and are made the subject of entry
formalities at the same customs office of the same Member State.
This procedure shall be applicable for a period determined by the competent customs authorities.
## Article 97 Exemptions From The Obligation To Provide A Certificate Of Origin Form A Or An Invoice Declaration (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Products sent as small packages from private persons to private persons or forming part of travellers' personal luggage shall be admitted as originating products benefiting from GSP tariff preferences without requiring the presen
tation of a certificate of origin Form A or an invoice declaration, provided that:
(a) such products:
(i) are not imported by way of trade;
(ii) have been declared as meeting the conditions required for benefiting from the GSP scheme;
(b) there is no doubt as to the veracity of the declaration referred to in point (a)(ii).
2.
Imports shall not be considered as imports by way of trade if all the following conditions are met:
(a) the imports are occasional;
(b) the imports consist solely of products for the personal use of the recipients or travellers or their families;
(c) it is evident from the nature and quantity of the products that no commercial purpose is in view.
## Article 98 Discrepancies And Formal Errors In Certificates Of Origin Form A Or Invoice Declarations (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
The discovery of slight discrepancies between the statements made in the certificate of origin Form A or in an invoice declaration, and those made in the documents submitted to the customs office for the purpose of carrying out the formalities for importing the products shall not *ipso facto* render the certificate or declaration null and void if it is duly established that that document does correspond to the products submitted.
2.
Obvious formal errors on a certificate of origin Form A, a movement certificate EUR.1 or an invoice declaration shall not cause this document to be rejected if these errors are not such as to create doubts concerning the correctness of the statements made in that document.
## S U B S E C T I O N 7
P r o c e d u r e s a t r e l e a s e f o r f r e e c i r c u l a t i o n i n t h e U n i o n a p p l i c a b l e w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f t h e G S P s c h e m e o f t h e U n i o n f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e r e g i s t e r e d e x p o r t e r s y s t e m
## Article 99 Validity Of Statement On Origin (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
A statement on origin shall be made out for each consignment.
2.
A statement on origin shall be valid for 12 months from the date on which it is made out.
3.
A single statement on origin may cover several consignments if the goods meet the following conditions:
(a) they are presented unassembled or disassembled within the meaning of General Interpretative rule 2(a) of the
Harmonised System;
(b) they are falling within Sections XVI or XVII or headings 7308 or 9406 of the Harmonised System; and
(c) they are intended to be imported by instalments.
## Article 100 Admissibility Of A Statement On Origin (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
In order for importers to be entitled to claim benefit from the GSP scheme upon declaration of a statement on origin, the goods shall have been exported on or after the date on which the beneficiary country from which the goods are exported started the registration of exporters in accordance with Article 79 of this Regulation.
When a country is admitted or readmitted as a beneficiary country in respect of products referred to in Regulation (EU)
No 978/2012, goods originating in that country shall benefit from the generalised scheme of preferences on condition that they were exported from the beneficiary country on or after the date on which this beneficiary country started applying the registered exporters system referred to in Article 70(3) of this Regulation.
## Article 101 Replacement Of Statements On Origin (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Where originating products not yet released for free circulation are placed under the control of a customs office of a Member State, the re-consignor may replace the initial statement on origin by one or more replacement statements on origin (replacement statements), for the purposes of sending all or some of the products elsewhere within the customs territory of the Union or to Norway or Switzerland.
The replacement statement shall be drawn up in accordance with the requirements in Annex 22-20.
Replacement statements on origin may only be made out if the initial statement on origin was made out in accordance with Articles 92, 93, 99 and 100 of this Regulation and Annex 22-07.
2.
Re-consignors shall be registered for the purposes of making out replacement statements on origin as regards originating products to be sent elsewhere within the territory of the Union where the total value of the originating products of the initial consignment to be split exceeds EUR 6 000.
However, re-consignors who are not registered may make out replacement statements on origin where the total value of the originating products of the initial consignment to be split exceeds EUR 6 000 if they attach a copy of the initial statement on origin made out in the beneficiary country.
3.
Only re-consignors registered in the REX system may make out replacement statements on origin as regards products to be sent to Norway or Switzerland.
4.
A replacement statement on origin shall be valid for 12 months from the date of making out the initial statement on origin.
5.
Paragraphs 1 to 4 shall also apply to statements replacing replacement statements on origin.
6.
Where products benefit from tariff preferences under a derogation granted in accordance with Article 64(6) of the Code, the replacement provided for in this Article may only be made if such products are intended for the Union.
## Article 102 General Principles And Precautions To Be Taken By The Declarant (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Where a declarant requests preferential treatment under the GSP scheme, he shall make reference to the statement on origin in the customs declaration for release for free circulation. The reference to the statement on origin will be its date of issue with the format yyyymmdd, where yyyy is the year, mm is the month and dd is the day. Where the total value of the originating products consigned exceeds EUR 6 000, the declarant shall also indicate the number of the registered exporter.
2.
Where the declarant has requested application of the GSP scheme in accordance with paragraph 1, without being in possession of a statement on origin at the time of the acceptance of the customs declaration for release for free circulation, that declaration shall be considered as being incomplete within the meaning of Article 166 of the Code and treated accordingly.
3.
Before declaring goods for release for free circulation, the declarant shall take due care to ensure that the goods comply with the rules in this Subsection, Subsections 3 to 9 of this Section and Subsections 2 and 3 of Title II Chapter 1
Section 2 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, in particular, by checking:
(a) on the public website that the exporter is registered in the REX system, where the total value of the originating
products consigned exceeds EUR 6 000; and
(b) that the statement on origin is made out in accordance with Annex 22-07 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
## Article 103 Exemptions From The Obligation To Provide A Statement On Origin (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
The following products shall be exempted from the obligation to make out and produce a statement on origin:
(a) products sent as small packages from private persons to private persons, the total value of which does not exceed
EUR 500;
(b) products forming part of travellers' personal luggage, the total value of which does not exceed EUR 1 200.
2.
The products referred to in paragraph 1 shall meet the following conditions:
(a) they are not imported by way of trade;
(b) they have been declared as meeting the conditions for benefiting from the GSP scheme;
(c) there is no doubt as to the veracity of the declaration referred to in point (b).
3.
For the purposes of point (a) of paragraph 2, imports shall not be considered as imports by way of trade if all the following conditions are met:
(a) the imports are occasional;
(b) the imports consist solely of products for the personal use of the recipients or travellers or their families;
(c) it is evident from the nature and quantity of the products that no commercial purpose is in view.
## Article 104 Discrepancies And Formal Errors In Statements On Origin; Belated Presentation Of Statements On Origin (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
The discovery of slight discrepancies between the particulars included in a statement on origin and those mentioned in the documents submitted to the customs authorities for the purpose of carrying out the formalities for importing the products shall not *ipso facto* render the statement on origin null and void if it is duly established that the document does correspond to the products concerned.
2.
Obvious formal errors such as typing errors on a statement on origin shall not cause this document to be rejected if these errors are not such as to create doubts concerning the correctness of the statements made in that document.
3.
Statements on origin which are submitted to the customs authorities of the importing country after the period of validity mentioned in Article 99 of this Regulation may be accepted for the purpose of applying the tariff preferences, where failure to submit these documents by the final date set is due to exceptional circumstances. In other cases of belated presentation, the customs authorities of the importing country may accept the statements on origin where the products have been presented to customs before the said final date.
## Article 105 Importation By Instalments Using Statements On Origin (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
The procedure referred to in Article 99(3) of this Regulation shall apply for a period determined by the customs authorities of the Member States.
2.
The customs authorities of the Member States of importation supervising the successive releases for free circulation shall verify that the successive consignments are part of the unassembled or disassembled products for which the statement on origin has been made out.
## Article 106 Suspension Of The Application Of The Preference (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
The customs authorities may, where they have doubts with regard to the originating status of the products request the declarant to produce, within a reasonable time period which they shall specify, any available evidence for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the indication on origin of the declaration or the compliance with the conditions under Article 43 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
2.
The customs authorities may suspend the application of the preferential tariff measure for the duration of the verification procedure laid down in Article 109 of this Regulation where:
(b) the declarant does not reply within the time period allowed for provision of the information referred to in
paragraph 1.
3.
While awaiting either the information requested from the declarant, referred to in paragraph 1, or the results of the verification procedure, referred to in paragraph 2, release of the products shall be offered to the importer subject to any precautionary measures judged necessary.
## Article 107 Refusal To Grant Tariff Preference (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
The customs authorities of the Member State of importation shall refuse to grant tariff preferences, without being obliged to request any additional evidence or send a request for verification to the beneficiary country where:
(a) the goods are not the same as those mentioned in the statement on origin;
(b) the declarant fails to submit a statement on origin for the products concerned, where such a statement is required;
(c) without prejudice to Article 78(1)(b) and to Article 79(3) of this Regulation, the statement on origin in possession of
the declarant has not been made out by an exporter registered in the beneficiary country;
(d) the statement on origin is not made out in accordance with Annex 22-07;
(e) the conditions of Article 43 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 are not met.
2.
The customs authorities of the Member State of importation shall refuse to grant tariff preferences, following a request for verification within the meaning of Article 109 addressed to the competent authorities of the beneficiary country, where the customs authorities of the Member State of importation:
(a) have received a reply according to which the exporter was not entitled to make out the statement on origin;
(b) have received a reply according to which the products concerned are not originating in a beneficiary country or the
conditions of Article 42 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 were not met;
(c) had reasonable doubt as to the validity of the statement on origin or the accuracy of the information provided by the
declarant regarding the true origin of the products in question when they made the request for verification, and either
of the following conditions are met:
(i) they have received no reply within the time period permitted in accordance with Article 109 of this Regulation;
or
(ii) they have received a reply not providing adequate answers to the questions raised in the request.
## S U B S E C T I O N 8
C o n t r o l o f o r i g i n w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f t h e G S P s c h e m e o f t h e U n i o n
## Article 108 Obligations Of The Competent Authorities Relating To The Control Of Origin After The Date Of Application Of The Registered Exporter System
(Article 64(1) of the Code)
1.
For the purpose of ensuring compliance with the rules concerning the originating status of products, the competent authorities of the beneficiary country shall carry out:
(a) verifications of the originating status of products at the request of the customs authorities of the Member States;
(b) regular controls on exporters on their own initiative.
The first sub-paragraph shall apply *mutatis mutandis* to requests sent to the authorities of Norway and Switzerland for the verification of replacement statements on origin made out on their territory, with a view to requesting these authorities to further liaise with the competent authorities in the beneficiary country.
Extended cumulation shall only be permitted under Article 56 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, if a country with which the Union has a free-trade agreement in force has agreed to provide the beneficiary country with its support in matters of administrative cooperation in the same way as it would provide such support to the customs authorities of the Member States in accordance with the relevant provisions of the free-trade agreement concerned.
2.
The controls referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 shall ensure the continued compliance of exporters with their obligations. They shall be carried out at intervals determined on the basis of appropriate risk analysis criteria. For that purpose, the competent authorities of the beneficiary countries shall require exporters to provide copies or a list of the statements on origin they have made out.
3.
The competent authorities of the beneficiary countries shall have the right to call for any evidence and to carry out any inspection of the exporter's accounts and, where appropriate, those of producers supplying him, including at the premises, or to carry out any other check considered appropriate.
## Article 109 Subsequent Verification Of Statements On Origin And Replacement Statements On Origin (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Subsequent verifications of statements on origin or replacement statements on origin shall be carried out at random or whenever the customs authorities of the Member States have reasonable doubts as to their authenticity, the originating status of the products concerned or the fulfilment of other requirements of this Subsection, Subsections 3 to 9 of this Section and Subsections 2 and 3 of Title II Chapter 1 Section 2 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
Where the customs authorities of a Member State request the cooperation of the competent authorities of a beneficiary country to carry out a verification of the validity of statements on origin, the originating status of products, or of both, it shall, where appropriate, indicate on its request the reasons why it has reasonable doubts on the validity of the statement on origin or the originating status of the products.
A copy of the statement on origin or the replacement statement on origin and any additional information or documents suggesting that the information given on that statement or that replacement statement is incorrect may be forwarded in support of the request for verification.
The requesting Member State shall set a 6-month initial deadline to communicate the results of the verification, starting from the date of the verification request, with the exception of requests sent to Norway or Switzerland for the purpose of verifying replacement statements on origin made out in their territories on the basis of a statement on origin made out in a beneficiary country, for which this deadline shall be extended to 8 months.
2.
If in cases of reasonable doubt there is no reply within the period specified in paragraph 1 or if the reply does not contain sufficient information to determine the real origin of the products, a second communication shall be sent to the competent authorities. This communication shall set a further deadline of not more than 6 months. If after the second communication the results of the verification are not communicated to the requesting authorities within 6 months from the date on which the second communication was sent, or if this result do not allow the authenticity of the document in question or the real origin of the products to be determined, the requesting authorities shall refuse entitlement to the tariff preferences.
3.
Where the verification provided for in paragraph 1 or any other available information appears to indicate that the rules of origin are being contravened, the exporting beneficiary country shall on its own initiative or at the request of the customs authorities of the Member States or the Commission carry out appropriate inquiries or arrange for such inquiries to be carried out with due urgency to identify and prevent such contraventions. For this purpose, the Commission or the customs authorities of the Member States may participate in those inquiries.
## Article 110 Subsequent Verification Of Certificates Of Origin Form A And Invoice Declarations (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Subsequent verifications of certificates of origin Form A and invoice declarations shall be carried out at random or whenever the customs authorities of the Member States have reasonable doubts as to the authenticity of such documents, the originating status of the products concerned or the fulfilment of the other requirements of this Subsection, Subsections 3 to 9 of this Section and Subsections 2 and 3 of Title II Chapter 1 Section 2 of Delegated Regulation
(EU) 2015/2446.
2.
When they make a request for subsequent verification, the customs authorities of the Member States shall return the certificate of origin Form A and the invoice, if it has been submitted, the invoice declaration, or a copy of these documents, to the competent governmental authorities in the exporting beneficiary country giving, where appropriate, the reasons for the enquiry. Any documents and information obtained suggesting that the information given on the proof of origin is incorrect shall be forwarded in support of the request for verification.
If the customs authorities of the Member States decide to suspend the granting of the tariff preferences while awaiting the results of the verification, release of the products shall be offered to the importer subject to any precautionary measures judged necessary.
3.
When a request for subsequent verification has been made, such verification shall be carried out and its results communicated to the customs authorities of the Member States within a maximum of 6 months or, in the case of requests sent to Norway, Switzerland or Turkey for the purpose of verifying replacement proofs of origin made out in their territories on the basis of a certificate of origin Form A or an invoice declaration made out in a beneficiary country, within a maximum of 8 months from the date on which the request was sent. The results shall be such as to establish whether the proof of origin in question applies to the products actually exported and whether these products can be considered as products originating in the beneficiary country.
4.
In the case of certificates of origin Form A issued following bilateral cumulation, the reply shall include a copy
(copies) of the movement certificate(s) EUR.1 or, where necessary, of the corresponding invoice declaration(s).
5.
If, in cases of reasonable doubt, there is no reply within the 6 months specified in paragraph 3 or if the reply does not contain sufficient information to determine the authenticity of the document in question or the real origin of the products, a second communication shall be sent to the competent authorities. If after the second communication the results of the verification are not communicated to the requesting authorities within 4 months from the date on which the second communication was sent, or if these results do not allow the authenticity of the document in question or the real origin of the products to be determined, the requesting authorities shall, except in exceptional circumstances, refuse entitlement to the tariff preferences.
6.
Where the verification procedure or any other available information appears to indicate that the rules of origin are being contravened, the exporting beneficiary country shall, on its own initiative or at the request of the customs authorities of the Member States, carry out appropriate inquiries or arrange for such inquiries to be carried out with due urgency to identify and prevent such contraventions. For this purpose, the Commission or the customs authorities of the Member States may participate in the inquiries.
7.
For the purposes of the subsequent verification of certificates of origin Form A, the exporters shall keep all appropriate documents proving the originating status of the products concerned and the competent governmental authorities of the exporting beneficiary country shall keep copies of the certificates, as well as any export documents referring to them. These documents shall be kept for at least 3 years from the end of the year in which the certificate of origin Form A was issued.
## Article 111 Subsequent Verification Of Proofs Of Origin Relating To Products Having Acquired Origin Through Cumulation (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
Articles 73 and 110 of this Regulation shall also apply between the countries of the same regional group for the purposes of provision of information to the Commission or to the customs authorities of the Member States and of the subsequent verification of certificates of origin Form A or invoice declarations issued in accordance with the rules on regional cumulation of origin.
## S U B S E C T I O N 9
O t h e r p r o v i s i o n s a p p l i c a b l e w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f t h e G S P s c h e m e o f t h e U n i o n
## Article 112 Ceuta And Melilla (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Articles 41 to 58 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 shall apply in determining whether products may be regarded as originating in a beneficiary country when exported to Ceuta or Melilla or as originating in Ceuta and Melilla when exported to a beneficiary country for the purposes of bilateral cumulation.
2.
Articles 74 to 79 and Articles 84 to 93 of this Regulation shall apply to products exported from a beneficiary country to Ceuta or Melilla and to products exported from Ceuta and Melilla to a beneficiary country for the purposes of bilateral cumulation.
3.
For the purposes mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2, Ceuta and Melilla shall be regarded as a single territory.
## S U B S E C T I O N 1 0
P r o o f s o f o r i g i n a p p l i c a b l e w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f t h e r u l e s o f o r i g i n f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f p r e f e r e n t i a l t a r i f f m e a s u r e s a d o p t e d u n i l a t e r a l l y b y t h e U n i o n f o r c e r t a i n c o u n t r i e s o r t e r r i t o r i e s
## Article 113 General Requirements (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
Products originating in one of the beneficiary countries or territories shall benefit from the tariff preferences referred to in Article 59 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, on submission of either of the following:
(a) a movement certificate EUR.1, issued using the form set out in Annex 22-10; or
(b) in the cases specified in Article 119(1), a declaration, the text of which appears in Annex 22-13, given by the
exporter on an invoice, a delivery note or any other commercial document which describes the products concerned in
sufficient detail to enable them to be identified (hereinafter referred to as the 'invoice declaration').
Box 7 of movement certificates EUR.1 or invoice declarations shall contain the indication 'Autonomous trade measures'
or 'Mesures commerciales autonomes'.
## Article 114 Procedure For The Issue Of A Movement Certificate Eur.1 (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Originating products within the meaning of Title II, Chapter 1, Section 2, Subsection 4 of Delegated Regulation (EU)
2015/2446 shall be eligible, on importation into the Union, to benefit from the tariff preferences referred to in Article 59 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, provided that they have been transported direct to the Union within the meaning of Article 69 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, on submission of an EUR.1 movement certificate issued by the customs or other competent governmental authorities of a beneficiary country or territory, on condition that the beneficiary country or territory:
(a) has communicated to the Commission the information required by Article 124 of this Regulation; and
(b) assists the Union by allowing the customs authorities of Member States to verify the authenticity of the document or
the accuracy of the information regarding the true origin of the products in question.
2.
A movement certificate EUR.1 may be issued only where it can serve as the documentary evidence required for the purposes of the tariff preferences referred to in Article 59 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
3.
A movement certificate EUR.1 shall be issued only on written application from the exporter or his representative.
Such application shall be lodged using the form set out in Annex 22-10 and shall be completed in accordance with the provisions of this Article and Articles 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 121 and 123 of this Regulation.
Applications for movement certificates EUR.1 shall be kept by the competent authorities of the exporting beneficiary country or territory or Member State for at least 3 years from the end of the year in which the movement certificate was issued.
4.
The exporter or his representative shall submit with his application any appropriate supporting documents proving that the products to be exported qualify for the issue of a movement certificate EUR.1.
The exporter shall undertake to submit, at the request of the competent authorities, any supplementary evidence they may require for the purpose of establishing the correctness of the originating status of the products eligible for preferential treatment and shall undertake to agree to any inspection of their accounts and to any check by the said authorities on the circumstances in which the products were obtained.
5.
The movement certificate EUR.1 shall be issued by the competent governmental authorities of the beneficiary country or territory or by the customs authorities of the exporting Member State, if the products to be exported can be considered as originating products within the meaning of Title II, Chapter 1, Section 2, Subsection 4 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
6.
Since the movement certificate EUR.1 constitutes the documentary evidence for the application of the preferential arrangements set out in Article 59 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, it shall be the responsibility of the competent governmental authorities of the beneficiary country or territory or of the customs authorities of the exporting Member State to take any steps necessary to verify the origin of the products and to check the other statements on the certificate.
7.
For the purpose of verifying whether the conditions set out in paragraph 5 have been met, the competent governmental authorities of the beneficiary country or the customs authorities of the exporting Member State shall have the right to call for any documentary evidence or to carry out any check which they consider appropriate.
8.
It shall be the responsibility of the competent governmental authorities of the beneficiary country or territory or of the customs authorities of the exporting Member State to ensure that the forms referred to in paragraph 1 are duly completed.
9.
The date of issue of the movement certificate EUR.1 shall be indicated in that part of the certificate reserved for the customs authorities.
10.
A movement certificate EUR.1 shall be issued by the competent authorities of the beneficiary country or territory or by the customs authorities of the exporting Member State when the products to which it relates are exported. It shall be made available to the exporter as soon as the export has taken place or is ensured.
## Article 115 Importation By Instalments (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
Where, at the request of the importer and on the conditions laid down by the customs authorities of the importing country, unassembled or disassembled products within the meaning of general interpretative rule 2(a) of the Harmonised System and falling within Sections XVI or XVII or headings 7308 or 9406 of the Harmonised System are imported by instalments, a single proof of origin for such products shall be submitted to the customs authorities on importation of the first instalment.
## Article 116 Submission Of Proof Of Origin (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
Proofs of origin shall be submitted to the customs authorities of the Member State of importation in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 163 of the Code. The said authorities may require a translation of a proof of origin and may also require the import declaration to be accompanied by a statement from the importer to the effect that the products meet the conditions required for the application of this Subsection.
## Article 117 Movement Certificates Eur.1 Issued Retrospectively (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
By way of derogation from Article 114(10), a movement certificate EUR.1 may exceptionally be issued after exportation of the products to which it relates if either of the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) it was not issued at the time of exportation because of errors or involuntary omissions or special circumstances; or
(b) it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the competent authorities that a movement certificate EUR.1 was issued but
was not accepted at importation for technical reasons.
2.
The competent authorities may issue a movement certificate EUR.1 retrospectively only after verifying that the information supplied in the exporter's application agrees with that in the corresponding export file and that a movement certificate EUR.1 satisfying the provisions of this Subsection was not issued when the products in question were exported.
3.
Movement certificates EUR.1 issued retrospectively shall be endorsed with one of the following phrases:
BG: 'ИЗДАДЕН ВПОСЛЕДСТВИЕ'
ES: 'EXPEDIDO A POSTERIORI'
HR: 'IZDANO NAKNADNO'
CS: 'VYSTAVENO DODATEČNĚ'
DA: 'UDSTEDT EFTERFØLGENDE'
DE: 'NACHTRÄGLICH AUSGESTELLT'
ET: 'VÄLJA ANTUD TAGASIULATUVALT'
EL: 'ΕΚΔΟΘΕΝ ΕΚ ΤΩΝ ΥΣΤΕΡΩΝ'
EN: 'ISSUED RETROSPECTIVELY'
FR: 'DÉLIVRÉ À POSTERIORI'
IT: 'RILASCIATO A POSTERIORI'
LV: 'IZSNIEGTS RETROSPEKTĪVI'
LT: 'RETROSPEKTYVUSIS IŠDAVIMAS'
HU: 'KIADVA VISSZAMENŐLEGES HATÁLLYAL'
MT: 'MAĦRUĠ RETROSPETTIVAMENT'
NL: 'AFGEGEVEN A POSTERIORI'
PL: 'WYSTAWIONE RETROSPEKTYWNIE'
PT: 'EMITIDO A POSTERIORI'
RO: 'ELIBERAT ULTERIOR'
SL: 'IZDANO NAKNADNO'
SK: 'VYDANÉ DODATOČNE'
FI: 'ANNETTU JÄLKIKÄTEEN'
SV: 'UTFÄRDAT I EFTERHAND'
4.
The endorsement referred to in paragraph 3 shall be inserted in the 'Remarks' box of the movement certificate EUR.1.
## Article 118 Issue Of A Duplicate Movement Certificate Eur.1 (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
In the event of theft, loss or destruction of a movement certificate EUR.1, the exporter may apply to the competent authorities which issued it, for a duplicate to be made out on the basis of the export documents in their possession.
2.
The duplicate issued in this way shall be endorsed with one of the following words:
BG: 'ДУБЛИКАТ'
ES: 'DUPLICADO'
HR: 'DUPLIKAT'
CS: 'DUPLIKÁT'
DA: 'DUPLIKÁT'
DE: 'DUPLIKAT'
ET: 'DUPLIKAAT'
EL: 'ΑΝΤΙΓΡΑΦΟ'
EN: 'DUPLICATE'
FR: 'DUPLICATA'
IT: 'DUPLICATO'
LV: 'DUBLIKĀTS'
LT: 'DUBLIKATAS'
HU: 'MÁSODLAT'
MT: 'DUPLIKAT'
NL: 'DUPLICAAT'
PL: 'DUPLIKAT'
PT: 'SEGUNDA VIA'
RO: 'DUPLICAT'
SL: 'DVOJNIK'
SK: 'DUPLIKÁT'
FI: 'KAKSOISKAPPALE'
SV: 'DUPLIKAT'
3.
The endorsement referred to in paragraph 2 shall be inserted in the 'Remarks' box of the movement certificate EUR.1.
4.
The duplicate, which shall bear the date of issue of the original movement certificate EUR.1, shall take effect as from that date.
## Article 119 Conditions For Making Out An Invoice Declaration (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
The invoice declaration may be made out by either of the following:
(a) an approved Union exporter within the meaning of Article 120 of this Regulation;
(b) any exporter for any consignment consisting of one or more packages containing originating products whose total
value does not exceed EUR 6 000, and on condition that the assistance referred to in Article 114(1) of this Regulation
shall apply to this procedure.
2.
An invoice declaration may be made out if the products concerned can be considered as originating in the Union or in a beneficiary country or territory and fulfil the other requirements of Title II, Chapter 1, Section 2, Subsections 4 and 5
of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
3.
The exporter making out an invoice declaration shall be prepared to submit at any time, at the request of the customs or other competent governmental authorities of the exporting country or territory, all appropriate documents proving the originating status of the products concerned as well as the fulfilment of the other requirements of Title II, Chapter 1, Section 2, Subsections 4 and 5 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
4.
An invoice declaration shall be made out by the exporter by typing, stamping or printing on the invoice, the delivery note or any other commercial document, the declaration, the text of which appears in Annex 22-13 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, using one of the linguistic versions set out in that Annex and in accordance with the provisions of the domestic law of the exporting country. If the declaration is handwritten, it shall be written in ink, in printed characters.
5.
Invoice declarations shall bear the original handwritten signature of the exporter. However, an approved exporter within the meaning of Article 120 of this Regulation shall not be required to sign such declarations provided that he gives the customs authorities a written undertaking that he accepts full responsibility for any invoice declaration which identifies him as if it had been signed with his handwritten signature.
6.
In the cases referred to in paragraph 1(b), the use of an invoice declaration shall be subject to the following special conditions:
(a) an invoice declaration shall be made out for each consignment;
(b) if the goods contained in the consignment have already been subject to verification in the exporting country by
reference to the definition of 'originating products', the exporter may refer to this check in the invoice declaration.
The provisions of the first subparagraph shall not exempt exporters from complying with any other formalities required under customs or postal regulations.
## Article 120 Approved Exporter (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
The customs authorities in the Union may authorise any exporter established in the customs territory of the Union, hereinafter referred to as an 'approved exporter', who makes frequent shipments of products originating in the Union within the meaning of Article 59(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, and who offers, to the satisfaction of the customs authorities, all guarantees necessary to verify the originating status of the products as well as the fulfilment of the other requirements of Title II, Chapter 1, Section 2, Subsections 4 and 5 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, to make out invoice declarations, irrespective of the value of the products concerned.
2.
The customs authorities may grant the status of approved exporter subject to any conditions which they consider appropriate.
3.
The customs authorities shall assign the approved exporter a customs authorisation number which shall appear on the invoice declaration.
4.
The customs authorities shall monitor the use of the authorisation by the approved exporter.
5.
The customs authorities may withdraw the authorisation at any time. They shall do so where the approved exporter no longer offers the guarantees referred to in paragraph 1, does not fulfil the conditions referred to in paragraph 2, or otherwise makes improper use of the authorisation.
## Article 121 Validity Of Proof Of Origin (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
A proof of origin shall be valid for 4 months from the date of issue in the exporting country, and shall be submitted within the said period to the customs authorities of the importing country.
2.
Proofs of origin which are submitted to the customs authorities of the importing country after the final date for presentation specified in paragraph 1 may be accepted for the purpose of applying the tariff preferences referred to in Article 59 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, where the failure to submit these documents by the final date set is due to exceptional circumstances.
3.
In other cases of belated presentation, the customs authorities of the importing country may accept the proofs of origin where the products have been submitted before the said final date.
4.
At the request of the importer and having regard to the conditions laid down by the customs authorities of the importing Member State, a single proof of origin may be submitted to the customs authorities at the importation of the first consignment when the goods fulfil the following conditions:
(a) they are imported within the framework of frequent and continuous trade flows of a significant commercial value;
(b) they are the subject of the same contract of sale, the parties of this contract established in the exporting country or in
the Union;
(c) they are classified in the same code (eight digits) of the Combined Nomenclature;
(d) they come exclusively from the same exporter, are destined for the same importer, and are made the subject of entry
formalities at the same customs office in the Union.
This procedure shall be applicable for the quantities and a period determined by the competent customs authorities. This period cannot, in any circumstances, exceed 3 months.
5.
The procedure described in the preceding paragraph shall also apply where a single proof of origin is submitted to the customs authorities for importations by instalments in accordance with Article 115 of this Regulation. However, in this case, the competent customs authorities may grant a period of application exceeding 3 months.
## Article 122 Exemptions From Proof Of Origin (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Products sent as small packages from private person to private persons or forming part of travellers' personal luggage shall be admitted as originating products benefiting from the tariff preferences referred to in Article 59 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 without requiring the submission of a movement certificate EUR.1 or an invoice declaration, provided that such products are not imported by way of trade and have been declared as meeting the conditions required for the application of Title II, Chapter 1, Section 2, Subsections 4 and 5 of Delegated Regulation (EU)
2015/2446, and where there is no doubt as to the veracity of such a declaration.
2.
Imports which are occasional and consist solely of products for the personal use of the recipients or travellers or their families shall not be considered as imports by way of trade if it is evident from the nature and quantity of the products that no commercial purpose is in view.
Furthermore, the total value of the products shall not exceed EUR 500 in the case of small packages or EUR 1 200 in the case of products forming part of traveller's personal luggage.
## Article 123 Discrepancies And Formal Errors (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
The discovery of slight discrepancies between the statements made in the proof of origin and those made in the documents submitted to the customs office for the purpose of carrying out the formalities for importing the products shall not *ipso facto* render the proof of origin null and void if it is duly established that the document does correspond to the products submitted.
Obvious formal errors such as typing errors on a proof of origin should not cause this document to be rejected if these errors are not such as to create doubts concerning the correctness of the statements made in that document.
## S U B S E C T I O N 1 1
M e t h o d s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o o p e r a t i o n f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f o r i g i n v e r i f i c a t i o n w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f p r e f e r e n t i a l t a r i f f m e a s u r e s a d o p t e d u n i l a t e r a l l y b y t h e U n i o n f o r c e r t a i n c o u n t r i e s o r t e r r i t o r i e s
## Article 124 Administrative Cooperation (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
The beneficiary countries or territories shall inform the Commission of the names and addresses of the govern
mental authorities situated in their territory which are empowered to issue movement certificates EUR.1, together with specimen impressions of the stamps used by those authorities, and the names and addresses of the relevant governmental authorities responsible for the control of the movement certificates EUR.1 and the invoice declarations. The stamps shall be valid as from the date of receipt by the Commission of the specimens. The Commission shall forward this information to the customs authorities of the Member States. When these communications are made within the framework of an amendment of previous communications, the Commission shall indicate the date of entry into use of those new stamps according to the instructions given by the competent governmental authorities of the beneficiary countries or territories. This information is for official use; however, when goods are to be released for free circulation, the customs authorities in question may allow the importer to consult the specimen impressions of stamps mentioned in this paragraph.
2.
The Commission shall send, to the beneficiary countries or territories, the specimen impressions of the stamps used by the customs authorities of the Member States for the issue of movement certificates EUR.1.
## Article 125 Verification Of Proofs Of Origin (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
1.
Subsequent verifications of movement certificates EUR.1 and of invoice declarations shall be carried out at random or whenever the customs authorities in the importing Member State or the competent governmental authorities of the beneficiary countries or territories have reasonable doubts as to the authenticity of such documents, the originating status of the products within the meaning of Title II, Chapter 1, Section 2, Subsections 4 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 concerned or the fulfilment of the other requirements of Title II, Chapter 1, Section 2, Subsection 5 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
2.
For the purposes of implementing the provisions of paragraph 1, the competent authorities in the importing Member State or beneficiary country or territory shall return the EUR.1 movement certificate and the invoice, if it has been submitted, the invoice declaration, or a copy of these documents, to the competent authorities in the exporting beneficiary country or territory or Member State, giving, where appropriate, the reasons for the enquiry. Any documents and information obtained suggesting that the information given on the proof of origin is incorrect shall be forwarded in support of the request for verification.
If the customs authorities in the importing Member State decide to suspend the granting of the tariff preferences referred to in Article 59 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 while awaiting the results of the verification, release of the products shall be offered to the importer subject to any precautionary measures judged necessary.
3.
When an application for subsequent verification has been made in accordance with paragraph 1, such verification shall be carried out and its results communicated to the customs authorities of the importing Member States or to the competent governmental authorities of the importing beneficiary country or territory within a maximum of 6 months. The results shall be such as to establish whether the proof of origin in question applies to the products actually exported and whether these products can be considered as originating in the beneficiary country or territory or in the Union.
4.
If in cases of reasonable doubt there is no reply within the 6 months specified in paragraph 3 or if the reply does not contain sufficient information to determine the authenticity of the document in question or the real origin of the products, a second communication shall be sent to the competent authorities. If after the second communication the results of the verification are not communicated to the requesting authorities within 4 months, or if these results do not allow the authenticity of the document in question or the real origin of the products to be determined, the requesting authorities shall, except in exceptional circumstances, refuse entitlement to the tariff preferences.
5.
Where the verification procedure or any other available information appears to indicate that the provisions of Title II, Chapter 1, Section 2, Subsections 4 and 5 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 are being contravened, the exporting beneficiary country or territory shall, on its own initiative or at the request of the Union, carry out appropriate inquiries or arrange for such inquiries to be carried out with due urgency to identify and prevent such contraventions. For this purpose, the Union may participate in the inquiries.
6.
For the purposes of the subsequent verification of movement certificates EUR.1, copies of the certificates as well as any export documents referring to them shall be kept by the competent governmental authorities of the exporting beneficiary country or territory or by the customs authorities of the exporting Member State for at least 3 years from the end of the year in which the movement certificates were issued.
## S U B S E C T I O N 1 2
O t h e r p r o v i s i o n s a p p l i c a b l e w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f t h e r u l e s o f o r i g i n f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f p r e f e r e n t i a l t a r i f f m e a s u r e s a d o p t e d u n i l a t e r a l l y b y t h e U n i o n f o r c e r t a i n c o u n t r i e s o r t e r r i t o r i e s
## Article 126 Ceuta And Melilla (Article 64(1) Of The Code)
3.
The provisions of this Subsection concerning the issue, use and subsequent verification of movement certificates EUR.1 shall apply *mutatis mutandis* to products originating in Ceuta and Melilla.
4.
The Spanish customs authorities shall be responsible for the application of this Subsection in Ceuta and Melilla.
## Chapter 3 Value Of Goods For Customs Purposes Article 127 General Provisions (Article 70(3)(D) Of The Code)
1.
For the purposes of this Chapter, two persons shall be deemed to be related if one of the following conditions is fulfilled:
(a) they are officers or directors of the other person's business;
(b) they are legally recognised partners in business;
(c) they are employer and employee;
(d) a third party directly or indirectly owns or controls or holds 5% or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of
both of them;
(e) one of them directly or indirectly controls the other;
(f) both of them are directly or indirectly controlled by a third person;
(g) together they control a third person directly or indirectly;
(h) they are members of the same family.
2.
Persons who are associated in business with one another in that one is the sole agent, sole distributor or sole concessionaire, however described, of the other shall be deemed to be related only if they fall within the criteria referred to in paragraph 1.
3.
For the purposes of paragraph 1(e),(f) and (g) one person is deemed to control another when the former is legally or operationally in a position to exercise direction over the latter.
## Article 128 Transaction Value (Article 70(1) Of The Code)
1.
The transaction value of the goods sold for export to the customs territory of the Union shall be determined at the time of acceptance of the customs declaration on the basis of the sale occurring immediately before the goods were brought into that customs territory.
2.
Where the goods are sold for export to the customs territory of the Union not before they were brought into that customs territory but while in temporary storage or while placed under a special procedure other than internal transit, end-use or outward processing, the transaction value will be determined on the basis of that sale.
## Article 129 Price Actually Paid Or Payable (Article 70(1) And (2) Of The Code)
1.
The price actually paid or payable within the meaning of Article 70(1) and (2) of the Code shall include all payments made or to be made as a condition of sale of the imported goods by the buyer to any of the following persons:
(a) the seller;
(b) a third party for the benefit of the seller;
(c) a third party related to the seller;
(d) a third party where the payment to that party is made in order to satisfy an obligation of the seller.
Payments may be made by way of letters of credit or negotiable instruments, and payments may be made directly or indirectly.
2.
Activities, including marketing activities, undertaken by the buyer or an undertaking related to the buyer on his or its own account, other than those for which an adjustment is provided in Article 71 of the Code, shall not be considered an indirect payment to the seller.
## Article 130 Discounts (Article 70(1) And (2) Of The Code)
1.
For the purposes of determining the customs value under Article 70(1) of the Code, discounts shall be taken into account if, at the time of acceptance of the customs declaration, the sales contract provides for their application and their amount.
2.
Discounts for early payment shall be taken into account with regard to goods for which the price has not actually been paid at the time of acceptance of the customs declaration.
3.
Discounts arising from amendments to the contract subsequent to the time of acceptance of the customs declaration shall not be taken into account.
## Article 131 Partial Delivery (Article 70(1) Of The Code)
1.
Where goods declared for a customs procedure are part of a larger quantity of the same goods purchased in one transaction, the price actually paid or payable shall, for the purposes of Article 70(1) of the Code, be calculated pro rata on the basis of the price for the total quantity purchased.
2.
Apportioning the price actually paid or payable shall also apply in the case of the loss of part of a consignment or when the goods have been damaged before the goods are released for free circulation.
## Article 132 Price Adjustments For Defective Goods (Article 70(1) Of The Code)
An adjustment made by the seller, to the benefit of the buyer, of the price actually paid or payable for the goods may be taken into consideration for the determination of the customs value in accordance with Article 70(1) of the Code, if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) the goods were defective at the time of acceptance of the customs declaration for release for free circulation;
(b) the seller made the adjustment to compensate for the defect in order to fulfil either of the following:
(i) a contractual obligation entered into before the acceptance of the customs declaration;
(ii) a statutory obligation applicable to the goods;
(c) the adjustment is made within a period of 1 year following the date of acceptance of the customs declaration.
## Article 133 Valuation Of Conditions And Considerations (Article 70(3)(B) Of The Code)
Where the sale or price of imported goods is subject to a condition or consideration the value of which can be determined with respect to the goods being valued, such value shall be regarded as part of the price actually paid or payable, unless those conditions or considerations relate to either of the following:
(a) an activity to which Article 129(2) of this Regulation applies;
(b) an element of the customs value under Article 71 of the Code.
## Article 134 Transactions Between Related Persons (Article 70(3)(D) Of The Code)
1.
Where the buyer and the seller are related, and in order to determine whether such relationship did not influence the price, the circumstances surrounding the sale shall be examined as may be necessary, and the declarant shall be given an opportunity to supply further detailed information as may be necessary about those circumstances.
2.
However, the goods shall be valued in accordance with Article 70(1) of the Code where the declarant demonstrates that the declared transaction value closely approximates to one of the following test values, determined at or about the same time:
(a) the transaction value in sales, between buyers and sellers who are not related in any particular case, of identical or
similar goods for export to the customs territory of the Union;
(b) the customs value of identical or similar goods, determined in accordance with Article 74(2)(c) of the Code;
(c) the customs value of identical or similar goods, determined in accordance with Article 74(2)(d) of the Code.
3.
When establishing the value of identical or similar goods referred to in paragraph 2, account shall be taken of the following elements:
(a) demonstrated differences in commercial levels;
(b) quantity levels;
(c) the elements listed in Article 71(1) of the Code;
(d) costs incurred by the seller in sales in which he and the buyer are not related, where such costs are not incurred by
the seller in sales between related persons.
4.
The test values listed in paragraph 2 are to be used at the request of the declarant. They shall not substitute for the declared transaction value.
## Article 135 Goods And Services Used For The Production Of The Imported Goods (Article 71(1)(B) Of The Code)
1.
Where a buyer supplies any of the goods or services listed in Article 71(1)(b) of the Code to the seller, the value of those goods and services shall be deemed to be equal to their purchasing price. The purchasing price shall include all the payments which the buyer of the goods or services listed in Article 71(1)(b) is required to make to acquire the goods or services.
Where those goods or services were produced by the buyer or a person related to him, their value shall be the cost of producing them.
2.
Where the value of the goods and services listed in Article 71(1)(b) of the Code cannot be determined in accordance with paragraph 1, it shall be determined on the basis of other objective and quantifiable data.
3.
Where the goods listed in Article 71(1)(b) of the Code have been used by the buyer before they were supplied, their value shall be adjusted to take account of any depreciation.
4.
The value of the services referred to in Article 71(1)(b) of the Code, shall include the costs of unsuccessful development activities insofar as those were incurred in respect of projects or orders relating to the imported goods.
5.
For the purposes of Article 71(1)(b)(iv) of the Code, the costs of research and preliminary design sketches shall not be included in the customs value.
6.
The value of the goods and services supplied, as established in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 5 shall be apportioned pro rata over the imported goods.
## Article 136 Royalties And Licence Fees (Article 71(1)(C) Of The Code)
1.
Royalties and licence fees are related to the imported goods where in particular, the rights transferred under the licence or royalties agreement are embodied in the goods. The method of calculation of the amount of the royalty or licence fee is not the decisive factor.
2.
Where the method of calculation of the amount of royalties or licence fees derives from the price of the imported goods, it shall in the absence of evidence to the contrary be assumed that the payment of those royalties or licence fees is related to the goods to be valued.
3.
If royalties or licence fees relate partly to the goods being valued and partly to other ingredients or component parts added to the goods after their importation, or to post-importation activities or services, an appropriate adjustment shall be made.
4.
Royalties and licence fees are considered to be paid as a condition of sale for the imported goods when any of the following conditions is met:
(a) the seller or a person related to the seller requires the buyer to make this payment;
(b) the payment by the buyer is made to satisfy an obligation of the seller, in accordance with contractual obligations;
(c) the goods cannot be sold to, or purchased by, the buyer without payment of the royalties or license fees to a licensor.
5.
The country in which the recipient of the royalties or licence fees payment is established is not a material consideration.
## Article 137 Place Where Goods Are Brought Into The Customs Territory Of The Union (Article 71(1)(E) Of The Code)
1.
For the purposes of Article 71(1)(e) of the Code, the place where goods are brought into the customs territory of the Union shall be:
(a) for goods carried by sea, the port where the goods arrive first in the customs territory of the Union;
(b) for goods carried by sea into one of the French overseas departments which are part of the customs territory of the
Union, and carried directly to another part of the customs territory of the Union, or vice versa, the port where the goods arrive first in the customs territory of the Union, provided that they were unloaded or transhipped there;
(c) for goods carried by sea and then, without transhipment, by inland waterway, the first port where unloading can take
place;
(d) for goods carried by rail, inland waterway, or road, the place where the customs office of entry is situated;
(e) for goods carried by other modes of transport, the place where the frontier of the customs territory of the Union is
crossed.
2.
For the purposes of Article 71(1)(e) of the Code, where the goods are brought into the customs territory of the Union and then carried to a destination in another part of that territory through territories outside of the customs territory of the Union, the place where the goods are brought into the customs territory of the Union shall be the place where goods were first brought into that customs territory, provided that the goods are carried directly through those territories by a usual route to the place of destination.
3.
Paragraph 2 shall also apply where the goods have been unloaded, transhipped or temporarily immobilised in territories outside of the customs territory of the Union for reasons relating solely to their transport.
4.
Where the conditions laid down in paragraphs 1(b), 2 and 3 are not fulfilled, the place where goods are brought into the customs territory of the Union shall be the following:
(a) for goods carried by sea, the port of unloading;
(b) for goods carried by other means of transport the place specified in points (c), (d) or (e) of paragraph 1 situated in
that part of the customs territory of the Union to which the goods are consigned.
## Article 138 Transport Costs (Article 71(1)(E) Of The Code)
1.
Where goods are carried by the same means of transport to a point beyond the place where they are brought into the customs territory of the Union, transport costs shall be assessed in proportion to the distance to the place where the goods are brought into the customs territory of the Union in accordance with Article 137 of this Regulation, unless evidence is produced to the customs authorities to show the costs that would have been incurred under a standard schedule of freight rates for the carriage of the goods to the place where goods are brought into the customs territory of the Union.
2.
Air transport costs, including air express delivery costs, to be included in the customs value of goods shall be determined in accordance with Annex 23-01.
3.
Where transport is free of charge or provided by the buyer, the transport costs to be included in the customs value of the goods shall be calculated in accordance with the schedule of freight rates normally applied for the same modes of transport.
## Article 139 Charges Levied On Postal Consignments (Article 70(1) Of The Code)
Postal charges levied up to the place of destination in respect of goods sent by post shall be included in the customs value of these goods, with the exception of any supplementary postal charge levied in the customs territory of the Union.
## Article 140 Non-Acceptance Of Declared Transaction Values (Article 70(1) Of The Code)
1.
Where the customs authorities have reasonable doubts that the declared transaction value represents the total amount paid or payable as referred to in Article 70(1) of the Code, they may ask the declarant to supply additional information.
2.
If their doubts are not dispelled, the customs authorities may decide that the value of the goods cannot be determined in accordance with Article 70(1) of the Code.
## Article 141 Customs Value Of Identical Or Similar Goods (Article 74(2)(A) And (B) Of The Code)
1.
When determining the customs value of imported goods in accordance with Article 74(2)(a) or (b) of of the Code, the transaction value of identical or similar goods in a sale at the same commercial level and in substantially the same quantities as the goods being valued shall be used.
Where no such sale is found, the customs value shall be determined having regard to the transaction value of identical or similar goods sold at a different commercial level or in different quantities. This transaction value should be adjusted to take account of differences attributable to commercial level and/or quantity.
2.
An adjustment shall be made to take account of significant differences in costs and charges between the imported goods and the identical or similar goods in question due to differences in distances and modes of transport.
3.
Where more than one transaction value of identical or similar goods is found, the lowest of those values shall be used to determine the customs value of the imported goods.
4.
'Identical goods' and 'similar goods', as the case may be, do not include goods which incorporate or reflect engineering, development, artwork, design work, plans or sketches for which no adjustment has been made under Article 71(1)(b)(iv) of the Code because such work was undertaken in the Union.
5.
A transaction value for goods produced by a different person is to be taken into account only when no transaction value can be found for identical or similar goods produced by the person who produced the goods being valued.
## Article 142 Deductive Method (Article 74(2)(C) Of The Code)
1.
The unit price used to determine the customs value under Article 74(2)(c) of the Code shall be the price at which the imported goods or imported identical or similar goods are sold in the Union, in the condition as imported, at or about the time of importation of the goods being valued.
2.
In the absence of a unit price as referred to in paragraph 1, the unit price used shall be the price at which the imported goods or imported identical or similar goods are sold in the conditions as imported in the customs territory of the Union at the earliest time after the importation of the goods to be valued and in any case within 90 days of that importation.
3.
In the absence of a unit price as referred either to paragraphs 1 and 2, at the request of the declarant the unit price at which the imported goods are sold in the customs territory of the Union after further working or processing shall be used, due allowance being made for the value added by such working or processing.
4.
The following sales shall not be taken into account for the purposes of determining the customs value under Article 74(2)(c) of the Code:
(a) sales of goods at a commercial level other than the first after importation;
(b) sales to related persons;
(c) sales to persons who directly or indirectly supply, free of charge or at reduced cost, the goods or services listed in
Article 71(1)(b) of the Code for use in connection with the production and sale for export of the imported goods;
(d) sales in quantities which are not sufficient to allow the unit price to be determined.
5.
When determining the customs value, the following shall be deducted from the unit price determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 4:
(a) either the commissions usually paid or agreed to be paid or the additions usually made for profit and general
expenses (including the direct and indirect costs of marketing the goods in question) in connection with sales in
the customs territory of the Union of imported goods of the same class or kind which are goods that fall within a
group or range of goods produced by a particular industrial sector;
(b) usual costs of transport and insurance and associated costs incurred within the customs territory of the Union;
(c) import duties and other charges payable in the customs territory of the Union by reason of the import or sale of the
goods.
6.
The customs value of certain perishable goods as referred to in Annex 23-02 imported on consignment may be directly determined in accordance with Article 74(2)(c) of the Code. For this purpose the unit prices shall be notified to the Commission by the Member States and disseminated by the Commission via TARIC in accordance with Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (
1
).
Such unit prices may be used to determine the customs value of the imported goods for periods of 14 days. Each period shall start on a Friday.
The unit prices shall be calculated and notified as follows:
(a) after the deductions provided for in paragraph 5 unit price per 100 kg net for each category of goods shall be
notified by the Member States to the Commission. Member States may fix standard amounts for the costs referred to
point (b) of paragraph 5, which shall be made known to the Commission;
(b) the reference period for determining unit prices shall be the preceding period of 14 days which ends on the Thursday
preceding the week during which new unit prices are to be established;
(c) Member States shall notify the unit prices in euro to the Commission not later than 12.00 on the Monday of the
week in which they are to be disseminated by the Commission. Where that day is not a working day, notification shall be made on the working day immediately preceding that day. Unit prices shall only apply if this notification is
disseminated by the Commission.
## Article 143 Computed Value Method (Article 74(2)(D) Of The Code)
1.
In applying Article 74(2)(d) of the Code, the customs authorities may not require or compel any person not established in the customs territory of the Union to produce for examination, or to allow access to, any account or other record for the purposes of determining the customs value.
2.
The cost or value of materials and fabrication referred to in Article 74(2)(d)(i) of the Code shall include the cost of elements specified in Article 71(1)(a) (ii) and (iii) of the Code. It shall also include the apportioned cost of any product or service specified in Article 71(1)(b) of the Code which has been supplied directly or indirectly by the buyer for use in connection with the production of the goods being valued. The value of elements specified in Article 71(1)(b)(iv) of the Code which are undertaken in the Union shall be included only to the extent that those elements are charged to the producer.
3.
The cost of production includes all expenditure incurred in creating, adding to or substantially enhancing economic goods. It also includes the costs specified in Article 71(1)(b)(ii) and (iii) of the Code.
4.
The general expenses referred to in Article 74(2)(d)(ii) of the Code, cover the direct and indirect costs of producing and selling the goods for export which are not included under Article 74(2)(d)(i) of the Code.
## Article 144 Fall-Back Method (Article 74(3) Of The Code)
1.
When determining the customs value under Article 74(3) of the Code, reasonable flexibility may be used in the application of the methods provided for in Articles 70 and 74(2) of the Code. The value so determined shall, to the greatest extent possible, be based on previously determined customs values.
2.
Where no customs value can be determined under paragraph 1, other appropriate methods shall be used. In this case the customs value shall not be determined on the basis of any of the following:
(a) the selling price within the customs territory of the Union of goods produced in the customs territory of the Union;
(b) a system whereby the higher of two alternative values is used for customs valuation;
(c) the price of goods on the domestic market of the country of exportation;
(d) the cost of production, other than computed values which have been determined for identical or similar goods under
Article 74(2)(d) of the Code;
(e) prices for export to a third country;
(f) minimum customs values;
(g) arbitrary or fictitious values.
## Article 145 Supporting Documents Regarding Customs Value
(Article 163(1) of the Code)
The invoice which relates to the declared transaction value is required as a supporting document.
## Article 146 Currency Conversion For Customs Valuation Purposes (Article 53(1)(A) Of The Code)
1.
In accordance with Article 53(1)(a) of the Code, the following rates of exchange shall be used for currency conversion for customs valuation purposes:
(a) the rate of exchange published by the European Central Bank, for the Member States whose currency is the euro;
(b) the rate of exchange published by the competent national authority or, where the national authority has designated a
private bank for the purposes of publishing the rate of exchange, the rate published by that private bank, for the
Member States whose currency is not the euro.
2.
The rate of exchange to be used in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be the rate of exchange published on the second last Wednesday of each month.
Where no rate of exchange has been published on that day, the most recently published rate shall apply.
3.
The rate of exchange shall apply for a month, beginning on the first day of the following month.
value of the currency of the Member State concerned as closely as possible.
# Title Iii Customs Debt And Guarantees Chapter 1 Guarantee For A Potential Or Existing Customs Debt S E C T I O N 1 G E N E R A L P R O V I S I O N S Article 147
## Electronic Systems Relating To Guarantees (Article 16 Of The Code)
For the exchange and storage of information pertaining to guarantees which may be used in more than one Member State, an electronic system set up for those purposes pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Code shall be used.
The first paragraph of this Article shall be applicable from the date of deployment of the UCC GUM system referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU.
## Article 148 Individual Guarantee For A Potential Customs Debt (Article 90(1) Subparagraph 2 Of The Code)
1.
Where it is compulsory for a guarantee to be provided, a guarantee covering a single operation (individual guarantee) for a potential customs debt shall cover the amount of import or export duty corresponding to the customs debt which may be incurred, calculated on the basis of the highest rates of duty applicable to goods of the same type.
2.
Where the other charges due in connection with the import or export of goods are to be covered by the individual guarantee, their calculation shall be based on the highest rates applicable to goods of the same type in the Member State where the goods concerned are placed under the customs procedure or are in temporary storage.
## Article 149 Optional Guarantee (Article 91 Of The Code)
Where the customs authorities decide to require a guarantee which is optional, Articles 150 to 158 of this Regulation shall apply.
## Article 150 Guarantee In The Form Of Cash Deposit (Article 92(1)(A) Of The Code)
Where a guarantee is required for special procedures or temporary storage and is provided as an individual guarantee in the form of a cash deposit, that guarantee shall be provided to the customs authorities of the Member State where the goods are placed under the procedure or are in temporary storage.
Where a special procedure other than the end-use procedure has been discharged or the supervision of end-use goods or the temporary storage has ended correctly, the guarantee shall be repaid by the customs authority of the Member State where it was provided.
## Article 151 Guarantee In The Form Of An Undertaking By A Guarantor
2.
The customs office of guarantee may revoke the approval of the undertaking by a guarantor at any time. The customs office of guarantee shall notify the revocation to the guarantor and the person required to provide the guarantee.
3.
A guarantor may cancel his undertaking at any time. The guarantor shall notify the cancellation to the customs office of guarantee.
4.
The cancellation of the undertaking of the guarantor shall not affect goods which, at the moment where the cancellation takes effect, have already been placed and still are under a customs procedure or in temporary storage by virtue of the cancelled undertaking.
5.
An individual guarantee provided in the form of an undertaking shall be given using the form set out in Annex
32-01.
6.
A comprehensive guarantee provided in the form of an undertaking shall be given using the form set out in Annex
32-03.
7.
Notwithstanding paragraphs 5 and 6 and Article 160, each Member State may, in accordance with national law, allow an undertaking given by a guarantor to take a form different from the ones set out in Annexes 32-01, 32-02 and
32-03 provided it has the same legal effect.
## Article 152 Individual Guarantee Provided In The Form Of An Undertaking By A Guarantor
(Articles 89 and 92(1)(b) of the Code)
1.
Where an individual guarantee is provided in the form of an undertaking by a guarantor, the proof of that undertaking shall be kept by the customs office of guarantee for the period of validity of the guarantee.
2.
Where an individual guarantee is provided in the form of an undertaking by a guarantor, the holder of the procedure shall not modify the access code associated with the guarantee reference number.
## Article 153 Mutual Assistance Between Customs Authorities (Article 92(1)(C) Of The Code)
Where a customs debt is incurred in a Member State other than the Member State which has accepted a guarantee in one of the forms referred to in Article 83(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, which may be used in more than one Member State, the Member State which has accepted the guarantee shall transfer to the Member State where the customs debt is incurred, on a request made by the latter after the expiry of the time-limit for payment, the amount of import or export duty within the limits of the accepted guarantee and of the unpaid duty.
That transfer shall be made within 1 month of reception of the request.
## Article 154 Guarantee Reference Number And Access Code (Article 89(2) Of The Code)
1.
Where an individual guarantee may be used in more than one Member State, the customs office of guarantee shall communicate to the person who has provided the guarantee or, in case of a guarantee in the form of vouchers, to the guarantor the following information:
(a) a guarantee reference number;
(b) an access code associated with the guarantee reference number.
2.
Where a comprehensive guarantee may be used in more than one Member State, the customs office of guarantee shall communicate to the person who has provided the guarantee the following information:
(a) a guarantee reference number for each part of the reference amount to be monitored in accordance with Article 157
of this Regulation;
(b) an access code associated with the guarantee reference number.
Upon request of the person who has provided the guarantee, the customs office of guarantee shall assign one or more additional access codes to this guarantee to be used by that person or his representatives.
3.
A customs authority shall verify the existence and the validity of the guarantee each time a person communicates to it a guarantee reference number.
## S E C T I O N 2 C O M P R E H E N S I V E G U A R A N T E E Article 155 Reference Amount (Article 90 Of The Code)
1.
Unless otherwise provided for in Article 158 of this Regulation, the amount of the comprehensive guarantee shall be equal to a reference amount established by the customs office of guarantee in accordance with Article 90 of the Code.
2.
Where a comprehensive guarantee is to be provided for import or export duty and other charges the amount of which can be established with certainty at the time when the guarantee is required, the part of the reference amount covering those duties and charges shall correspond to the amount of the import or export duty and of the other charges payable.
3.
Where a comprehensive guarantee is to be provided for import or export duty and other charges, the amount of which cannot be established with certainty at the time when the guarantee is required or which vary in amount over time, the part of the reference amount covering those duties and charges shall be fixed as follows:
(a) for the part that is to cover import or export duty and other charges which have been incurred, the reference amount
shall correspond to the amount of the import or export duty and of the other charges payable;
(b) for the part that is to cover import or export duty and other charges which may be incurred, the reference amount
shall correspond to the amount of the import or export duty and of the other charges which may become payable in
connection with each customs declaration or temporary storage declaration in respect of which the guarantee is provided, in the period between the placing of the goods under the relevant customs procedure or in temporary storage and the moment when that procedure is discharged or the supervision of end-use goods or temporary storage
is ended.
For the purposes of point (b), account shall be taken of the highest rates of import or export duty applicable to goods of the same type and of the highest rates of other charges due in connection with the import or export of goods of the same type in the Member State of the customs office of guarantee.
Where the information necessary to determine the part of the reference amount pursuant to the first subparagraph is not available to the customs office of guarantee, that amount shall be fixed at EUR 10 000 for each declaration.
4.
The customs office of guarantee shall establish the reference amount in cooperation with the person required to provide the guarantee. When fixing the part of the reference amount in accordance with paragraph 3, the custom office of guarantee shall establish that amount on the basis of the information on goods placed under the relevant customs procedures or in temporary storage in the preceding 12 months and on an estimate of the volume of intended operations as shown, inter alia, by the commercial documentation and accounts of the person required to provide the guarantee.
5.
The customs office of guarantee shall review the reference amount on its own initiative or following a request from the person required to provide the guarantee, and shall adjust it to comply with the provisions of this Article and Article 90 of the Code.
## Article 156 Monitoring Of The Reference Amount By The Person Required To Provide A Guarantee (Article 89 Of The Code)
The person required to provide a guarantee shall ensure that the amount of import or export duty, and of other charges due in connection with the import or export of goods where they are to be covered by the guarantee, which is payable or may become payable does not exceed the reference amount.
That person shall inform the customs office of guarantee when the reference amount is no longer at a level sufficient to cover his operations.
## Article 157 Monitoring Of The Reference Amount By The Customs Authorities (Article 89(6) Of The Code)
1.
The monitoring of the part of the reference amount that covers the amount of import or export duty, and of other charges due in connection with the import or export of goods, which will become payable with respect to goods placed under release for free circulation shall be ensured for each customs declaration at the time of placing of goods under the procedure. Where customs declarations for release for free circulation are lodged in accordance with an authorisation referred to in Articles 166(2) or 182 of the Code, the monitoring of the relevant part of the reference amount shall be ensured on the basis of the supplementary declarations or, where applicable, on the basis of the particulars entered in the records.
2.
The monitoring of the part of the reference amount that covers the amount of import or export duty, and other charges due in connection with the import or export of goods, which may become payable with respect to goods placed under the Union transit procedure shall be ensured, by means of the electronic system referred to in Article 273(1) of this Regulation, for each customs declaration at the time of placing of goods under the procedure. That monitoring shall not apply to goods placed under the Union transit procedure using the simplification referred to in Article 233(4)(e) of the Code where the customs declaration is not processed by the electronic system referred to in Article 273(1) of this Regulation.
3.
The monitoring of the part of the reference amount that covers the amount of import or export duty, and other charges due in connection with the import or export of goods where they are to be covered by the guarantee, which will be incurred or may be incurred in cases other than those referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be ensured by regular and appropriate audit.
## Article 158 Level Of The Comprehensive Guarantee (Article 95(2) And (3) Of The Code)
1.
For the purposes of Article 95(2) of the Code, the amount of the comprehensive guarantee shall be reduced to:
(a) 50% of the part of the reference amount determined in accordance with Article 155(3) of this Regulation where the
conditions of Article 84(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 are fulfilled;
(b) 30% of the part of the reference amount determined in accordance with Article 155(3) of this Regulation where the
conditions of Article 84(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 are fulfilled; or
(c) 0% of the part of the reference amount determined in accordance with Article 155(3) of this Regulation where the
conditions of Article 84(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 are fulfilled.
# P R O V I S I O N S F O R T H E U N I O N T R A N S I T P R O C E D U R E A N D T H E P R O C E D U R E U N D E R T H E T I R A N D T H E A T A C O N V E N T I O N S S U B S E C T I O N 1 U N I O N T R A N S I T Article 159 Calculation For The Purpose Of Common Transit
## (Article 89(2) Of The Code)
For the purpose of the calculation referred to in Article 148 and in the second subparagraph of Article 155(3)(b) of this Regulation, Union goods carried in accordance with the Convention on a common transit procedure (
1
) shall be treated as non-Union goods.
## Article 160 Individual Guarantee In The Form Of Vouchers (Article 92(1)(B) Of The Code)
1.
In the context of Union transit procedure, an individual guarantee in the form of an undertaking by a guarantor may also be provided by the guarantor by issuing vouchers to persons who intend to be the holders of the procedure.
The proof of that undertaking shall be made out using the form set out in Annex 32-02 and the vouchers shall be made out using with the form set out in Annex 32-06.
Each voucher shall cover an amount of EUR 10 000 for which the guarantor shall be liable.
The period of validity of a voucher shall be 1 year from the date of issue.
2.
The guarantor shall provide the customs office of guarantee with any required details about the individual guarantee vouchers that he has issued.
3.
For each voucher, the guarantor shall communicate to the person who intends to be the holder of the procedure the following information:
(a) a guarantee reference number;
(b) an access code associated with the guarantee reference number.
The person who intends to be the holder of the procedure shall not modify the access code.
4.
The person who intends to be the holder of the procedure shall submit at the customs office of departure a number of vouchers corresponding to the multiple of EUR 10 000 required to cover the sum of the amounts referred to in Article 148 of this Regulation.
## Article 161 Revocation And Cancellation Of An Undertaking Provided In Case Of An Individual Guarantee In The Form Of Vouchers (Articles 92(1)(B) And 94 Of The Code)
The customs authority responsible for the relevant customs office of guarantee shall introduce into the electronic system referred to in Article 273(1) of this Regulation information of any revocation or cancellation of an undertaking provided in case of an individual guarantee in the form of vouchers and the date when it becomes effective.
## Article 162 Comprehensive Guarantee
(Articles 89(5) and 95 of the Code)
1.
In the context of Union transit procedure, the comprehensive guarantee may only be provided in the form of an undertaking by a guarantor.
2.
The proof of that undertaking shall be kept by the customs office of guarantee for the period of validity of the guarantee.
3.
The holder of the procedure shall not modify the access code associated with the guarantee reference number.
S u b s e c t i o n 2
P r o c e d u r e s u n d e r t h e T I R a n d t h e A T A C o n v e n t i o n s
## Article 163 Liability Of Guaranteeing Associations For Tir Operations (Article 226(3)(B) Of The Code)
For the purposes of Article 8(4) of the TIR Convention, including any subsequent amendments thereof, (TIR Convention)
where a TIR operation is carried out on the customs territory of the Union, any guaranteeing association established in the customs territory of the Union may become liable for the payment of the secured amount relating to the goods concerned in the TIR operation up to a limit, per TIR carnet, of EUR 60 000 or the national currency equivalent thereof.
## Article 164 Notification Of Non-Discharge Of A Procedure To Guaranteeing Associations (Article 226(3)(B) And (C) Of The Code)
A valid notification of non-discharge of a procedure in accordance with the TIR Convention or with the ATA Convention or with the Istanbul Convention, made by the customs authorities of one Member State to a guaranteeing association, shall constitute a notification to any other guaranteeing association of another Member State identified as liable for payment of an amount of import or export duty or other charges.
## Chapter 2 Recovery, Payment, Repayment And Remission Of The Amount Of Import Or Export Duty S E C T I O N 1
D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e a m o u n t o f i m p o r t o r e x p o r t d u t y , n o t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e c u s t o m s d e b t a n d e n t r y i n t h e a c c o u n t s S u b s e c t i o n 1
## Article 165 Mutual Assistance Between Customs Authorities
(Articles 101(1) and 102(1) of the Code)
1.
Where a customs debt is incurred, the customs authorities competent for the recovery of the amount of import or export duty corresponding to the customs debt shall inform the other customs authorities involved of the following:
(a) the fact that a customs debt was incurred;
(b) the action taken against the debtor to recover the sums concerned.
2.
The Member States shall assist each other in the recovery of the amount of import or export duty corresponding to the customs debt.
3.
Without prejudice to Article 87(4) of the Code, where the customs authority of the Member State in which the goods were placed under a special procedure other than transit, or were in temporary storage, obtains, before the expiry of the time-limit referred to in Article 80 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, evidence that the events from which the customs debt arises or is deemed to arise have occurred in another Member State, that customs authority shall immediately and in any event within that time-limit send all the information available to the customs authority responsible for that place. The latter customs authority shall acknowledge receipt of the communication and indicate whether it is responsible for the recovery. If no response is received within 90 days, the sending customs authority shall immediately proceed with the recovery.
4.
Without prejudice to Article 87(4) of the Code, where the customs authority of the Member State in which it has been found that the customs debt has been incurred with respect to goods which were neither placed under a customs procedure nor under temporary storage, obtains, before the notification of the customs debt, evidence that the events from which the customs debt arises or is deemed to arise have occurred in another Member State, that customs authority shall immediately and in any event before that notification, send all the information available to the customs authority responsible for that place. The latter customs authority shall acknowledge receipt of the communication and indicate whether it is responsible for the recovery. If no response is received within 90 days, the sending customs authority shall immediately proceed with the recovery.
## Article 166 Customs Office Of Coordination Relating To Ata Carnets Or Cpd Carnets (Article 226(3)(C) Of The Code)
1.
The customs authorities shall designate a customs office of coordination responsible for any action concerning customs debts which are incurred through non-compliance with obligations or conditions relating to ATA carnets or CPD
carnets under Article 79 of the Code.
2.
Each Member State shall communicate to the Commission the customs office of coordination together with its reference number. The Commission shall make this information available on its website.
## Article 167 Recovery Of Other Charges Under The Union Transit Procedure And Transit In Accordance With The Tir Convention (Article 226(3)(A) And (B) Of The Code)
1.
Where the customs authorities who notified the customs debt and the obligation to pay other charges due in connection with the import or export of goods placed under the Union transit procedure or under the transit procedure in accordance with the TIR Convention obtain evidence regarding the place where the events giving rise to the customs debt and the obligation to pay other charges occurred, those customs authorities shall suspend the recovery procedure and immediately send all the necessary documents, including an authenticated copy of the evidence, to the authorities responsible for that place. The sending authorities shall simultaneously request confirmation of the responsibility of the receiving authorities for recovery of the other charges.
2.
The receiving authorities shall acknowledge receipt of the communication and shall indicate whether they are competent for recovery of the other charges. If no response is received within 28 days, the sending authorities shall immediately resume the recovery proceedings they initiated.
3.
Any pending proceedings for recovery of other charges initiated by the sending authorities shall be suspended as soon as the receiving authorities have acknowledged receipt of communication and indicated that they are competent of recovering the other charges.
As soon as the receiving authorities provide proof that they have recovered the sums in question, the sending authorities shall repay any other charges already recovered or cancel the recovery proceedings.
## Article 168 Notification Of Recovery Of Duties And Other Charges Under The Union Transit Procedure And Transit In Accordance With The Tir Convention (Article 226(3)(A) And (B) Of The Code)
Where a customs debt is incurred with respect to goods placed under the Union transit procedure or under the transit procedure in accordance with the TIR Convention, the customs authorities competent for recovery shall inform the customs office of departure of the recovery of duties and other charges.
## Articles 169 Recovery Of Other Charges For Goods Placed Under Transit In Accordance With The Ata Convention Or The Istanbul Convention (Article 226(3)(C) Of The Code)
1.
Where the customs authorities who notified the customs debt and the obligation to pay other charges for goods placed under transit in accordance with the ATA Convention/ or the Istanbul Convention obtain evidence regarding the place where the events giving rise to the customs debt and the obligation to pay other charges occurred, those customs authorities shall immediately send all the necessary documents, including an authenticated copy of the evidence, to the authorities competent for that place. The sending authorities shall simultaneously request confirmation of the responsi
bility of the receiving authorities for recovery of the other charges.
2.
The receiving authorities shall acknowledge receipt of the communication and shall indicate whether they are competent for recovery of the other charges. For those purposes, the receiving authorities shall use the model of discharge set out in Annex 33-05 indicating that claim proceedings have been initiated with respect to the guaranteeing association in the receiving Member State. If no response is received within 90 days, the sending authorities shall immediately resume the recovery proceedings they initiated.
3.
Where the receiving authorities are competent, they shall initiate new proceedings for recovery of other charges, where appropriate after the period referred to in paragraph 2, and they shall inform the sending authorities immediately.
The receiving authorities shall where necessary collect from the guaranteeing association with which they are connected the amount of duties and other charges due at the rates applicable in the Member State where those authorities are located.
4.
As soon as the receiving authorities indicate that they are competent for recovery of other charges, the sending authorities shall refund to the guaranteeing association with which they are connected any sums which that association may have deposited or provisionally paid.
5.
The proceedings shall be transferred within a period of 1 year from the date of expiry of the validity of the carnet unless that payment has become definitive pursuant to Article 7(2) or (3) of the ATA Convention or Article 9(1)(b) and
(c) of Annex A to the Istanbul Convention.
## Article 170 Recovery Of Other Charges For Goods Placed Under Temporary Admission In Accordance With The Ata Convention Or The Istanbul Convention (Article 226(3)(C) Of The Code)
In case of recovery of other charges for goods placed under temporary admission in accordance with the ATA
Convention or the Istanbul Convention, Article 169 shall apply *mutatis mutandis.*
## S U B S E C T I O N 2
N o t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e c u s t o m s d e b t a n d c l a i m f o r p a y m e n t f r o m g u a r a n t e e i n g a s s o c i a t i o n
## Article 171 Claim For Payment From A Guaranteeing Association Under The Procedure Of The Ata Convention And The Istanbul Convention
(Article 98 of the Code)
1.
Where the customs authorities establish that the customs debt has been incurred for goods covered by an ATA
carnet, they shall make a claim against the guaranteeing association without delay. The coordinating customs office making the claim referred to in Article 86 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 shall at the same time send to the coordinating customs office in the jurisdiction of which the customs office of placement under temporary admission is situated, an information memo on the claim for payment sent to the guaranteeing association. It shall use the form set out in Annex 33-03.
2.
The information memo shall be accompanied by a copy of the non-discharged voucher, if the coordinating customs office has it in its possession. The information memo may be used whenever this is deemed necessary.
3.
The taxation form as referred to in Article 86 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 may be sent later than the claim to the guaranteeing association is made, though not more than 3 months from the claim and in any event not more than 6 months from the date on which the customs authorities initiate the recovery proceedings. The taxation form is set out in Annex 33-04.
## S E C T I O N 2 R E P A Y M E N T A N D R E M I S S I O N Article 172 Application For Repayment Or Remission (Article 22(1) Of The Code)
Applications for repayment or remission shall be submitted by the person who has paid or is liable to pay the amount of import or export duty, or by any person who has succeeded him in his rights and obligations.
## Article 173 Presentation Of Goods As A Condition For Repayment Or Remission (Article 116(1) Of The Code)
Repayment or remission shall be subject to the presentation of the goods. Where the goods cannot be presented to the customs authorities, the customs authority competent to take the decision shall grant repayment or remission only where it has evidence showing that the goods in question are the goods in respect of which repayment or remission has been requested.
## Article 174 Restriction On The Transfer Of Goods (Article 116(1) Of The Code)
Without prejudice to Article 176(4) of this Regulation and until a decision has been taken on an application for repayment or remission, the goods in respect of which repayment or remission has been requested shall not be trans ferred to a location other than that specified in the application unless the applicant notifies in advance the customs authority referred to in Article 92(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, which shall inform the customs authority competent to take the decision.
## Article 175 Mutual Assistance Between The Customs Authorities (Articles 22 And 116(1) Of The Code)
1.
Where for the purposes of repayment or remission supplementary information must be obtained from the customs authority of a Member State other than that in which the customs debt has been notified or where the goods must be examined by that authority in order to ensure that the conditions for repayment or remission are fulfilled, the customs authority competent to take the decision shall request the assistance of the customs authority of the Member State where the goods are located, specifying the nature of the information to be obtained or the checks to be carried out.
The request for information shall be accompanied by the particulars of the application and all documents necessary to enable the customs authority of the Member State where the goods are located to obtain the information or carry out the checks requested.
2.
Where the customs authority competent to take the decision sends the request referred to in paragraph 1 by means other than electronic data-processing techniques in accordance with Article 93 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, it shall send to the customs authority of the Member State where the goods are located two copies of the request made out in writing using the form set out in Annex 33-06.
3.
The customs authority of the Member State where the goods are located shall comply promptly with the request referred to in paragraph 1.
The customs authority of the Member State where the goods are located shall obtain the information or carry out the checks requested by the customs authority competent to take the decision, within 30 days of the date of receipt of the request. It shall enter the results obtained in the relevant part of the original of the request referred to in paragraph 1 and shall return that document to the customs authority competent to take the decision together with all the documents referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1.
Where the customs authority of the Member State where the goods are located is unable to obtain the information or carry out the checks requested within the period laid down in the second subparagraph, it shall return the request, duly annotated, within 30 days of the date of receipt of the request.
## Article 176 Completion Of Customs Formalities (Article 116(1) Of The Code)
1.
Where repayment or remission is subject to the completion of customs formalities, the holder of the decision for repayment or remission shall inform the monitoring customs office that he has completed those formalities. Where the decision specifies that the goods may be exported or placed under a special procedure, and the debtor avails himself of that opportunity, the monitoring customs office shall be the customs office where the goods are placed under that procedure.
2.
The monitoring customs office shall notify the customs authority competent to take the decision of the completion of the customs formalities to which the repayment or remission is subject by means of a reply referred to in Article 95 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 using the form set out in Annex 33-07 of this Regulation.
3.
Where the customs authority competent to take the decision has decided that repayment or remission is justified, the amount of duty shall be repaid or remitted only after that customs authority has received the information referred to in paragraph 2.
4.
The customs authority competent to take the decision may authorise completion of the customs formalities to which any repayment or remission may be subject, before it takes a decision. Such authorisation shall be without prejudice to that decision. In these cases, paragraphs 1 to 3 shall be applicable *mutatis mutandis*.
5.
For the purposes of this article, monitoring customs office shall mean the customs office which ensures, where appropriate, that the formalities or requirements to which repayment or remission of the amount of import and export duty is subject, are fulfilled.
## Article 177 Formalities Related To The Decision On Repayment Or Remission (Article 116(2) Of The Code)
1.
When taking a decision on repayment or remission of the import or export duties subject to the prior completion of certain customs formalities, the customs authority shall set a time-limit, which shall not exceed 60 days from the date of the notification of that decision, for completion of those customs formalities.
2.
Failure to observe the time-limit referred to in paragraph 1 shall result in loss of entitlement to repayment or remission except where person concerned proves that he was prevented from meeting that time-limit due to unfore
seeable circumstances or force majeure.
## Article 178 Parts Or Components Of A Single Article (Article 116(1) Of The Code)
Where repayment or remission is subject to destruction, abandonment to the State or placement under a special procedure or the export procedure of goods, but the corresponding formalities are completed only for one or more parts or components of those goods, the amount to be repaid or remitted shall be the difference between the amount of import or export duty on the goods and the amount of import or export duty which would have been applicable on the remainder of the goods if they had been placed in an unaltered state under a customs procedure involving the incurrence of a customs debt, on the date on which the goods were so placed.
## Article 179 Waste And Scrap (Article 116(1) Of The Code)
Where destruction of goods authorised by the customs authority competent to take the decision produces waste or scrap, such waste or scrap shall be deemed to be non-Union goods once a decision granting repayment or remission has been taken.
## Article 180 Export Or Destruction Without Customs Supervision (Article 116(1) Of The Code)
1.
In cases covered by the second subparagraph of Article 116(1), Article 118 or in Article 120 of the Code, where export or destruction took place without customs supervision, repayment or remission on the basis of Article 120 of the Code shall be conditional on the following:
(a) the applicant submitting to the customs authority competent to take the decision evidence needed to establish
whether the goods in respect of which repayment or remission is requested fulfil one of the following conditions:
(a) the goods have been exported from the customs territory of the Union;
(b) the goods have been destroyed under the supervision of authorities or persons authorised by those authorities to
certify such destruction;
(b) the applicant returning to the customs authority competent to take the decision any document certifying or
containing information confirming the customs status of Union goods of the goods in question, under cover of which the said goods may have left the customs territory of the Union, or the presentation of whatever evidence the said authority considers necessary to satisfy itself that the document in question cannot be used subsequently in
connection with goods brought into the customs territory of the Union.
2.
The evidence establishing that the goods in respect of which repayment or remission is requested have been exported from the customs territory of the Union shall consist of the following documents:
(a) the certification of exit referred to in Article 334 of this Regulation;
(b) the original or a certified copy of the customs declaration for the procedure involving the incurrence of the customs
debt;
(c) where necessary, commercial or administrative documents containing a full description of the goods which were
presented with the customs declaration for the said procedure or with the customs declaration for export from the customs territory of the Union or with the customs declaration made for the goods in the third country of destination.
3.
The evidence establishing that the goods in respect of which repayment or remission is requested have been destroyed under the supervision of authorities or persons authorised to certify officially such destruction shall consist of either of the following documents:
(a) a report or declaration of destruction drawn up by the authorities under whose supervision the goods were destroyed,
or a certified copy thereof;
(b) a certificate drawn up by the person authorised to certify destruction, accompanied by evidence of his authority.
Those documents shall contain a full description of the destroyed goods to establish, by means of comparison with the particulars given in the customs declaration for a customs procedure involving the incurrence of the customs debt and the supporting documents, that the destroyed goods are those which had been placed under the said procedure.
4.
Where the evidence referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 is insufficient for the customs authority to take a decision on the case submitted to it, or where certain evidence is not available, such evidence may be supplemented or replaced by any other documents considered necessary by the said authority.
## Article 181 Information To Be Provided To The Commission (Article 121(4) Of The Code)
1.
Each Member State shall communicate to the Commission a list of the cases where repayment or remission has been granted on the basis of Article 119 or Article 120 of the Code and where the amount repaid or remitted to a certain debtor with respect to one or more import or export operations but as a result of a single error or special situation is more than EUR 50 000, except cases referred to in Article 116(3) of the Code.
2.
The communication shall be made during the first and third quarters of each year for all cases in which it was decided to repay or remit duties during the preceding half-year.
3.
Where a Member State has not taken any decision on cases referred to in paragraph 1 during the half-year in question, it shall send the Commission a communication with the entry 'Not applicable'.
4.
Each Member State shall hold at the disposal of the Commission a list of the cases where repayment or remission has been granted on the basis of Article 119 or Article 120 of the Code and where the amount repaid or remitted is equal to or less than EUR 50 000.
5.
For each of the cases referred to in this Article, the following information shall be provided:
(a) the reference number of the customs declaration or of the document notifying the debt;
(b) the date of the customs declaration or of the document notifying the debt;
(c) the type of the decision;
(d) the legal basis for the decision;
(e) the amount and currency;
## Title Iv Goods Brought Into The Customs Territory Of The Union
# Chapter 1
## Entry Summary Declaration Article 182 Electronic System Relating To Entry Summary Declarations (Article 16 Of The Code)
An electronic information and communication system set up pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Code shall be used for the submission, processing, storage and exchange of information relating to entry summary declarations, and for the subsequent exchanges of information provided for in this Chapter.
By derogation from the first paragraph of this Article, until the date of the upgrading of the system referred to therein in accordance with the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, Member States shall use the electronic system developed for the lodging and exchange of information relating to entry summary declarations in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.
## Article 183 Lodging Of An Entry Summary Declaration (Article 127(5) And (6) Of The Code)
1.
The particulars of the entry summary declaration may be provided by the submission of more than one dataset.
2.
For the purpose of lodging the entry summary declaration by the submission of more than one dataset, the customs office of first entry shall be the customs office according to the knowledge of the person concerned at the time of submitting the particulars, in particular based on the place to which the goods are consigned.
3.
Until the dates of the upgrading of the Import Control System referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision
2014/255/EU, paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall not apply.
## Article 184 Obligations To Inform Relating To The Provision Of Particulars Of The Entry Summary Declaration By Persons Other Than The Carrier (Article 127(6) Of The Code)
1.
In the cases referred to in Article 112(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, the carrier and any of the persons issuing a bill of lading shall, in the partial dataset of the entry summary declaration, provide the identity of any person who has concluded a transport contract with them, issued a bill of lading in respect of the same goods and does not make the particulars required for the entry summary declaration available to them.
Where the consignee indicated in the bill of lading that has no underlying bills of lading does not make the required particulars available to the person issuing the bill of lading, that person shall provide the identity of the consignee.
2.
In the cases referred to in Article 112(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, the person issuing the bill of lading shall inform of the issuance of that bill of lading the person who concluded a transport contract with him and issues the bill of lading to him.
In the case of a goods co-loading arrangement, the person issuing the bill of lading shall inform of the issuance of that bill of lading the person with whom he entered into that arrangement.
3.
In the cases referred to in Article 113(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, the carrier and any of the persons issuing an air waybill shall, in the partial dataset of the entry summary declaration, provide the identity of any person who has concluded a transport contract with them, issued an air waybill in respect of the same goods and does not make the particulars required for the entry summary declaration available to them.
4.
In the cases referred to in Article 113(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, the person issuing an air waybill shall inform of the issuance of that air waybill the person who concluded a transport contract with him and issues the air waybill to him.
In the case of a goods co-loading arrangement, the person issuing the airway bill shall inform of the issuance of that airway bill the person with whom he entered into that arrangement.
5.
In the cases referred to in Article 113(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, the carrier shall, in the partial dataset of the entry summary declaration, provide the identity of the postal operator who does not make the particulars required for the entry summary declaration available to him.
6.
Until the date of deployment of the upgrading of the Import Control System referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, paragraphs 1 to 5 shall not apply.
## Article 185 Registration Of The Entry Summary Declaration (Article 127(1) Of The Code)
1.
The customs authorities shall register the entry summary declaration upon its receipt and shall notify the person who has lodged it of its registration immediately and shall communicate a MRN of the entry summary declaration and the date of registration to that person.
2.
Where the particulars of the entry summary declaration are provided by submitting more than one dataset, the customs authorities shall register each of those submissions of particulars of the entry summary declaration upon receipt and shall immediately notify the person who has made those submissions of their registration and shall communicate a MRN of each submission and the date of registration for each submission to that person.
3.
The customs authorities shall immediately notify the carrier of the registration provided that the carrier has requested to be notified and has access to the electronic system referred to in Article 182 of this Regulation in any of the following cases:
(a) where the entry summary declaration is lodged by a person referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 127(4)
of the Code;
(b) where particulars of the entry summary declaration are provided in accordance with Article 127(6) of the Code.
4.
Until the dates of the upgrading of the Import Control System referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision
2014/255/EU, paragraph 2 and point b) of paragraph 3 shall not apply.
## Article 186 Risk Analysis (Articles 127(3) And 128 Of The Code)
1.
Risk analysis shall be carried out before the arrival of the goods at the customs office of first entry provided that the entry summary declaration has been lodged within the time-limits laid down in Articles 105 to 109 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, unless a risk is identified or an additional risk analysis needs to be carried out.
In the case of containerised cargo brought into the customs territory of the Union by sea as referred to in Article 105(a)
of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, the customs authorities shall complete the risk analysis within 24 hours of the receipt of the entry summary declaration or, in the cases referred to in Article 127(6) of the Code, of the particulars of the entry summary declaration submitted by the carrier.
In addition to the first subparagraph, in the case of goods brought into the customs territory of the Union by air, the risk analysis shall be carried out upon receipt of at least the minimum dataset of the entry summary declaration referred to in second subparagraph of Article 106(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
2.
The risk analysis shall be completed following, where necessary, the exchange of risk-related information and risk analysis results as referred to in Article 46(5) of the Code.
3.
Where the completion of the risk analysis requires further information on the particulars of the entry summary declaration that analysis shall only be completed after that information is provided.
For those purposes, the customs authorities shall request that information from the person who lodged the entry summary declaration or, where applicable, the person who submitted those particulars of the entry summary declaration.
Where that person is different from the carrier, the customs authorities shall inform the carrier, provided that the carrier has requested to be notified and has access to the electronic system referred to in Article 182 of this Regulation.
4.
Where, in the case of goods brought into the customs territory of the Union by air, where customs authorities have reasonable grounds to suspect that the consignment could pose a serious aviation security threat, they shall notify the person who lodged the entry summary declaration or, where applicable, the person who submitted the particulars of the entry summary declaration and, where that person is different from the carrier, inform the carrier, provided that the carrier has access to the electronic system referred to in Article 182 of this Regulation, that the consignment has to be screened as High Risk Cargo and Mail, in accordance with point 6.7.3. of the Annex to Commission Decision C(2010) 774 of 13 April 2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security containing information as referred to in Article 18(a) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 before being loaded on board an aircraft bound to the customs territory of the Union. Following the notification, that person shall inform the customs authorities of whether the consignment had already been screened or has been screened in accordance with the aforementioned requirements and provide all relevant information on that screening. The risk analysis shall only be completed after that information is provided.
5.
Where, in the case of containerised cargo brought into the customs territory of the Union by sea as referred to in Article 105(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 or in the case of goods brought into the customs territory of the Union by air, the risk analysis provides reasonable grounds for the customs authorities to consider that the entry of the goods into the customs territory of the Union would pose such a serious threat to security and safety that immediate action is required, the customs authorities shall notify the person who lodged the entry summary declaration or, where applicable, the person who submitted the particulars of the entry summary declaration and, where that person is different from the carrier, inform the carrier, provided that the carrier has access to the electronic system referred to in Article 182 of this Regulation, that the goods are not to be loaded. That notification shall be made and that information shall be provided immediately after the detection of the relevant risk and, in the case of containerised cargo brought into the customs territory of the Union by sea as referred to in Article 105(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, within the time-limit laid down in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1.
6.
Where a consignment has been identified as posing a threat of such nature that immediate action is required upon arrival, the customs office of first entry shall take that action upon arrival of the goods.
7.
Where a risk is identified that does not pose such a serious threat to security and safety that would require immediate action, the customs office of first entry shall pass on the results of the risk analysis including, where necessary, information about the most appropriate place where a control action should be carried out and the entry summary declaration data to all the customs offices potentially concerned by the movement of the goods.
8.
Where goods for which the obligation to lodge an entry summary declaration is waived in accordance with Article 104(1) (c) to (k), (m) and (n) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 and the first subparagraph of Article 104(2) of that Regulation, are brought into the customs territory of the Union, the risk analysis shall be carried out upon the presentation of the goods, where available on the basis of the temporary storage declaration or the customs declaration covering those goods.
9.
Goods presented to customs may be released for a customs procedure or re-exported as soon as the risk analysis has been carried out and the results of the risk analysis and, where required, the measures taken, allow such a release.
10.
Risk analysis shall also be carried out if the particulars of the entry summary declaration are amended in accordance with Article 129 of the Code. In that case the risk analysis shall be completed immediately upon receipt of the particulars unless a risk is identified or an additional risk analysis needs to be carried out.
## Article 187 Risk Analysis
2.
Risk analysis shall be carried out before the arrival of the goods at the customs office of first entry provided that the entry summary declaration has been lodged within the time-limits laid down in Articles 105 to 109 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 unless a risk is identified.
3.
In case of containerised cargo brought into the customs territory of the Union by sea as referred to in Article 105(a)
of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, the customs authorities shall complete the risk analysis within 24 hours of the receipt of the entry summary declaration. Where that analysis provides reasonable grounds for the customs authorities to consider that the entry of the goods into the customs territory of the Union would pose such a serious threat to security and safety that immediate action is required, the customs authorities shall notify the person who lodged the entry summary declaration, and, where that person is different from the carrier, inform the carrier provided that the carrier has access to the electronic system referred to in Article 182 of this Regulation, that the goods are not to be loaded. That notification shall be made and that information shall be provided immediately after the detection of the relevant risk and within 24 hours of receipt of the entry summary declaration.
4.
Where a vessel or aircraft is to call at more than one port or airport in the customs territory of the Union, provided that it moves between those ports without calling at any port or airport outside the customs territory of the Union the following applies:
(a) for all the goods carried by said vessel or aircraft, an entry summary declaration shall be lodged at the first Union
port or airport. The customs authorities at said port or airport of entry shall carry out the risk analysis for security and safety purposes for all the goods by the vessel or aircraft concerned. Additional risk analyses may be carried out
for those goods at the port or airport at which they are discharged;
(b) in the case of consignments identified as posing a threat of such a serious nature that immediate intervention is
required, the customs office of the first port or airport of entry in the Union shall take prohibitive action, and, in any
case, pass on the results of the risk analysis to the subsequent ports or airports; and
(c) at subsequent ports or airports in the customs territory of the Union, Article 145 of the Code shall apply for goods
presented to customs at that port or airport.
5.
Where goods for which the obligation to lodge entry summary declaration is waived in accordance with Article 104(1)(c) to (k), (m) and (n), (2) and (2a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 are brought into the customs territory of the Union, the risk analysis shall be carried out upon presentation of the goods where available on the basis of the temporary storage declaration or the customs declaration covering those goods.
## Article 188 Amendment Of An Entry Summary Declaration (Article 129(1) Of The Code)
1.
Where the particulars of the entry summary declaration are submitted by different persons, each person may only be permitted to amend the particulars that that person submitted.
2.
The customs authorities shall immediately notify the person who lodged amendments to the particulars of the entry summary declaration of their decision to register or reject the amendments.
Where the amendments to the particulars of the entry summary declaration are lodged by a person different from the carrier, the customs authorities shall also notify the carrier, provided that the carrier has requested to be notified and has access to the electronic system referred to in Article 182 of this Regulation.
Until the dates of the upgrading of the Import Control System referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision
# Chapter 2 Arrival Of Goods S E C T I O N 1
E n t r y o f g o o d s i n t o t h e c u s t o m s t e r r i t o r y o f t h e U n i o n Article 189
## Diversion Of A Sea-Going Vessel Or Aircraft (Article 133 Of The Code)
1.
Where a sea-going vessel or an aircraft entering the customs territory of the Union is diverted and is expected to arrive first at a customs office located in a Member State that was not indicated in the entry summary declaration as a country of routing, the operator of that means of transport shall inform the customs office indicated in the entry summary declaration as the customs office of first entry of that diversion.
The first subparagraph shall not apply where goods have been brought into the customs territory of the Union under a transit procedure in accordance with Article 141 of the Code.
2.
The customs office indicated in the entry summary declaration as the customs office of first entry shall immediately after being informed in accordance with paragraph 1 notify the customs office which according to that information is the customs office of first entry of the diversion. It shall ensure the availability of the relevant particulars of the entry summary declaration and of the results of the risk analysis to the customs office of first entry.
## S E C T I O N 2 P R E S E N T A T I O N , U N L O A D I N G A N D E X A M I N A T I O N O F G O O D S Article 190 Presentation Of Goods To Customs
(Article 139 of the Code)
Customs authorities may accept use of port or airport systems or other available methods of information for the presentation of goods to customs.
## S E C T I O N 3 T E M P O R A R Y S T O R A G E O F G O O D S Article 191 Consultation Procedure Between Customs Authorities Prior To Authorising Temporary Storage Facilities (Article 22 Of The Code)
1.
The consultation procedure referred to in Article 14 of this Regulation shall be followed in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article before a decision is taken to authorise the operation of temporary storage facilities involving more than one Member State unless the customs authority competent to take the decision is of the opinion that the conditions for granting such an authorisation are not fulfilled.
Before issuing an authorisation the customs authority competent to take the decision shall obtain the agreement of the consulted customs authorities.
Where objections are communicated within that period and no agreement is reached among the consulted and consulting authorities within 60 days after the date on which the draft authorisation was communicated, the authorisation shall only be granted for the part of the application that has not given rise to objections.
If the consulted customs authorities do not communicate any objections within the time-limit, their agreement shall be deemed to be given.
## Article 192 Temporary Storage Declaration
Where a customs declaration is lodged prior to the expected presentation of the goods to customs in accordance with Article 171 of the Code, the customs authorities may consider that declaration as a temporary storage declaration.
## Article 193 Movement Of Goods In Temporary Storage (Article 148(5) Of The Code)
1.
Where the movement takes place between temporary storage facilities under the responsibility of different customs authorities the holder of the authorisation for the operation of the temporary storage facilities from which the goods are moved shall inform:
(a) the customs authority responsible for supervising the temporary storage facility from which the goods are moved of
the intended movement in the manner stipulated in the authorisation and, upon arrival of the goods at the temporary
storage facilities of destination, about the completion of the movement in the manner stipulated in the authorisation;
(b) the holder of the authorisation for the facilities to which the goods are moved that the goods have been dispatched.
2.
Where the movement takes place between temporary storage facilities under the responsibility of different customs authorities, the holder of the authorisation for the facilities to which the goods are moved shall:
(a) notify the customs authorities responsible for those facilities of the arrival of the goods; and
(b) upon arrival of the goods at the temporary storage facilities of destination, inform the holder of the authorisation of
the temporary storage facilities of departure.
3.
The information referred to in paragraph 1 and 2 shall include a reference to the relevant temporary storage declaration and to the end date of temporary storage.
4.
Where a movement of goods in temporary storage takes place, the goods shall remain under the responsibility of the holder of the authorisation for the operation of temporary storage facilities from which the goods are moved until the goods are entered in the records of the holder of the authorisation for the temporary storage facilities to which the goods are moved unless otherwise provided in the authorisation.
## Title V General Rules On Customs Status, Placing Goods Under A Customs Procedure, Verification, Release And Disposal Of Goods Chapter 1 Customs Status Of Goods Article 194 Electronic System Relating To The Proof Of The Customs Status Of Union Goods (Article 16(1) Of The Code)
For the exchange and storage of information relating to the proof of the customs status of Union goods, provided for in Article 199(1)(b) and (c) of this Regulation, an electronic system set up pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Code shall be used. An EU harmonised trader interface designed by the Commission and the Member States in agreement with each other shall be used for the exchange of information relating to the proof of the customs status of Union goods.
The first paragraph of this Article shall be applicable from the date of deployment of the UCC Proof of Union Status system referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU.
## S E C T I O N 1 R E G U L A R S H I P P I N G S E R V I C E Article 195 Consultation Of The Member States Concerned By The Regular Shipping Service (Article 22 Of The Code)
Before granting an authorisation referred to in Article 120 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, after having examined whether the conditions laid down in Article 120(2) of that Delegated Regulation for the authorisation are met, the customs authority competent to take the decision shall consult the customs authorities of the Member States concerned by the regular shipping service for the purpose of Article 119(2)(b) of that Delegated Regulation as well as the customs authorities of any other Member States for which the applicant declares to have plans for future regular shipping services, on the fulfilment of the condition of Article 120(2)(b) of that Delegated Regulation.
The time-limit for the consultation shall be 15 days from the date of communication by the customs authority competent to take the decision of the conditions and criteria which need to be examined by the consulted customs authorities.
## Article 196 Registration Of Vessels And Ports (Article 22 Of The Code)
By way of derogation from the time-limit laid down in the first paragraph of Article 10 of this Regulation, a customs authority shall make the information communicated to it in accordance with Article 121(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 available through the system referred to in Article 10 within 1 working day of the communication of that information.
Until the date of deployment of the UCC Customs Decision system referred to in the Annex to the Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, the information referred to in the first paragraph is to be made available through the electronic regular shipping services information and communication system.
That information shall be accessible to the customs authorities concerned by the authorised regular shipping service.
## Article 197 Unforeseen Circumstances During The Transport By Regular Shipping Services (Article 155(2) Of The Code)
Where a vessel registered to a regular shipping service, as a result of unforeseen circumstances, tranships goods at sea, calls at or loads or unloads goods in a port outside the customs territory of the Union, in a port that is not part of the regular shipping service or in a free zone of a Union port, the shipping company shall inform the customs authorities of the subsequent Union ports of call, including those along the scheduled route of that vessel, without delay.
The date the vessel resumes its operation in the regular shipping service shall be communicated to those customs authorities in advance.
## Article 198 Verification Of Conditions For Regular Shipping Services (Article 153 Of The Code)
2.
Where a customs authority establishes that the provisions referred to in paragraph 1 have not been observed by the shipping company, the authority shall immediately inform the customs authorities of the other Member States in which the regular shipping service is operated, using the system referred to in Article 10 of this Regulation. Those authorities shall take the measures required.
Until the UCC Customs Decision system referred to in the Annex to the Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU is deployed, the electronic regular shipping services information and communication system shall be used instead of the system referred to in Article 10 of this Regulation.
# S E C T I O N 2 P R O O F O F C U S T O M S S T A T U S O F U N I O N G O O D S S U B S E C T I O N 1 G E N E R A L P R O V I S I O N S
## Article 199 Means Of Proof Of The Customs Status Of Union Goods (Article 153(2) Of The Code)
1.
Any of the following means, as applicable, shall be used to prove that the goods have the customs status of Union goods:
(a) the transit declaration data of goods placed under internal transit. In that case Article 119(3) of Delegated Regulation
(EU) 2015/2446 does not apply;
(b) T2L or T2LF data referred to in Article 205 of this Regulation;
(c) the customs goods manifest referred to in Article 206 of this Regulation;
(d) the invoice or transport document referred to in Article 211 of this Regulation;
(e) the fishing logbook, landing declaration, transhipment declaration and vessel monitoring system data, as appropriate,
referred to in Article 213 of this Regulation;
(f) a means of proof referred to in Articles 207 to 210 of this Regulation;
(g) the excise declaration data referred to in Article 34 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (
1
);
(h) the label referred to in Article 290 of this Regulation.
2.
By derogation from paragraph 1 of this Article, until the date of deployment of the UCC Proof of Union Status system referred to in the Annex to the Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, the proof of the customs status of Union goods may be provided in the form of the shipping company's manifest relating to those goods.
3.
By derogation from paragraph 1(d) of this Article, until the date of deployment of the UCC Proof of Union Status system referred to in the Annex to the Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, the proof of the customs status of Union goods may be provided in the form of an invoice or transport document relating to goods the value of which exceeds EUR 15 000.
4.
Where the means of proof referred to in paragraph 1 is used for goods with the customs status of Union goods with a packaging not having the customs status of Union goods, that means of proof shall include the following indication:
'N packaging - [code 98200]'
5.
Where the means of proof referred to in paragraph 1(b), (c) and (d) is issued retrospectively, it shall include the following indication:
'Issued retrospectively - [code 98201]'
6.
The means of proof referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be used in respect of goods for which the export formalities have been completed or which have been placed under the outward processing procedure.
## Article 200 Endorsement, Registration And Use Of Certain Means Of Proof Of The Customs Status Of Union Goods (Article 153(2) Of The Code)
1.
The competent customs office shall endorse and register the means of proof of the customs status of Union goods referred to in Article 199(1)(b) and (c) of this Regulation, except for cases referred to in Article 128(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, and communicate the MRN of those means of proof to the person concerned.
2.
A document confirming the registration of the means of proof referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made available at the request of the person concerned by the competent customs office. It shall be provided using the form set out in Annex 51-01.
3.
The means of proof referred to in paragraph 1 shall be presented to the competent customs office where the goods are presented after re-entering the customs territory of the Union, by indicating its MRN.
4.
That competent customs office shall monitor the use of the means of proof referred to in paragraph 1 with a view to ensure in particular that the means of proof is not used for goods other than those for which it is issued.
## Article 201 Endorsement Of An Invoice (Article 153(2) Of The Code)
Until the date of deployment of the UCC Proof of Union Status system referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, where the total value of the Union goods exceeds EUR 15 000 the invoice or transport document referred to in Article 199(3) of this Regulation, duly completed and signed by the person concerned, shall be endorsed by the competent customs office.
## Article 202 Endorsement Of T2L Or T2Lf Documents (Article 153(2) Of The Code)
Until the date of deployment of the UCC Proof of Union Status system referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, where Member States have provided that means other than electronic data processing techniques may be used, the competent customs office shall endorse the T2L or T2LF documents and, where necessary, any continuation sheets or loading lists used.
## Article 203 Endorsement Of The Shipping Company'S Manifest (Article 153(2) Of The Code)
Until the date of deployment of the UCC Proof of Union Status system referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, at the request of the shipping company, the manifest it has duly completed and signed shall be endorsed by the competent customs office.
## Article 204 Authorisation 'Day-After' Manifest (Article 153(2) Of The Code)
Until the date of deployment of the UCC Proof of Union Status system referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, the customs authorities may authorise the manifest referred to in Article 199(2) serving to demonstrate the customs status of Union goods to be drawn up the day after the departure of the vessel, at the latest. However, the manifest shall always be drawn up before the arrival of the vessel at the port of destination.
## Article 205 Proof Of The Customs Status Of Union Goods In The Form Of T2L Or T2Lf Data (Article 153(2) Of The Code)
1.
Where the MRN is indicated to prove the customs status as Union goods, the T2L or T2LF data serving as the basis for the MRN may only be used for the first presentation of the goods.
Where the T2L or T2LF is used only for a part of the goods upon their first presentation, a new proof shall be established for the remaining part of the goods in accordance with Article 200 of this Regulation and Article 123 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
2.
Travellers, other than economic operators, shall lodge their requests for endorsement of a T2L or T2LF using the form set out in Annex 51-01.
## Article 206 Proof Of The Customs Status Of Union Goods In The Form Of A Customs Goods Manifest (Article 153(2) Of The Code)
1.
Each customs goods manifest shall be attributed one MRN.
Such a manifest may only be attributed a MRN where it coversgoods having the customs status of Union goods loaded on the vessel in a Union port.
2.
Customs authorities may accept that commercial, port or transport information systems are used for submission of the request for endorsement and registration of the customs goods manifest and for its presentation at the competent customs office, provided that such systems contain all the information required for such manifest.
## Article 207 Proof Of The Customs Status Of Union Goods In Tir Or Ata Carnets Or Forms 302 (Article 153(2) Of The Code)
1.
In accordance with Article 127 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, Union goods shall be identified in the TIR
or ATA carnet or in the form 302 by the code 'T2L' or 'T2LF'. The holder of the procedure may include one of those codes, as appropriate, accompanied by his signature in the relevant documents in the space reserved for the description of goods before presenting it to the customs office of departure for authentication. The appropriate code 'T2L' or 'T2LF' shall be authenticated with the stamp of the customs office of departure accompanied by the signature of the competent official.
In case of an electronic form 302 the holder of the procedure may also include one of these codes in the form 302 data.
In that case, the authentication by the office of departure shall be done in electronic form.
2.
When the TIR carnet, the ATA carnet or the form 302 covers both Union goods and non-Union goods, they shall be listed separately and the code 'T2L' or 'T2LF', as appropriate, shall be entered in such a way that it clearly relates only to Union goods.
## Article 208 Proof Of The Customs Status Of Union Goods For Motorised Road Vehicles (Article 153(2) Of The Code)
1.
In case of motorised road vehicles registered in a Member State which have temporarily left and re-entered the customs territory of the Union the customs status of Union goods shall be considered proven where they are accom panied by their registration plates and registration documents and the registration particulars shown on those plates and documents unambiguously indicate that registration.
2.
Where the customs status of Union goods cannot be considered proven in accordance with paragraph 1, the proof of the customs status of Union goods shall be provided by one of the other means listed in Article 199 of this Regulation.
## Article 209 Proof Of The Customs Status Of Union Goods For Packaging (Article 153(2) Of The Code)
1.
In case of packaging, pallets and other similar equipment, excluding containers, belonging to a person established in the customs territory of the Union which are used for the transport of goods that have temporarily left and re-entered the customs territory of the Union, the customs status of Union goods shall be considered proven where the packaging, pallets and other similar equipment can be identified as belonging to that person, they are declared as having the customs status of Union goods and there is no doubt as to the veracity of the declaration.
2.
Where the customs status of Union goods cannot be considered proven in accordance with paragraph 1, the proof of the customs status of Union goods shall be provided by one of the other means listed in Article 199 of this Regulation.
## Article 210 Proof Of The Customs Status Of Union Goods For Goods In Baggage Carried By A Passenger (Article 153(2) Of The Code)
In case of goods in baggage carried by a passenger which are not intended for commercial use and have temporarily left and re-entered the customs territory of the Union the customs status of Union goods shall be considered to be proven where the passenger declares that they have the customs status of Union goods and there is no doubt as to the veracity of the declaration.
## Article 211 Proof Of The Customs Status Of Union Goods For Goods The Value Of Which Does Not Exceed Eur 15 000 (Article 153(2) Of The Code)
In case of goods having the customs status of Union goods the value of which does not exceed EUR 15 000, the customs status of Union goods may be proven by the production of the invoice or transport document relating to those goods provided that it relates only to goods having the customs status of Union goods.
## Article 212 Verification Of Means Of Proof And Administrative Assistance (Article 153(2) Of The Code)
The customs authorities of the Member States shall assist one another in checking the authenticity and accuracy of the means of proof referred to in Article 199 of this Regulation and in verifying that the information and documents provided in accordance with the provisions of this Title and Articles 123 to 133 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 are correct and that the procedures used to prove the customs status of Union goods have been correctly applied.
# S U B S E C T I O N 2
S p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g p r o d u c t s o f s e a - f i s h i n g a n d g o o d s o b t a i n e d f r o m s u c h p r o d u c t s
## Article 213 Proof Of The Customs Status Of Union Goods For Products Of Sea-Fishing And Goods Obtained From Such Products (Article 153(2) Of The Code)
Where products and goods referred to in Article 119(1)(d) and (e) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 are brought into the customs territory of the Union in accordance with Article 129 of that Delegated Regulation, the customs status of Union goods shall be proven by the production of a fishing logbook, a landing declaration, transhipment declaration and vessel monitoring system data, as appropriate, as required in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 (
1
).
However, the customs authority which is responsible for the Union port of unloading to which those products and goods are directly transported by the Union fishing vessel which caught the products and, where applicable, processed them, may consider the customs status of Union goods to be proven in either of the following cases:
(a) there is no doubt about the status of those products and/or goods;
(b) the fishing vessel has an overall length of less than 10 metres.
## Article 214 Products Of Sea-Fishing And Goods Obtained From Such Products Transhipped And Transported Through A Country Or Territory Which Is Not Part Of The Customs Territory Of The Union (Article 153(2) Of The Code)
1.
Where, before arriving to the customs territory of the Union, the products or goods referred to in Article 119(1)(d)
and (e) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 have been transhipped and transported through a country or territory which is not part of the customs territory of the Union, a certification by the customs authority of that country that the products or goods were under customs supervision while in that country and have undergone no handling other than that necessary for their preservation shall be presented for those products and goods on their entry into the customs territory of the Union.
2.
The certification for products and goods transhipped and transported through a third country shall be made on a printout of the fishing logbook referred to in Article 133 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, accompanied by a printout of the transhipment declaration, as appropriate.
## Article 215 Proof Of The Customs Status Of Union Goods For Products Of Sea-Fishing And Other Products Taken Or Caught By Vessels Flying The Flag Of A Third Country Within The Customs Territory Of The Union (Article 153(2) Of The Code)
The proof of the customs status of Union goods for products of sea-fishing and other products taken or caught by vessels flying the flag of a third country within the customs territory of the Union shall be provided by means of the fishing logbook or any other means referred to in Article 199 of this Regulation.
# Chapter 2 Placing Goods Under A Customs Procedure S E C T I O N 1 G E N E R A L P R O V I S I O N S Article 216 Electronic System Relating To Placing Goods Under A Customs Procedure
## (Article 16(1) Of The Code)
For the processing and exchange of information relating to the placing of goods under a customs procedure, electronic systems set up pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Code shall be used.
The first paragraph of this Article shall be applicable from the respective dates of the upgrading of the national import Systems, the deployment of the UCC Special Procedures and UCC AES referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU.
## Article 217 Issuing Of Receipt For Oral Declarations (Article 158(2) Of The Code)
Where a customs declaration is made orally in accordance with Articles 135 or 137 of Delegated Regulation (EU)
2015/2446 for goods which are subject to import or export duty or other charges, the customs authorities shall issue a receipt to the person concerned against payment of the amount due for that duty or those charges.
The receipt shall include at least the following information:
(a) a description of the goods which is sufficiently precise to enable the goods to be identified;
(b) the invoice value or, where it is not available, the quantity of the goods;
(c) the amounts of duty and other charges collected;
(d) the date on which it was issued;
(e) the name of the authority which issued it.
## Article 218 Customs Formalities Deemed To Have Been Carried Out By An Act Referred To In Article 141(1) Of Delegated Regulation (Eu) 2015/2446 (Articles 6(3)(A) And 158(2) Of The Code)
For the purposes of Articles 138, 139 and 140 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, the following customs formalities shall be deemed to have been carried out by an act referred to in Article 141(1) of that Delegated Regulation:
(a) the conveying of the goods in accordance with Article 135 of the Code and the presenting of the goods to customs
in accordance with Article 139 of the Code;
(b) the presenting of the goods to customs in accordance with Article 267 of the Code;
(c) the acceptance of the customs declaration by the customs authorities in accordance with Article 172 of the Code;
(d) the release of the goods by the customs authorities in accordance with Article 194 of the Code.
## Article 219 Cases Where A Customs Declaration Is Not Considered To Have Been Lodged By An Act Referred To In Article 141 Of Delegated Regulation (Eu) 2015/2446
(Articles 6(3)(a) and 158(2) of the Code)
Where a check reveals that an act referred to in Article 141 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 has been carried out but the goods brought into or taken out are not goods as referred to in Articles 138, 139 and 140 of that Delegated Regulation, the customs declaration for those goods shall be considered not to have been lodged.
## Article 220 Goods In A Postal Consignment (Articles 172 And 188 Of The Code)
1.
The customs declaration for goods referred to in Article 141(2), (3) and (4) of Delegated Regulation (EU)
2015/2446 shall be considered to have been accepted and the goods released at the following points in time:
(a) where the customs declaration concerns release for free circulation, when the goods are delivered to the consignee;
(b) where the customs declaration concerns export and re-export, when the goods are taken out of the customs territory
of the Union.
2.
Where the customs declaration concerns release for free circulation, and it has not been possible to deliver to the consignee the goods referred to in Article 141(2) and (3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, the customs declaration shall be deemed not to have been lodged.
The goods which have not been delivered to the consignee shall be deemed to be in temporary storage until they are destroyed, re-exported or otherwise disposed in accordance with Article 198 of the Code.
## Article 221 Competent Customs Office For Placing Goods Under A Customs Procedure (Article 159 Of The Code)
1.
For the purposes of the waiver of the obligation for goods to be presented In accordance with Article 182(3) of the Code, the supervising customs office referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 182(3)(c) of the Code shall be the competent customs office for placing goods under a customs procedure referred to in Article 159(3) of the Code.
2.
The following customs offices shall be competent for placing the goods under the export procedure:
(a) the customs office responsible for the place where the exporter is established;
(b) the customs office competent for the place where the goods are packed or loaded for export shipment;
(c) a different customs office in the Member State concerned which is competent for administrative reasons for the
operation in question.
Where the goods do not exceed EUR 3 000 in value per consignment and per declarant and are not subject to prohibitions or restrictions, the customs office competent for the place of exit of the goods from the Union customs territory shall also be competent for placing the goods under the export procedure in addition to the customs offices identified in the first subparagraph.
Where sub-contracting is involved, the customs office responsible for the place where the sub-contractor is established shall also be competent for placing the goods under the export procedure in addition to the customs offices identified in the first and second subparagraphs.
Where justified by the circumstances of an individual case, another customs office better placed for the presentation of the goods to customs shall also be competent for placing the goods under the export procedure.
3.
Oral customs declarations for export and re-export shall be made at the customs office competent for the place of exit of the goods.
## Article 222 Items Of Goods (Article 162 Of The Code)
1.
Where a customs declaration covers two or more items of goods, the particulars stated in that declaration relating to each item shall be regarded as constituting a separate customs declaration.
2.
Except where specific goods contained in a consignment are subject to different measures, goods contained in a consignment shall be regarded as constituting a single item for the purposes of paragraph 1 where either of the following conditions is fulfilled:
(a) they are to be classified under a single tariff subheading;
(b) they are the subject of an application for simplification in accordance with Article 177 of the Code.
## S E C T I O N 2 S I M P L I F I E D C U S T O M S D E C L A R A T I O N S Article 223 Management Of Tariff Quota In Simplified Customs Declarations (Article 166 Of The Code)
1.
Where a simplified declaration is lodged for release for free circulation of goods subject to a tariff quota managed in accordance with the chronological order of dates of acceptance of customs declarations, the declarant may request the granting of the tariff quota only when the necessary particulars are available either in the simplified declaration or in a supplementary declaration.
2.
Where the request for the granting of a tariff quota managed in accordance with the chronological order of dates of acceptance of customs declarations is made in a supplementary declaration, the request may not be processed until the supplementary declaration has been lodged.
3.
For the purposes of allocating the tariff quota the date of acceptance of the simplified declaration shall be taken into account.
## Article 224 Supporting Documents For Simplified Declarations (Article 166 Of The Code)
Where goods have been placed under a customs procedure on the basis of a simplified declaration, the supporting documents referred to in Article 163(2) of the Code shall be provided to the customs authorities before release of the goods.
## Article 225 Supplementary Declaration (Article 167(4) Of The Code)
In the case of entry in the declarant's records pursuant to Article 182 of the Code, where the supplementary declaration is of a general, periodic or recapitulative nature and the economic operator is authorised under self-assessment to calculate the amount of import and export duty payable, that authorisation holder shall either lodge the supplementary declaration or the customs authorities may allow the supplementary declarations to be available through direct electronic access in the authorisation holder's system.
# S E C T I O N 3 P R O V I S I O N S A P P L Y I N G T O A L L C U S T O M S D E C L A R A T I O N S Article 226 Master Reference Number
## (Article 172 Of The Code)
Except for the cases where customs declaration is lodged orally or by an act deemed to be a customs declaration, or where the customs declaration takes the form of an entry in the declarant's records in accordance with Article 182 of the Code, the customs authorities, shall notify the declarant of the acceptance of the customs declaration and shall provide him with a MRN for that declaration and the date of its acceptance.
This article shall not apply until the respective dates of deployment of the AES, NCTS and the upgrading of the national import systems referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU are operational.
## Article 227 Customs Declaration Lodged Prior To The Presentation Of The Goods
Where the customs declaration is lodged in accordance with Article 171 of the Code, customs authorities shall process the particulars provided before the presentation of the goods in particular for the purposes of risk analysis.
## S E C T I O N 4 O T H E R S I M P L I F I C A T I O N S S U B S E C T I O N 1 G O O D S F A L L I N G U N D E R D I F F E R E N T T A R I F F S U B - H E A D I N G S Article 228 Goods Falling Under Different Tariff Subheadings Declared Under A Single Subheading (Article 177(1) Of The Code)
1.
For the purposes of Article 177 of the Code, where the goods in a consignment fall within tariff subheadings subject to a specific duty expressed by reference to the same unit of measure, the duty to be charged on the whole consignment shall be based on the tariff subheading subject to the highest specific duty.
2.
For the purposes of Article 177 of the Code, where the goods in a consignment fall within tariff subheadings subject to a specific duty expressed by reference to different units of measure, the highest specific duty for each unit of measure shall be applied to all of the goods in the consignment for which the specific duty is expressed by reference to that unit, and converted into an *ad valorem* duty for each type of those goods.
The duty to be charged on the whole consignment shall be based on the tariff subheading subject to the highest rate of the *ad valorem* duty resulting from the conversion pursuant to the first subparagraph.
3.
For the purposes of Article 177 of the Code, where the goods in a consignment fall within tariff subheadings subject to an *ad valorem* duty and a specific duty, the highest specific duty as determined in accordance with paragraphs 1
or 2 shall be converted into an *ad valorem* duty for each type of goods for which the specific duty is expressed by reference to the same unit.
The duty to be charged on the whole consignment shall be based on the tariff subheading subject to the highest rate of ad valorem duty, including the *ad valorem* duty resulting from the conversion pursuant to the first subparagraph.
## S U B S E C T I O N 2
# C E N T R A L I S E D C L E A R A N C E
## Article 229 Consultation Procedure Between Customs Authorities In The Case Of Authorisations For Centralised Clearance (Article 22 Of The Code)
1.
The consultation procedure referred to in Article 15 shall be followed where a customs authority receives an application for an authorisation for centralised clearance referred to in Article 179 of the Code involving more than one customs authority, unless the customs authority competent to take a decision is of the opinion that the conditions for granting such an authorisation are not fulfilled.
2.
At the latest 45 days after the date of acceptance of the application, the customs authority competent to take a decision shall communicate the following to the other customs authorities involved:
(a) the application and the draft authorisation, including the time-limits referred to in Article 231(5) and (6) of this
Regulation;
(b) where appropriate, a control plan, elaborating the specific controls to be carried out by the different customs
authorities involved once the authorisation is granted;
(c) other relevant information considered necessary by the customs authorities involved.
3.
The consulted customs authorities shall communicate their agreement or objections as well as any changes to the draft authorisation or to the proposed control plan within 45 days of the date on which the draft authorisation was communicated. Objections shall be duly justified.
Where objections are communicated, and no agreement is reached within 90 days of the date on which the draft authorisation was communicated, the authorisation shall not be granted for the parts on which objections were raised. Where the consulted customs authorities do not communicate objections within the prescribed time-limit, their agreement shall be deemed to be given.
4.
Until the respective dates of deployment of the CCI and the AES referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision
2014/255/EU, by derogation from paragraphs 2 and the first subparagraph of paragraph 3 of this Article, the periods referred to therein may be extended by 15 days by the customs authority competent to take this decision.
By derogation from the second subparagraph of paragraph 3 of this Article, the period referred to therein may be extended by 30 days by the customs authority competent to take this decision.
5 Until the date of deployment of the UCC Customs Decisions system referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision
2014/255/EU, by derogation from point b of paragraph 2 of this Article, the control plan referred to therein shall always be communicated.
## Article 230 Monitoring Of The Authorisation (Article 23(5) Of The Code)
1.
The customs authorities of the Member States shall inform the customs authority competent to take a decision without delay of any factors arising after the granting of the authorisation for centralised clearance which may influence its continuation or content.
2.
The customs authority competent to take a decision shall make available all relevant information at its disposal to the customs authorities of the other Member States regarding the customs-related activities of the authorised economic operator benefitting from centralised clearance.
## Article 231 Customs Formalities And Controls In Respect Of Centralised Clearance (Article 179(4) Of The Code)
1.
The holder of the authorisation for centralised clearance shall have the goods presented at a competent customs office as set out in that authorisation by lodging at the supervising customs office any of the following:
(a) a standard customs declaration as referred to in Article 162 of the Code;
(b) a simplified customs declaration as referred to in Article 166 of the Code;
(c) a notification of presentation as referred to in Article 234(1)(a) of this Regulation.
2.
Where the customs declaration takes the form of an entry in the declarant's records, Articles 234, 235 and 236 of this Regulation shall apply.
3.
The presentation waiver granted in accordance with Article 182(3) of the Code shall apply to centralised clearance provided that the holder of the authorisation to lodge a customs declaration in the form of an entry in the declarant's records has fulfilled the obligation laid down in Article 234(1)(f) of this Regulation.
4.
Where the supervising customs office has accepted the customs declaration or received the notification referred to in paragraph 1(c), it shall:
(a) carry out the appropriate controls for the verification of the customs declaration or notification of presentation;
(b) transmit immediately to the customs office of presentation the customs declaration or the notification and the results
of the related risk analysis;
(c) inform the customs office of presentation of either of the following:
(i) that the goods may be released for the customs procedure concerned;
(ii) that customs controls are required in accordance with Article 179(3)(c) of the Code.
5.
Where the supervising customs office informs the customs office of presentation that the goods may be released for the customs procedure concerned, the customs office of presentation shall, within the time-limit laid down in the authorisation for centralised clearance, inform the supervising customs office whether or not its own controls of those goods, including controls related to national prohibitions and restrictions, affect such release.
6.
Where the supervising customs office informs the customs office of presentation that customs controls are required in accordance with Article 179(3)(c) of the Code , the customs office of presentation shall, within the time-limit laid down in the authorisation for centralised clearance, acknowledge receipt of the request of the supervising customs office to carry out the required controls and, where appropriate, inform the supervising customs office of its own controls of the goods, including controls related to national prohibitions and restrictions.
7.
The supervising customs office shall inform the customs office of presentation of the release of the goods.
8.
At export, the supervising customs office shall, upon release of the goods, make the particulars of the export declaration, supplemented as appropriate in accordance with Article 330 of this Regulation, available to the declared customs office of exit. The customs office of exit shall inform the supervising customs office of the exit of the goods in accordance with Article 333 of this Regulation. The supervising customs office shall certify the exit to the declarant in accordance with Article 334 of this Regulation.
9.
By way of derogation from paragraph 1 of this Article, until the respective dates of deployment of the CCI and the AES referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, for goods covered by an authorisation for centralised clearance, the authorisation holder or the declarant shall:
(a) present the goods at the places set out in the authorisation and designated or approved by the customs authorities in
accordance with Article 139 of the Code, except where the obligation for the goods to be presented is waived in
accordance with Article 182(3) of the Code; and
(b) lodge a customs declaration or enter the goods in its records at the customs office specified in the authorisation.
10.
Until the respective dates of deployment of the CCI and the AES referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, the competent customs authorities shall apply the control plan which shall specify a minimum level of controls.
11.
By derogation from paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Article, until the respective dates of deployment of the CCI and the AES referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, the customs offices where the goods are presented may carry out further controls than those specified in the control plan on request of the supervising customs office or on their own initiative, with the results being reported to the supervising office.
## Article 232 Centralised Clearance Involving More Than One Customs Authority (Article 179 Of The Code)
1.
The supervising customs office shall transmit the following to the customs office of presentation:
(a) any amendment to or invalidation of the standard customs declaration that has occurred after the release of the
goods;
(b) where a supplementary declaration has been lodged, that declaration and any amendment or invalidation thereof.
2.
Where the supplementary declaration is accessible to customs in the trader's IT System in accordance with Article 225 of this Regulation, the supervising customs office shall transmit the particulars no later than 10 days from the end of the period of time covered by the supplementary declaration, and any amendment or invalidation of that extracted supplementary declaration.
S u b s e c t i o n 3
E n t r y i n t h e d e c l a r a n t ' s r e c o r d s
## Article 233 Control Plan (Article 23(5) Of The Code)
1.
The customs authorities shall set up a control plan specific to the economic operator when granting an author
isation to lodge a customs declaration in the form of an entry in the declarant's records in accordance with Article 182(1) of the Code, providing for the supervision of the customs procedures operated under the authorisation, defining the frequency of the customs controls and ensuring, inter alia, that effective customs controls can be carried out at all stages of the entry in the declarant's records procedure.
2.
Where applicable the control plan shall take into account the limitation period for notification of the customs debt referred to in Article 103(1) of the Code.
3.
The control plan shall provide for the control to be carried out in the event that a presentation waiver is granted in accordance with Article 182(3) of the Code.
4.
In case of centralised clearance, the control plan, specifying the sharing of tasks between the supervising customs office and the customs office of presentation, shall take into account the prohibitions and restrictions applicable at the place where the customs office of presentation is located.
## Article 234 Obligations Of The Holder Of The Authorisation To Lodge A Customs Declaration In The Form Of An Entry In The Declarant'S Records (Article 182(1) Of The Code)
1.
The holder of the authorisation to lodge a customs declaration in the form of an entry in the declarant's records shall:
(a) present the goods to customs, except where Article 182(3) of the Code applies, and enter the date of the notification
of presentation in the records;
(b) enter at least the particulars of a simplified customs declaration and any supporting documents in the records;
(c) on request of the supervising customs office, make available the particulars of the customs declaration entered in the
records and any supporting document, except where the customs authorities allow that the declarant provides a direct
computerised access to that information in its records;
(d) make available to the supervising customs office information on goods that are subject to restrictions and prohib
itions;
(e) provide the supervising customs office with supporting documents as referred to in Article 163(2) of the Code before
the goods declared can be released;
(f) where the waiver referred to in Article 182(3) of the Code applies, ensure that the holder of the authorisation for the
operation of temporary storage facilities has the information necessary to prove the end of temporary storage;
(g) except where the obligation to lodge a supplementary declaration is waived in accordance with Article 167(2) of the
Code, lodge the supplementary declaration to the supervising customs office in the manner and within the time-limit
laid down in the authorisation.
2.
The authorisation to lodge a customs declaration in the form of an entry in the declarant's records shall not apply to the following declarations:
(a) customs declarations which constitute an application for an authorisation for a special procedure in accordance with
Article 163 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446;
(b) customs declarations lodged instead of an entry summary declaration in accordance with Article 130(1) of the Code.
## Article 235 Release Of The Goods Where A Customs Declaration Is Lodged In The Form Of An Entry In The Declarant'S Records (Article 182 Of The Code)
limit its intention to perform a control.
Where the authorisation does not lay down a time-limit as referred to in paragraph 1, the supervising customs office shall release the goods in accordance with Article 194 of the Code.
## Article 236 Tariff Quota (Article 182 Of The Code)
1.
Where a customs declaration is lodged in the form of an entry in the declarant's records for release for free circulation of goods subject to a tariff quota managed in accordance with the chronological order of dates of acceptance of customs declarations, the holder of the authorisation to lodge a customs declaration in that form shall request the granting of the tariff quota in a supplementary declaration.
2.
Where the request for the granting of a tariff quota managed in accordance with the chronological order of dates of acceptance of customs declarations is made in a supplementary declaration, the request can only be processed after the lodging of that declaration. However, the date on which the goods are entered in the declarant's records shall be taken into account for the purposes of allocating the tariff quota.
3.
By derogation from paragraph 1 of this Article, until the dates of the upgrading of the national import declaration systems referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, Member States may provide that the request to benefit from a tariff quota managed in accordance with the provisions of Articles 49 to 54 of this Regulation is made in a form other than that referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, provided that all the necessary particulars are available for Member States to judge on the validity of the request.
## S U B S E C T I O N 4 S E L F - A S S E S S M E N T Article 237 Determination Of The Amount Of Import And Export Duty Payable (Article 185(1) Of The Code)
1.
Where an economic operator is authorised to determine the amount of import and export duty payable in accordance with Article 185(1) of the Code, that operator shall, at the end of the period fixed by the customs authorities in the authorisation, determine the amount of import and export duty payable for that period in accordance with the rules laid down in the authorisation.
2.
Within 10 days of the end of the period fixed by the customs authorities in the authorisation, the holder of that authorisation shall submit to the supervising customs office details of the amount determined in accordance with paragraph 1. The customs debt shall be deemed to be notified at the time of that submission.
3.
The holder of the authorisation shall pay the amount referred to in paragraph 2 within the period prescribed in the authorisation and at the latest within the deadline laid down in Article 108(1) of the Code.
## Chapter 3 V E R I F I C A T I O N A N D R E L E A S E O F G O O D S
# S E C T I O N 1 V E R I F I C A T I O N Article 238 Place And Time Of Examination Of The Goods
## (Article 189 Of The Code)
Where the competent customs office has decided to examine the goods in accordance with Article 188(c) of the Code or take samples in accordance with Article 188(d) of the Code, it shall designate the time and place for that purpose and shall inform the declarant thereof.
At the request of the declarant, the competent customs office may designate a place other than the customs premises or a time outside the official opening hours of that customs office.
## Article 239 Examination Of The Goods (Articles 189 And 190 Of The Code)
1.
Where the customs office decides to examine only part of the goods, it shall inform the declarant of the items which they wish to examine.
2.
Where the declarant refuses to be present at the examination of the goods or fails to provide the necessary assistance as required by the customs authorities, they shall set a time-limit for his presence or assistance.
Where the declarant has not complied with the requirements of the customs authorities on expiry of the time-limit, the customs authorities shall proceed with the examination of the goods, at the declarant's risk and expense. Where necessary, the customs authorities may call on the services of an expert designated in accordance with the law of the Member State concerned in so far as no provisions exist in Union law.
## Article 240 Taking Of Samples (Articles 189 And 190 Of The Code)
1.
Where the customs office decides to take samples of the goods, it shall inform the declarant thereof.
2.
Where the declarant refuses to be present when the samples are taken or fails to provide the necessary assistance as
required by the customs authorities, they shall set a time-limit for his presence or assistance.
Where the declarant has not complied with the requirements of the customs authorities on expiry of the time-limit, the customs authorities shall proceed with the taking of samples, at the declarant's risk and expense.
3.
Samples shall be taken by the customs authorities themselves. However, they may require samples to be taken by the declarant or call on an expert to take the samples, under their supervision. The expert shall be designated in accordance with the law of the Member State concerned in so far as no provisions exist in Union law.
4.
The quantities taken as samples shall not exceed what is needed for analysis or more detailed examination, including possible subsequent analysis.
5.
The quantities taken as samples shall not be deducted from the quantity declared.
6.
Where an export or outward processing declaration is concerned, the declarant may replace the quantities of goods taken as samples by identical goods, in order to make up the consignment.
## Article 241 Examination Of Samples (Articles 189 And 190 Of The Code)
1.
Where the examination of samples of the same goods leads to different results requiring different customs treatment, further samples shall be taken, where possible.
2.
Where the results of the examination of the further samples confirm the different results, the goods shall be deemed to consist of different goods in quantities corresponding to the results of the examination. The same shall apply where it is not possible to take further samples.
## Article 242 Return Or Disposal Of Samples Taken
(Articles 189 and 190 of the Code)
1.
The samples taken shall be returned to the declarant at his request, except in the following cases:
(a) where the samples have been destroyed by the analysis or the examination;
(b) where the samples need to be kept by the customs authorities for the purposes of either of the following:
(i) further examination;
(ii) appeal or court proceedings.
2.
Where the declarant does not make a request for the samples to be returned, the customs authorities may require the declarant to remove any samples that remain or dispose of them in accordance with Article 198(1)(c) of the Code.
## Article 243 Results Of The Verification Of The Customs Declaration And Of The Examination Of The Goods (Article 191 Of The Code)
1.
Where the customs authorities verify the accuracy of the particulars contained in a customs declaration, they shall record the fact that a verification has been carried out and the results of that verification.
Where only part of the goods has been examined, the goods examined shall be recorded.
Where the declarant was absent, his absence shall be recorded.
2.
The customs authorities shall inform the declarant of the results of the verification.
3.
Where the results of the verification of the customs declaration are not in accordance with the particulars given in the declaration, the customs authorities shall establish and record which particulars are to be taken into account for the purposes of the following:
(a) calculating the amount of import or export duty and other charges on the goods;
(b) calculating any refunds or other amounts or financial advantages provided for on export under the common
agricultural policy;
(c) applying any other provisions governing the customs procedure under which the goods are placed.
4.
Where the declared non-preferential origin is found to be incorrect, the origin to be taken into account for the purpose of paragraph 3(a) shall be established on the basis of the evidence presented by the declarant or, where this is not sufficient or satisfactory, on the basis of any available information.
## Article 244 Provision Of A Guarantee (Article 191 Of The Code)
Where the customs authorities consider that the verification of the customs declaration may result in a higher amount of import or export duty or other charges to become payable than that resulting from the particulars of the customs declaration, the release of the goods shall be conditional upon the provision of a guarantee sufficient to cover the difference between the amount according to the particulars of the customs declaration and the amount which may finally be payable.
However, the declarant may request the immediate notification of the customs debt to which the goods may ultimately be liable instead of lodging this guarantee.
## Article 245 Release Of The Goods After Verification (Articles 191 And 194(1) Of The Code)
Where, on the basis of the verification of the customs declaration, the customs authorities determine an amount of import or export duty different from the amount which results from the particulars in the declaration, Article 195(1) of the Code shall apply as regards the amount thus assessed.
2.
Where the customs authorities have doubts about whether or not a prohibition or restriction applies and this cannot be resolved until the results of the checks carried out by the customs authorities are available, the goods in question shall not be released.
## S E C T I O N 2 R E L E A S E Article 246 Recording And Notification Of The Release Of Goods (Article 22(3) Of The Code)
The customs authorities shall notify the release of the goods to the declarant and record the release of the goods for the customs procedure concerned indicating at least the reference of the customs declaration or notification and the date of release of the goods.
## Article 247 Unreleased Goods (Article 22(3) Of The Code)
1.
Where, for any of the reasons listed in Article 198(1)(b) of the Code, the goods cannot be released or where, after their release, the goods are found not to have fulfilled the conditions for that release the customs authorities shall give the declarant a reasonable time-limit to remedy the situation of the goods.
2.
The customs authorities may, at the risk and expense of the declarant, transfer the goods referred to in paragraph 1
to special premises under the customs authorities' supervision.
## Chapter 4 Disposal Of Goods Article 248 Destruction Of Goods (Article 197 Of The Code)
The customs authorities shall establish the type and quantity of any waste or scrap resulting from the destruction of goods in order to determine any customs duty and other charges applicable to that waste or scrap when placed under a customs procedure or re-exported.
## Article 249 Abandonment Of Goods (Article 199 Of The Code)
1.
The customs authorities may reject a request for a permission to abandon goods to the State in accordance with Article 199 of the Code where any of the following conditions is fulfilled:
(a) the goods cannot be sold within the customs territory of the Union or the cost of that sale would be disproportionate
to the value of the goods;
(b) the goods are to be destroyed.
2.
A request for the abandonment to the State shall be deemed to have been made in accordance with Article 199 of the Code where the customs authorities have made a public appeal for the owner of the goods to come forward and 90 days have passed without the owner doing so.
## Article 250 Sale Of Goods And Other Measures Taken By The Customs Authorities
(Article 198(1) of the Code)
1.
Customs authorities may sell goods abandoned to the State or confiscated only on the condition that the buyer immediately carries out the formalities to place the goods under a customs procedure or to re-export them.
2.
Where the goods are sold at a price inclusive of the amount of import duty and other charges, the goods shall be considered to have been released for free circulation. The customs authorities shall calculate the amount of duty and enter it in the accounts. That sale shall be conducted according to the procedures applicable in the Member State concerned.
## Title Vi Release For Free Circulation And Relief From Import Duty Chapter 1 Release For Free Circulation Article 251 Banana Weighing Certificates (Article 163(1) Of The Code)
1.
The economic operator authorised to draw up certificates in accordance with Article 155 of Delegated Regulation
(EU) 2015/2446 (banana weighing certificates) shall give the customs authorities advance notice of the weighing of a consignment of fresh bananas for the purpose of drawing up a that certificate, giving details of the type of packaging, the origin and the time and place of weighing.
2.
The banana weighing certificate shall be in the declarant's possession and at the disposal of the customs authorities at the time of lodging of a declaration for release for free circulation of fresh bananas falling within CN code 0803 90 10
subject to import duty.
3.
By way of derogation from paragraph 2, at the declarant's request for an authorisation as set out in Article 166 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, the customs authorities may decide to release consignments of fresh bananas into free circulation on the basis of a provisional declaration of the weight on the following conditions:
(a) The authorisation shall oblige the importer to transport bananas in their unaltered state from the same shipment to
designated authorised weighs mentioned in the simplified declaration where the correct weight and value will be
determined;
(b) The declarant is responsible for submitting the weighing certificate to the customs office of free circulation within 10
calendar days after the simplified declaration has been accepted;
(c) The declarant shall lodge a guarantee as set out in Article 195(1) of the Code.
The provisional weight may be derived from a previous weighing certificate for bananas from the same type and origin.
4.
The banana weighing certificate shall be drawn up using the form set out in Annex 61-02.
## Article 252 Control Of The Weighing Of Fresh Bananas (Article 188 Of The Code)
Customs offices shall control at least 5 % of the total number of banana weighing certificates presented each year, either by being present at the weighing of the representative samples of the bananas by the economic operator authorised to draw up banana weighing certificates or by weighing those samples themselves, in accordance with the procedure laid down in points 1, 2 and 3 of Annex 61-03.
# Chapter 2 Relief From Import Duty S E C T I O N 1 R E T U R N E D G O O D S Article 253
## Information Required (Article 203(6) Of The Code)
1.
The declarant shall make the information establishing that the conditions for relief from import duty have been fulfilled available to the customs office where the customs declaration for release for free circulation is lodged.
2.
The information referred to in paragraph 1 may be provided by any of the following means:
(a) access to the relevant particulars of the customs or re-export declaration on the basis of which the returned goods
were originally exported or re-exported from the customs territory of the Union;
(b) a print out, authenticated by the competent customs office, of the customs or re-export declaration on the basis of
which the returned goods were originally exported or re-exported from the customs territory of the Union;
(c) a document issued by the competent customs office, with the relevant particulars of that customs declaration or reexport declaration;
(d) a document issued by the customs authorities certifying that the conditions for the relief from import duty have been
fulfilled (information sheet INF3).
3.
Where information available to the competent customs authorities establishes that the goods declared for release for free circulation were originally exported from the customs territory of the Union and at that time fulfilled the conditions for being granted relief from import duty as returned goods, the information referred to in paragraph 2 shall not be required.
4.
Paragraph 2 shall not apply where goods may be declared for release for free circulation orally or by any other act.
Nor shall it apply to the international movement of packing materials, means of transport or certain goods admitted under specific customs arrangements unless where provided otherwise.
## Article 254 Goods Which On Export Benefited From Measures Laid Down Under The Common Agricultural Policy (Article 203(6) Of The Code)
A declaration for release for free circulation relating to returned goods whose export may have given rise to the completion of formalities with a view to obtaining refunds or other amounts provided for under the common agricultural policy, shall be supported by the documents referred to in Article 253 of this Regulation and by a certificate issued by the authorities responsible for the granting of such refunds or amounts in the Member State of export.
Where the customs authorities at the customs office where the goods are declared for release for free circulation have information establishing that no refund or other amount provided for on export under the common agricultural policy has been granted, and cannot subsequently be granted, the certificate shall not be required.
## Article 255 Issuing Information Sheet Inf 3
(Articles 6(3)(a) and 203(6) of the Code)
1.
The exporter may request an information sheet INF 3 from the customs office of export.
2.
Where the exporter requests the information sheet INF 3 at the time of export, the information sheet INF 3 shall be issued by the customs office of export at the time of completion of the export formalities for the goods.
Where it is possible that the exported goods will be returned to the customs territory of the Union through several customs offices, the exporter may request several information sheets INF 3 each covering a part of the total quantity of the goods exported.
3.
Where the exporter requests an information sheet INF 3 after the completion of the export formalities for the goods, the information sheet INF 3 may be issued by the customs office of export if the information about the goods stated in the exporter's request corresponds to the information about the exported goods at the disposal of the customs office of export and no refund or other amount provided for on export under the common agricultural policy has been granted, and cannot subsequently be granted, in respect of the goods.
4.
Where an information sheet INF 3 has been issued, the exporter may request that the customs office of export replace it by several information sheets INF 3 each covering a part of the total quantity of goods included in the information sheet INF 3 initially issued.
5.
The exporter may ask for an information sheet INF 3 to be issued only in respect of a part of the exported goods.
6.
Where an information sheet INF 3 is issued on paper, a copy shall be kept by the customs office of export which issued it.
7.
Where the original information sheet INF 3 was issued on paper and has been stolen, lost or destroyed the customs office of export which issued it may issue a duplicate at the request of an exporter.
The customs office of export shall record on the copy of information sheet INF 3 in its possession that a duplicate has been issued.
8.
Where information sheet INF 3 is issued on paper, it shall be drawn up using the form laid down in Annex 62-02.
## Article 256 Communication Between Authorities (Article 203(6) Of The Code)
At the request of the customs office where the returned goods are declared for release for free circulation, the customs office of export shall communicate any information at its disposal establishing that the conditions for the relief from import duty have been fulfilled in respect of those goods.
## S E C T I O N 2
P r o d u c t s o f s e a - f i s h i n g a n d o t h e r p r o d u c t s t a k e n f r o m t h e s e a
## Article 257 Relief From Import Duty
(Article 208(2) of the Code)
Evidence that the conditions laid down in Article 208(1) of the Code are fulfilled may be provided in accordance with the provisions of Articles 213, 214 and 215 of this Regulation and Articles 130, 131, 132 and 133 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, as appropriate.
# Title Vii Special Procedures Chapter 1 General Provisions S E C T I O N 1 A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A N A U T H O R I S A T I O N Article 258 Supporting Document For An Oral Customs Declaration For Temporary Admission (Article 22(2) Of The Code)
Where an application for an authorisation for temporary admission is based on an oral customs declaration, the declarant shall present the supporting document referred to in Article 165 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 in duplicate, and one copy shall be endorsed by the customs authorities and given to the holder of the authorisation.
# S E C T I O N 2 T A K I N G A D E C I S I O N O N T H E A P P L I C A T I O N
## Article 259 Examination Of The Economic Conditions (Articles 28(1)(A) And 211(6) Of The Code)
1.
Where following an application for an authorisation as referred to in Article 211(1)(a) of the Code an examination of the economic conditions is required in accordance with Article 211(6) of the Code, the customs administration of the customs authority competent for taking a decision on the application shall transmit the file to the Commission without delay requesting such examination.
2.
Where, after the issuing of an authorisation for the use of a processing procedure, evidence becomes available to a customs administration of a Member State that the essential interests of Union producers are likely to be adversely affected by the use of that authorisation, that customs administration shall transmit the file to the Commission requesting an examination of the economic conditions.
3.
An examination of the economic conditions at Union level may also take place at the initiative of the Commission where it has evidence that the essential interests of Union producers are likely to be adversely affected by the use of an authorisation.
4.
The Commission shall establish an expert group, composed of the representatives of the Member States, which shall advise the Commission on whether the economic conditions are fulfilled or not.
5.
The conclusion reached on the economic conditions shall be taken into account by the customs authority concerned and by any other customs authority dealing with similar applications or authorisations.
It may be specified in the conclusions reached on the economic conditions that the case under examination is unique and therefore cannot serve as a precedent for other applications or authorisations.
6.
Where it has been concluded that the economic conditions are no longer fulfilled, the competent customs authority shall revoke the relevant authorisation. The revocation shall take effect no later than 1 year after the day following the date on which the decision on the revocation is received by the holder of the authorisation.
## Article 260 Consultation Procedure Between Customs Authorities (Article 22 Of The Code)
1.
Where an application has been submitted for an authorisation referred to in Article 211(1) of the Code and involving more than one Member State, Articles 10 and 14 of this Regulation and paragraphs 2 to 5 of this Article shall apply, unless the customs authority competent to take the decision is of the opinion that the conditions for granting such an authorisation are not fulfilled.
2.
The customs authority competent to take the decision shall communicate to the other customs authorities concerned the application and the draft authorisation at the latest 30 days after the date of acceptance of the application.
3.
No authorisation involving more than one Member State shall be issued without the prior agreement of the customs authorities concerned on the draft authorisation.
4.
The other customs authorities concerned shall communicate objections, if any, or their agreement within 30 days after the date on which the draft authorisation was communicated. Objections shall be duly justified.
Where objections are communicated within that time-limit and no agreement is reached within 60 days after the date on which the draft authorisation was communicated, the authorisation shall not be granted to the extent to which objections were raised.
5.
If the other customs authorities concerned have not communicated objections within 30 days after the date on which the draft authorisation was communicated, their agreement shall be deemed to be given.
## Article 261 Cases In Which The Consultation Procedure Is Not Required (Article 22 Of The Code)
1.
The competent customs authority shall take a decision on an application without consultation of the other customs authorities concerned as laid down in Article 260 of this Regulation in any of the following cases:
(a) an authorisation involving more than one Member State is:
(i) renewed;
(ii) subject to minor amendments;
(iii) annulled;
(iv) suspended;
(v) revoked;
(b) two or more of the Member States involved have agreed thereto;
(c) the only activity involving different Member States is an operation where the customs office of placement and the
customs office of discharge are not the same;
(d) an application for an authorisation for temporary admission which involves more than one Member State is made
based on a customs declaration in the standard form.
In such cases, the customs authority having taken the decision shall make available to the other customs authorities concerned the particulars of the authorisation.
2.
The competent customs authority shall take a decision on an application without consultation of the other customs authorities concerned as laid down in Article 260 of this Regulation and without making available the particulars of the authorisation to the other customs authorities concerned in accordance with paragraph 1, in any of the following cases:
(a) where ATA or CPD carnets are used;
(b) where an authorisation for temporary admission is granted by release of goods for the relevant customs procedure in
accordance with Article 262 of this Regulation;
(c) where two or more of the Member States involved have agreed thereto;
(d) where the only activity involving different Member States consists in the movement of goods.
## Article 262 Authorisation In The Form Of Release Of Goods (Article 22(1) Of The Code)
Where an application for an authorisation has been made based on a customs declaration in accordance with Article 163(1) or (5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, the authorisation shall be granted by release of goods for the relevant customs procedure.
## S E C T I O N 3 O T H E R P R O C E D U R A L R U L E S Article 263 Customs Declaration Lodged At Another Customs Office (Article 159(3) Of The Code)
The competent customs authority may allow in exceptional cases that the customs declaration be lodged at a customs office that is not specified in the authorisation. In that case, the competent customs authority shall inform the supervising customs office without delay.
## Article 264 Discharge Of A Special Procedure (Article 215 Of The Code)
1.
Where goods have been placed under a special procedure using two or more customs declarations by virtue of one authorisation, the placing of such goods or of the products obtained therefrom under a subsequent customs procedure, or their assignment to their prescribed end-use, shall be considered to discharge the procedure for the goods in question placed under the earliest of the customs declarations.
2.
Where goods have been placed under a special procedure using two or more customs declarations by virtue of one authorisation and the special procedure is discharged by taking the goods out of the customs territory of the Union or by destruction of the goods with no waste remaining, the taking out of the goods or the destruction with no waste remaining shall be considered to discharge the procedure for the goods in question placed under the earliest of the customs declarations.
3.
By derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, the holder of the authorisation or the holder of the procedure may request the discharge to be made in relation to specific goods placed under the procedure.
4.
The application of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not lead to unjustified import duty advantages.
5.
Where the goods under the special procedure are placed together with other goods, and there is total destruction or
irretrievable loss, the customs authorities may accept evidence produced by the holder of the procedure indicating the
actual quantity of goods under the procedure which was destroyed or lost.
Where the holder of the procedure cannot produce evidence acceptable to the customs authorities, the amount of goods which has been destroyed or lost shall be established by reference to the proportion of goods of the same type under the procedure at the time when the destruction or loss occurred.
## Article 265 Bill Of Discharge (Article 215 Of The Code)
The supervising customs office may accept the amount of import duty payable as determined by the holder of the authorisation.
2.
The amount of import duty payable shall be entered in the accounts as referred to in Article 104 of the Code within 14 days from the date on which the bill of discharge was communicated to the supervising customs office.
## Article 266 Transfer Of Rights And Obligations (Article 218 Of The Code)
The competent customs authority shall decide whether a transfer of rights and obligations as referred to in Article 218 of the Code may take place or not. If such transfer may take place, the competent customs authority shall establish the conditions under which the transfer is allowed.
## Article 267 Movement Of Goods Under A Special Procedure (Article 219 Of The Code)
1.
Movement of goods to the customs office of exit with a view to discharging a special procedure other than end-use and outward processing by taking goods out of the customs territory of the Union shall be carried out under cover of the re-export declaration.
2.
Where goods are moved under outward processing from the customs office of placement to the customs office of exit, the goods shall be subject to the provisions that would have been applicable had the goods been placed under the export procedure.
3.
Where goods are moved under end-use to the customs office of exit, the goods shall be subject to the provisions that would have been applicable had the goods been placed under the export procedure.
4.
Customs formalities other than keeping of records as referred to in Article 214 of the Code are not required for any movement which is not covered by paragraphs 1 to 3.
5.
Where movement of goods takes place in accordance with paragraphs 1 or 3, the goods shall remain under the special procedure until they have been taken out of the customs territory of the Union.
## Article 268 Formalities For The Use Of Equivalent Goods (Article 223 Of The Code)
1.
The use of equivalent goods shall not be subject to the formalities for placing goods under a special procedure.
2.
Equivalent goods may be stored together with other Union goods or non-Union goods. In such cases, the customs authorities may establish specific methods of identifying the equivalent goods with a view to distinguishing them from the other Union goods or non-Union goods.
Where it is impossible or would only be possible at disproportionate cost to identify at all times each type of goods, accounting segregation shall be carried out with regard to each type of goods, customs status and, where appropriate, origin of the goods.
3.
In the case of end-use, the goods which are replaced by equivalent goods shall no longer be under customs supervision in any of the following cases:
rate of duty;
(b) the equivalent goods are exported, destroyed or abandoned to the State;
(c) the equivalent goods have been used for purposes other than those laid down for the application of the duty
exemption or reduced duty rate and the applicable import duty has been paid.
## Article 269 Status Of Equivalent Goods (Article 223 Of The Code)
1.
In case of customs warehousing and temporary admission, the equivalent goods shall become non-Union goods and the goods which they are replacing shall become Union goods at the time of their release for the subsequent customs procedure discharging the procedure or at the time when the equivalent goods have left the customs territory of the Union.
2.
In case of inward processing, the equivalent goods and the processed products obtained therefrom shall become non-Union goods and the goods which they are replacing shall become Union goods at the time of their release for the subsequent customs procedure discharging the procedure or at the time when the processed products have left the customs territory of the Union.
However, where the goods placed under the inward processing procedure are put on the market before the procedure is discharged, their status shall change at the time when they are put on the market. In exceptional cases, where the equivalent goods are expected not to be available at the time when the goods are put on the market, the customs authorities may allow, at the request of the holder of the procedure, the equivalent goods to be available at a later time within a reasonable period to be determined by them.
3.
In case of prior export of processed products under inward processing, the equivalent goods and the processed products obtained therefrom shall become non-Union goods with retroactive effect at the time of their release for the export procedure if the goods to be imported are placed under that procedure.
Where the goods to be imported are placed under inward processing, they shall at the same time become Union goods.
## Article 270 Electronic System Relating To Eata Carnets (Article 16(1) Of The Code)
An electronic information and communication system (eATA Carnet System) set up pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Code shall be used for the processing, exchange and storage of information pertaining to eATA carnets issued based on Article 21a of the Istanbul Convention. Information shall be made available through this system by the competent customs authorities without delay.
## Article 271 Electronic System Relating To Standardised Exchange Of Information (Article 16(1) Of The Code)
1.
An electronic information and communication system set up pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Code shall be used for the standardised exchange of information (INF) pertaining to any of the following procedures:
(a) inward processing EX/IM or outward processing EX/IM;
(b) inward processing IM/EX or outward processing IM/EX, where more than one Member State is involved;
(c) inward processing IM/EX where one Member State is involved and the responsible customs authority as referred to in
Article 101(1) of the Code has requested an INF.
Such system shall also be used for the processing and storage of the relevant information. Where an INF is required, the information shall be made available through this system by the supervising customs office without delay. Where a customs declaration, re-export declaration or re-export notification refers to an INF, the competent customs authorities shall update the INF without delay.
In addition, the electronic information and communication system shall be used for the standardised exchange of information pertaining to commercial policy measures.
2.
Paragraph 1 of this Article shall be applicable from the date of deployment of the UCC INF referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU.
# Chapter 2 Transit S E C T I O N 1 E X T E R N A L A N D I N T E R N A L T R A N S I T P R O C E D U R E S U B S E C T I O N 1 G E N E R A L P R O V I S I O N S
## Article 272 Controls And Formalities For Goods Leaving And Re-Entering The Customs Territory Of The Union (Articles 226(3)(B), (C), (E), (F) And 227(2)(B), (C), (E), (F) Of The Code)
Where, in the course of movement of goods from one point to another within the customs territory of the Union, goods leave and re-enter the customs territory of the Union, the customs controls and formalities applicable in accordance with the TIR Convention, the ATA Convention, the Istanbul Convention, the Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of their Forces, signed in London on 19 June 1951 or in accordance with the acts of the Universal Postal Union shall be carried out at the points where the goods temporarily leave the customs territory of the Union and where they re-enter that territory.
## Article 273 Electronic System Relating To Transit (Article 16(1) Of The Code)
1.
For the exchange of TIR carnet data for TIR operations and for the completion of the customs formalities of Union transit procedures, an electronic system set up pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Code (electronic transit system) shall be used.
2.
In case of discrepancies between the particulars in the TIR carnet and the particulars in the electronic transit system, the TIR carnet shall prevail.
3.
By derogation from paragraph 1 of this Article, until the date of the upgrading of the system referred to therein in accordance with the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, Member States shall use the New Computerised Transit System set up by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1192/2008 (
1
).
S u b s e c t i o n 2
M o v e m e n t o f g o o d s u n d e r t h e T I R o p e r a t i o n s
## Article 274 Tir Operation In Particular Circumstances
(Articles 6(3)(b), 226(3)(b) and 227(2)(b) of the Code)
The customs authority shall accept a TIR carnet without exchange of TIR carnet data for the TIR operation in the event of a temporary failure of:
(a) the electronic transit system;
(b) the computerised system used by the TIR carnet holders for lodging the TIR carnet data by means of electronic dataprocessing techniques;
(c) the electronic connection between the computerised system used by the TIR carnet holders for lodging the TIR carnet
data by means of electronic data-processing techniques and the electronic transit system.
The acceptance of TIR carnets without exchange of TIR carnet data in the event of a temporary failure as referred to in points (b) or (c) shall be subject to the approval of the customs authorities.
## Article 275 Itinerary For Movements Of Goods Under A Tir Operation (Articles 226(3)(B) And 227(2)(B) Of The Code)
1.
Goods moved under a TIR operation shall be transported to the customs office of destination or exit along an economically justified itinerary.
2.
Where the customs office of departure or entry considers it necessary, it shall prescribe an itinerary for the TIR
operation taking into account any relevant information communicated by the TIR carnet holder.
When prescribing an itinerary, the customs office shall enter in the electronic transit system and on the TIR carnet at least the indication of the Member States through which the TIR operation is to take place.
## Article 276 Formalities To Be Completed At The Customs Office Of Departure Or Entry For Movements Of Goods Under A Tir Operation (Articles 226(3)(B) And 227(2)(B) Of The Code)
1.
The TIR carnet holder shall submit the TIR carnet data for the TIR operation at the customs office of departure or entry.
2.
The customs office to which the TIR carnet data has been submitted shall set a time-limit within which the goods shall be presented at the customs office of destination or exit, taking into account the following:
(a) the itinerary;
(b) the means of transport;
(c) transport legislation or other legislation which might have an impact on setting a time-limit;
(d) any relevant information communicated by the TIR carnet holder.
3.
Where the time-limit is set by the customs office of departure or entry, it shall be binding on the customs authorities of the Member States the territory of which the goods enter during the TIR operation, and that time-limit shall not be altered by those authorities.
4.
Where the goods are released for the TIR operation, the customs office of departure or entry shall record the MRN
of the TIR operation in the TIR carnet. The customs office releasing those goods shall notify the TIR carnet holder of the release of the goods for the TIR operation.
At the request of the TIR carnet holder the customs office of departure or entry shall provide a transit accompanying document or, where appropriate, a transit/security accompanying document to the TIR carnet holder.
The transit accompanying document shall be provided using the form set out in Annex B-02 to Delegated Regulation
(EU) 2015/2446 and, if necessary, supplemented by the List of items in the form set out in Annex B-03 to the same Delegated Regulation. The transit/security accompanying document shall be provided using the form set out in Annex B- 04 to the same Delegated Regulation and supplemented by the Transit/Security list of items in the form set out in Annex B-05 to the same Delegated Regulation.
5.
The customs office of departure or entry shall transmit the particulars of the TIR operation to the declared customs office of destination or exit.
## Article 277 Incidents During Movement Of Goods Under A Tir Operation (Articles 226(3)(B) And 227(2)(B) Of The Code)
1.
The carrier shall present without undue delay after the incident the goods together with the road vehicle, the combination of vehicles or the container, the TIR carnet and the MRN of the TIR operation to the nearest customs authority of the Member State in whose territory the means of transport is located where:
(a) the carrier is obliged to deviate from the itinerary prescribed in accordance with Article 268 due to circumstances
beyond his control;
(b) there is an incident or accident within the meaning of Article 25 of the TIR Convention.
2.
Where the customs authority in whose territory the means of transport is located considers that the TIR operation concerned may continue, it shall take any steps that it considers necessary.
Relevant information concerning the incidents referred to in paragraph 1 shall be recorded in the electronic transit system by that customs authority.
3.
Until the dates of deployment of the upgrading of the NCTS referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision
2014/255/EU, relevant information concerning the incidents referred to in paragraph 1 shall be recorded in the electronic transit system by the customs office of destination or exit.
4.
Until the dates of deployment of the upgrading of the NCTS referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision
2014/255/EU, the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of this Article shall not apply.
## Article 278 Presentation Of Goods Moved Under A Tir Operation At The Customs Office Of Destination Or Exit (Articles 226(3)(B) And 227(2)(B) Of The Code)
1.
Where goods moved under a TIR operation arrive at the customs office of destination or exit, the following shall be presented at that customs office:
(a) the goods together with the road vehicle, the combination of vehicles or the container;
(b) the TIR carnet;
(c) the MRN of the TIR operation;
(d) any information required by the customs office of destination or exit.
The presentation shall take place during the official opening hours. However, the customs office of destination or exit may, at the request of the person concerned, allow the presentation to take place outside the official opening hours or at another place.
2.
Where the presentation has taken place at the customs office of destination or exit after expiry of the time-limit set by the customs office of departure or entry in accordance with Article 276(2) of this Regulation, the TIR carnet holder shall be deemed to have complied with the time-limit where he or the carrier proves to the satisfaction of the customs office of destination or exit that the delay is not attributable to him.
3.
A TIR operation may be terminated at a customs office other than that declared in the transit declaration. That customs office shall then be considered to be the customs office of destination or exit.
## Article 279 Formalities At The Customs Office Of Destination Or Exit For Goods Moved Under A Tir Operation (Articles 226(3)(B) And 227(2)(B) Of The Code)
1.
The customs office of destination or exit shall notify the customs office of departure or entry of the arrival of the goods on the day the goods together with the road vehicle, the combination of vehicles or the container, the TIR carnet, the MRN of the TIR operation are presented in accordance with Article 278(1) of this Regulation.
2.
Where the TIR operation is terminated at a customs office other than that declared in the transit declaration, the customs office considered to be the customs office of destination or exit in accordance with Article 278(3) of this Regulation shall notify the arrival to the customs office of departure or entry on the day the goods are presented in accordance with Article 278(1) of this Regulation.
The customs office of departure or entry shall notify the arrival to the customs office of destination or exit declared in the transit declaration.
3.
The customs office of destination or exit shall notify the control results to the customs office of departure or entry at the latest on the third day following the day the goods are presented at the customs office of destination or exit or at another place in accordance with Article 278(1) of this Regulation. In exceptional cases that time-limit may be extended up to 6 days.
However, where goods are received by an authorised consignee referred to in Article 230 of the Code, the customs office of departure or entry shall be notified at the latest on the sixth day following the day the goods were delivered to the authorised consignee.
4.
The customs office of destination or exit shall terminate the TIR operation in accordance with Articles 1(d) and
28(1) of the TIR Convention. It shall complete counterfoil No 2 of the TIR carnet and retain Voucher No 2 of the TIR
carnet. The TIR carnet shall be returned to the TIR carnet holder or to the person acting on his behalf.
5.
Where Article 274 of this Regulation applies, the customs authorities of the Member State of destination or exit shall return the appropriate part of Voucher No 2 of the TIR carnet to the customs office of departure or entry without delay and at the latest within 8 days from the date when the TIR operation was terminated.
## Article 280 Enquiry Procedure For Movements Of Goods Under A Tir Operation (Articles 226(3)(B) And 227(2)(B) Of The Code)
1.
Where the customs office of departure or entry has not received the control results within 6 days after receiving the notification of arrival of the goods, that customs office shall immediately request the control results from the customs office of destination or exit which sent the notification of arrival of the goods.
The customs office of destination or exit shall send the control results immediately after receiving the request from the customs office of departure or entry.
2.
Where the customs authority of the Member State of departure or entry has not yet received information that allows for the discharge of the TIR operation or for the recovery of the customs debt, it shall request the relevant information from the TIR carnet holder or, where sufficient particulars are available at the place of destination or exit, from the customs office of destination or exit, in the following cases:
(a) the customs office of departure or entry has not received the notification of arrival of the goods by the expiry of the
time-limit for the presentation of the goods set in accordance with Article 276(2) of this Regulation;
(b) the customs office of departure or entry has not received the control results requested in accordance with
paragraph 1;
(c) the customs office of departure or entry becomes aware that the notification of arrival of the goods or the control
results were sent in error.
3.
The customs authority of the Member State of departure or entry shall send requests for information in accordance with paragraph 2(a) within a period of 7 days after the expiry of the time-limit referred to therein and requests for information in accordance with paragraph 2(b) within a period of 7 days after the expiry of the applicable time-limit referred to in paragraph 1.
However, if, before the expiry of those time-limits, the customs authority of the Member State of departure or entry receives information that the TIR operation has not been terminated correctly, or suspects that to be the case, it shall send the request without delay.
4.
Replies to requests made in accordance with paragraph 2 shall be sent within 28 days from the date on which the request was sent.
5.
Where, following a request in accordance with paragraph 2, the customs office of destination or exit has not provided sufficient information for the TIR operation to be discharged, the customs authority of the Member State of departure or entry shall request the TIR carnet holder to provide that information, at the latest 35 days after the initiating the enquiry procedure.
However, until the dates of deployment of the upgrading of the NCTS referred to in Annex to Implementing Decision
2014/255/EU, that customs authority shall request the TIR carnet holder to provide that information, at the latest 28
days after the initiating the enquiry procedure.
The TIR carnet holder shall reply to that request within 28 days from the date on which it was sent. At the request of the TIR carnet holder this period may be extended for further 28 days.
6.
Where a TIR carnet has been accepted without exchange of TIR carnet data for the TIR operation in accordance with Article 267, the customs authority of the Member State of departure or entry shall initiate an enquiry procedure in order to obtain the information needed to discharge the TIR operation if, after 2 months from the date of the acceptance of the TIR carnet, it has not received proof that the TIR operation has been terminated. This authority sends the request for the relevant information to the customs authority of the Member State of destination or exit. That customs authority shall reply to that request within 28 days from the date on which it was sent.
However, if, before the expiry of that period, the customs authority of the Member State of departure or entry receives information that the TIR operation has not been terminated correctly, or suspects that to be the case, it shall initiate the enquiry procedure without delay.
The enquiry procedure shall also be initiated by the customs authority of the Member State of departure or entry if information becomes available that proof of the termination of the TIR operation was falsified and the enquiry procedure is necessary to achieve the objectives of the paragraph 9.
7.
The customs authority of the Member State of departure or entry shall inform the guaranteeing association concerned that it has not been possible to discharge the TIR operation, and invite it to provide proof that the TIR operation has been terminated. That information shall not be considered a notification within the meaning of Article 11(1) of the TIR Convention.
8.
Where during the steps of an enquiry procedure set out in paragraphs 1 to 7 it is established that the TIR operation was terminated correctly, the customs authority of the Member State of departure or entry shall discharge the TIR operation and shall immediately inform the guaranteeing association and the TIR carnet holder and, where appropriate, any customs authority that may have initiated a recovery procedure.
9.
Where during the steps of an enquiry procedure set out in paragraphs 1 to 7 it is established that the TIR operation cannot be discharged, the customs authority of the Member State of departure or entry shall establish whether a customs debt has been incurred.
If a customs debt has been incurred, the customs authority of the Member State of departure or entry shall take the following measures:
(a) identify the debtor;
(b) determine the customs authority responsible for the notification of the customs debt in accordance with Article 102(1)
of the Code.
## Article 281 Alternative Proof Of Termination Of A Tir Operation (Articles 226(3)(B) And 227(2)(B) Of The Code)
1.
The TIR operation shall be considered as having been terminated correctly within the time-limit set in accordance with Article 276(2) of this Regulation where the TIR carnet holder or the guaranteeing association presents, to the satisfaction of the customs authority of a Member State of departure or entry, one of the following documents identifying the goods:
(a) a document certified by the customs authority of the Member State of destination or exit which identifies the goods
and establishes that the goods have been presented at the customs office of destination or exit, or been delivered to
an authorised consignee as referred to in Article 230 of the Code;
(b) a document or a customs record, certified by the customs authority of a Member State, which establishes that the
goods have physically left the customs territory of the Union;
(c) a customs document issued in a third country where the goods are placed under a customs procedure;
(d) a document issued in a third country, stamped or otherwise certified by the customs authority of that country and
establishing that the goods are considered to be in free circulation in that country.
2.
Instead of the documents referred to in paragraph 1, copies thereof certified as being true copies by the body which certified the original documents, by the authority of the third country concerned or by an authority of a Member State may be provided as proof.
3.
The notification of arrival of the goods referred to in Article 279(1) and (2) of this Regulation shall not be considered to be proof that the TIR operation has been terminated correctly.
## Article 282 Formalities For Goods Moved Under The Tir Operation Received By An Authorised Consignee (Articles 226(3)(B) And 227(2)(B) Of The Code)
1.
When the goods arrive at a place specified in the authorisation referred to in Article 230 of the Code, the authorised consignee shall:
(a) immediately notify the customs office of destination of arrival of the goods and inform it of any irregularities or
incidents that occurred during transport;
(b) unload the goods only after obtaining the permission from the customs office of destination;
(c) after unloading, enter the results of the inspection and any other relevant information relating to the unloading into
his records without delay;
(d) notify the customs office of destination of the results of the inspection of the goods and inform it of any irregularities
on the third day following the day on which he has received the permission to unload the goods, at the latest.
2.
When the customs office of destination has received notification of arrival of the goods at the premises of the authorised consignee, it shall notify the customs office of departure or entry of the arrival of the goods.
3.
When the customs office of destination has received the results of the inspection of the goods referred to in paragraph 1(d) it shall send the control results to the customs office of departure or entry on the sixth day following the day the goods were delivered to the authorised consignee, at the latest.
4.
At the request of the TIR carnet holder, the authorised consignee shall issue a receipt which certifies the arrival of the goods at a place specified in the authorisation referred to in Article 230 of the Code and contains a reference to the MRN of the TIR operation and to the TIR carnet. The receipt shall not be considered to be proof that the TIR operation has been terminated within the meaning of Article 279(4) of this Regulation.
5.
The authorised consignee shall ensure that the TIR carnet together with the MRN of the TIR operation are presented within the time-limit laid down in the authorisation, at the customs office of destination for the purposes of terminating the TIR operation in accordance with Article 279(4) of this Regulation.
6.
The TIR carnet holder shall be considered to have fulfilled his obligations under Article 1(o) of the TIR Convention where the TIR carnet together with the road vehicle, the combination of vehicles or the container and the goods have been presented intact to the authorised consignee at a place specified in the authorisation.
## S U B S E C T I O N 3
M o v e m e n t o f g o o d s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e A T A C o n v e n t i o n a n d t h e I s t a n b u l C o n v e n t i o n
## Article 283 Notification Of Offences And Irregularities (Articles 226(3)(C) And 227(2)(C) Of The Code)
The customs office of coordination, referred to in Article 166, of the Member State where an offence or irregularity has been committed in the course of or in connection with an ATA transit movement shall notify the ATA carnet holder and the guaranteeing association of the offence or irregularity within a year of the date of expiry of the validity of the carnet.
## Article 284 Alternative Proof Of Termination Of The Ata Transit Operation (Articles 226(3)(C) And 227(2)(C) Of The Code)
1.
The ATA transit operation shall be considered as having been terminated correctly where the ATA carnet holder presents, within the time-limits prescribed in Article 7(1) and (2) of the ATA Convention where the carnet is issued under the ATA Convention or in Article 9(1)(a) and (b) of Annex A to the Istanbul Convention where the carnet is issued under the Istanbul Convention and to the satisfaction of the customs authority, one of the following documents identifying the goods:
(a) the documents referred to in Article 8 of the ATA Convention where the carnet is issued under the ATA Convention
or in Article 10 of Annex A to the Istanbul Convention where the carnet is issued under the Istanbul Convention;
(b) a document certified by the customs authority establishing that the goods have been presented at the customs office
of destination or exit;
(c) a document issued by the customs authorities in a third country where the goods are placed under a customs
procedure.
2.
Instead of the documents referred to in paragraph 1, copies thereof certified as being true copies by the body which certified the original documents may be provided as proof.
## S U B S E C T I O N 4 M O V E M E N T O F G O O D S U N D E R C O V E R O F F O R M 3 0 2 Article 285 Designated Customs Offices (Articles 226(3)(E), 227(2)(E) And 159(3) Of The Code)
The customs authority in each Member State in which forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO forces)
eligible to use form 302 are stationed shall designate the customs office or offices responsible for customs formalities and controls concerning the movement of goods carried out by or on behalf of those forces.
## Article 286 Supply Of Forms 302 To Nato Forces
(Articles 226(3)(e) and 227(2)(e) of the Code)
The designated customs office of the Member State of departure shall supply the NATO forces stationed in its area with forms 302 which:
(a) are pre-authenticated with the stamp and signature of an official of that office;
(b) are serially numbered;
(c) bear the full address of that designated customs office for the return copy of the form 302.
## Article 287 Procedural Rules Applying To The Use Of Form 302
(Articles 226(3)(e) and 227(2)(e) of the Code)
1.
At the time of dispatch of the goods, the NATO forces shall do either of the following:
(a) lodge the form 302 data electronically at the customs office of departure or entry;
(b) complete form 302 with a statement that the goods are being moved under their control and authenticate this
statement by their signature, stamp and date.
2.
Where the NATO forces lodge the form 302 data electronically in accordance with paragraph 1(a), Articles 294,
296, 304, 306,314, 315, and 316 of this Regulation shall apply *mutatis mutandis*.
3.
Where the NATO forces proceed in accordance with paragraph 1(b), a copy of the form 302 shall be given, without delay, to the designated customs office responsible for customs formalities and controls pertaining to the NATO forces which dispatch the goods or on whose behalf the goods are being dispatched.
The other copies of the form 302 shall accompany the consignment to the NATO forces of destination where the forms shall be stamped and signed by those NATO forces.
At the time of arrival of the goods two copies of the form shall be given to the designated customs office responsible for customs formalities and controls pertaining to the NATO forces of destination.
That designated customs office shall retain one copy and shall return the second copy to the customs office responsible for customs formalities and controls pertaining to the NATO forces which dispatch the goods or on whose behalf the goods are being dispatched.
S u b s e c t i o n 5
T r a n s i t o f g o o d s t r a n s p o r t e d u n d e r t h e p o s t a l s y s t e m
## Article 288 Movement Of Non-Union Goods In Postal Consignments Under The External Transit Procedure (Article 226(3)(F) Of The Code)
Where non-Union goods are moved under the external transit procedure in accordance with Article 226(3)(f) of the Code, the postal consignment and any accompanying documents shall bear a label set out in Annex 72-01.
## Article 289 Movement Of Postal Consignments Containing Both Union And Non-Union Goods (Articles 226(3)(F) And 227(2)(F) Of The Code)
1.
Where a postal consignment contains both Union goods and non-Union goods that consignment and any accom
panying documents shall bear a label set out in Annex 72-01.
2.
For the Union goods contained in a consignment as referred to in paragraph 1, proof of the customs status of Union goods or a reference to the MRN of that means of proof shall be sent separately to the postal operator of destination or be enclosed in the consignment.
Where the proof of the customs status of Union goods is sent separately to the postal operator of destination, that postal operator shall present the proof of the customs status of Union goods to the customs office of destination together with the consignment.
Where the proof of customs status of Union goods or its MRN is enclosed in the consignment, that shall be clearly indicated on the exterior of the package.
## Article 290 Movement Of Postal Consignments Under The Internal Transit Procedure In Special Situations (Article 227(2)(F) Of The Code)
1.
Where Union goods are moved to, from or between special fiscal territories under the internal transit procedure in accordance with Article 227(2)(f) of the Code, the postal consignment and any accompanying documents shall bear a label set out in Annex 72-02.
2.
Where Union goods are moved under the internal transit procedure in accordance with Article 227(2)(f) of the Code from the customs territory of the Union to a common transit country for onward transmission to the customs territory of the Union, those goods shall be accompanied by proof of the customs status of Union goods established by one of the means listed in Article 199 of this Regulation.
The proof of the customs status of Unions goods shall be presented to a customs office on re-entry in the customs territory of the Union.
S e c t i o n 2
E x t e r n a l a n d i n t e r n a l U n i o n t r a n s i t p r o c e d u r e S u b s e c t i o n 1
G e n e r a l p r o v i s i o n s
## Article 291 Transit Operation In Particular Circumstances (Article 6(3)(B) Of The Code)
1.
The customs authority shall accept a paper-based transit declaration in the event of a temporary failure of:
(a) the electronic transit system;
(b) the computerised system used by the holders of the procedure for lodging the Union transit declaration by means of
electronic data-processing techniques;
(c) the electronic connection between the computerised system used by the holders of the procedure for lodging the
Union transit declaration by means of electronic data-processing techniques and the electronic transit system.
The rules on the use of a paper-based transit declaration shall be laid down in Annex 72-04.
2.
The acceptance of a paper-based transit declaration in the event of a temporary failure as referred to in points (b) or
(c) shall be subject to the approval of the customs authorities.
## Article 292 Verification And Administrative Assistance (Article 48 Of The Code)
1.
The competent customs authority may carry out post-release controls of the information supplied and of any documents, forms, authorisations or data relating to the transit operation in order to check that the entries, the information exchanged and the stamps are authentic. Such controls shall be made where doubts arise as to the accuracy and authenticity of the information provided or where fraud is suspected. It may also be made on the basis of risk analysis or by random selection.
2.
A competent customs authority receiving a request to make a post-release control shall respond without delay.
3.
Where the competent customs authority of the Member State of departure makes a request to the competent customs authority for a post-release control of information related to the Union transit operation, the conditions laid down in Article 215(2) of the Code for discharging the transit procedure shall be deemed not to have been fulfilled until the authenticity and accuracy of the data have been confirmed.
## Article 293 The Convention On A Common Transit Procedure (Articles 226(3)(A) And 227(2)(A) Of The Code)
1.
Where the holder of the goods uses the common transit procedure, paragraph 2 of this Article and Article 189 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 shall apply. However, goods circulating within the customs territory of the Union shall be deemed to be placed under the Union transit procedure in accordance with Article 1(2) of the Convention on a common transit procedure.
2.
Where the provisions of the Convention on a common transit procedure apply and Union goods pass through one or more common transit countries, the goods shall be placed under the internal Union transit procedure as referred to in Article 227(2)(a) of the Code, except for Union goods which are carried entirely by sea or air.
## Article 294 Mixed Consignments (Article 233(1)(B) Of The Code)
A consignment may comprise both goods which are to be placed under the external Union transit procedure in accordance with Article 226 of the Code and goods which are to be placed under the internal Union transit procedure in accordance with Article 227 of the Code, provided that each item of the goods is marked accordingly in the transit declaration.
## Article 295 Scope (Articles 226(3)(A) And 227(2)(A) Of The Code)
The Union transit procedure shall be compulsory in the following cases:
(a) where non-Union goods carried by air are loaded or reloaded at an Union airport;
(b) where non-Union goods carried by sea are carried by a regular shipping service authorised in accordance with
Article 120 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
## Article 296 Transit Declaration And Means Of Transport (Articles 226(3)(A) And 227(2)(A) Of The Code)
1.
Each transit declaration shall include only goods placed under the Union transit procedure that are moved or are to be moved from one customs office of departure to one customs office of destination on a single means of transport, in a container or in a package.
However, one transit declaration may include goods moved or to be moved from one customs office of departure to one customs office of destination in more than one container or in more than one package where the containers or packages are loaded on a single means of transport.
2.
For the purposes of this Article, any of the following shall also be regarded as constituting a single means of transport, provided that the goods carried are dispatched together:
(a) a road vehicle accompanied by its trailer(s) or semi-trailer(s);
(b) a set of coupled railway carriages or wagons;
(c) boats constituting a single chain.
3.
Where for the purpose of the Union transit procedure a single means of transport is used for loading goods at more than one customs office of departure and for unloading at more than one customs office of destination, separate transit declarations shall be lodged for each of the consignments.
## Article 297 Time-Limit For The Presentation Of Goods (Articles 226(3)(A) And 227(2)(A) Of The Code)
1.
The customs office of departure shall set a time-limit within which the goods shall be presented at the customs office of destination, taking into account the following:
(a) the itinerary;
(b) the means of transport;
(c) transport legislation or other legislation which might have an impact on setting a time-limit;
(d) any relevant information communicated by the holder of the procedure.
2.
Where the time-limit is set by the customs office of departure, it shall be binding on the customs authorities of the Member States the territory of which the goods enter during a Union transit operation, and that time-limit shall not be altered by those authorities.
## Article 298 Itinerary For Movements Of Goods Under The Union Transit Procedure
2.
Where the customs office of departure or the holder of the procedure considers it necessary, that customs office shall prescribe an itinerary for the movements of goods during the Union transit procedure taking into account any relevant information communicated by the holder of the procedure.
When prescribing an itinerary, the customs office shall enter in the electronic transit system at least the indication of the Member States through which the transit is to take place.
## Article 299 Sealing As An Identification Measure
(Articles 192, 226(3)(a) and 227(2)(a) of the Code)
1.
Where goods are to be placed under the Union transit procedure, the customs office of departure shall seal the following:
(a) the space containing the goods, where the means of transport or container has been recognised by the customs office
of departure as suitable for sealing;
(b) each individual package, in other cases.
2.
The customs office of departure shall record the number of the seals and the individual seal identifiers, in the electronic transit system.
## Article 300 Suitability For Sealing
(Articles 226(3)(a) and 227(2)(a) of the Code)
1.
The customs office of departure shall consider means of transport or containers to be suitable for sealing on the following conditions:
(a) seals can be simply and effectively affixed to the means of transport or container;
(b) the means of transport or container is so constructed that when goods are removed or introduced, the removal or
introduction leaves visible traces, the seals are broken or show signs of tampering, or an electronic monitoring system
registers the removal or introduction;
(c) the means of transport or container contains no concealed spaces where goods may be hidden;
(d) the spaces reserved for the goods are readily accessible for inspection by the customs authority.
2.
Road vehicles, trailers, semi-trailers and containers approved for the carriage of goods under customs seal in accordance with an international agreement to which the Union is a contracting party shall also be regarded as suitable for sealing.
## Article 301 Characteristics Of Customs Seals (Articles 226(3)(A) And 227(2)(A) Of The Code)
1.
Customs seals shall have at least the following essential characteristics and comply with the following technical specifications:
(a) essential characteristics of the seals:
(i) remaining intact and securely fastened in normal use;
(ii) being easily checkable and recognisable;
(iii) being so manufactured that any breakage, tampering or removal leaves traces visible to the naked eye;
(iv) being designed for single use or, if intended for multiple use, being so designed that they can be given a clear,
individual identification mark each time they are re-used;
(v) bearing of individual seal identifiers which are permanent, readily legible and uniquely numbered;
(b) technical specifications:
(i) the form and dimensions of seals may vary with the sealing method used but the dimensions shall be such as to
ensure that identification marks are easy to read;
(ii) the identification marks of seals shall be impossible to falsify and difficult to reproduce;
(iii) the material used shall be resistant to accidental breakage and such as to prevent undetectable falsification or
reuse.
2.
Where seals have been certified by a competent body in accordance with ISO International Standard No
17712:2013 'Freight containers - Mechanical Seals', those seals shall be deemed to fulfil the requirements laid down in paragraph 1.
For containerised transports, seals with high-security features shall be used to the widest possible extent.
3.
The customs seal shall bear the following indications:
(a) the word 'Customs' in one of the official languages of the Union or a corresponding abbreviation;
(b) a country code, in the form of the ISO-alpha-2 country code, identifying the Member State in which the seal is
affixed;
(c) Member States may add the symbol of the European flag.
Member States may in agreement with each other decide to use common security features and technology.
4.
Each Member State shall notify the Commission about its customs seal types in use. The Commission shall make this information available to all Member States.
5.
Whenever a seal needs to be removed to allow customs inspection, the customs authority shall endeavour to reseal as necessary, with a custom seal of at least equivalent security features and note the particulars of the action, including the new seal number, on the cargo documentation.
## Article 302 Alternative Identification Measures To Sealing (Articles 192, 226(3)(A) And 227(2)(A) Of The Code)
1.
By way of derogation from Article 299 of this Regulation, the customs office of departure may decide not to seal the goods placed under the Union transit procedure and instead rely on the description of the goods in the transit declaration or in the supplementary documents provided that the description is sufficiently precise to permit easy identification of the goods and states their quantity and nature and any special features such as serial numbers of the goods.
2.
By way of derogation from Article 299 of this Regulation, unless the customs office of departure decides otherwise, neither the means of transport nor the individual packages containing the goods shall be sealed where:
(a) the goods are carried by air, and either labels are affixed to each consignment bearing the number of the accom
panying airway bill, or the consignment constitutes a load unit on which the number of the accompanying airway bill
is indicated;
(b) the goods are carried by rail, and identification measures are applied by the railway companies.
## Article 303 Release Of Goods For The Union Transit Procedure (Articles 226(3)(A) And 227(2)(A) Of The Code)
1.
Only goods which have been sealed in accordance with Article 299 of this Regulation or in respect of which alternative identification measures have been taken in accordance with Article 302 of this Regulation shall be released for the Union transit procedure.
2.
On release of the goods, the customs office of departure shall transmit the particulars of the Union transit operation:
(a) to the declared customs office of destination;
(b) to each declared customs office of transit.
Those particulars shall be based on data derived from the transit declaration, as amended where appropriate.
3.
The customs office of departure shall notify the holder of the procedure of the release of the goods for the Union transit procedure.
4.
At the request of the holder of the procedure, the customs office of departure shall provide a transit accompanying document or, where appropriate, a transit/security accompanying document to the holder of the procedure.
The transit accompanying document shall be provided using the form set out in Annex B-02 to of Delegated Regulation
(EU) 2015/2446 and, if necessary, supplemented by the List of items in the form set out in Annex B-03 to the same Delegated Regulation. The transit/security accompanying document shall be provided using the form set out in Annex B- 04 to the same Delegated Regulation and supplemented by the Transit/Security list of items in the form set out in Annex B-05 to the same Delegated Regulation.
## S U B S E C T I O N 3 F O R M A L I T I E S D U R I N G T H E U N I O N T R A N S I T P R O C E D U R E Article 304 Presentation Of Goods Moved Under The Union Transit Procedure At The Customs Office Of Transit (Articles 226(3)(A) And 227(2)(A) Of The Code)
1.
The goods together with the MRN of the transit declaration shall be presented at each customs office of transit.
2.
With respect to the presentation of the MRN of the transit declaration at each customs office of transit, the second paragraph of Article 184 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 shall apply.
3.
The customs offices of transit shall record the border passage of the goods on the basis of the particulars of the Union transit operation received from the customs office of departure. That passage shall be notified by the customs offices of transit to the customs office of departure.
4.
Where goods are carried via a customs office of transit other than that declared, the actual customs office of transit shall request the particulars of the Union transit operation from the customs office of departure and notify the border passage of the goods to the customs office of departure.
5.
The customs offices of transit may inspect the goods. Any inspection of the goods shall be carried out mainly on the basis of the particulars of the Union transit operation received from the customs office of departure.
6.
Paragraphs 1 to 4 shall not apply to the transport of goods by rail provided that the customs office of transit can verify the border passage of the goods by other means. Such verification shall take place only in case of need. The verification may take place retrospectively.
## Article 305 Incidents During Movement Of Goods Under A Union Transit Operation (Articles 226(3)(A) And 227(2)(A) Of The Code)
1.
The carrier shall present without undue delay after the incident the goods together with the MRN of the transit declaration to the nearest customs authority of the Member State in whose territory the means of transport is located where:
(a) the carrier is obliged to deviate from the itinerary prescribed in accordance with Article 298 of this Regulation due to
circumstances beyond his control;
(b) seals are broken or tampered with in the course of a transport operation for reasons beyond the carrier's control;
(c) under the supervision of the customs authority, goods are transferred from one means of transport to another means
of transport;
(d) imminent danger necessitates immediate partial or total unloading of the sealed means of transport;
(e) there is an incident which may affect the ability of the holder of the procedure or the carrier to comply with his
obligations;
(f) any of the elements constituting a single means of transport as referred to in Article 296(2) of this Regulation is
changed.
2.
Where the customs authority in whose territory the means of transport is located considers that the Union transit operation concerned may continue, it shall take any steps that it considers necessary.
Relevant information concerning the incidents referred to in paragraph 1 shall be recorded in the electronic transit system by that customs authority.
3.
In case of an incident as referred to in paragraph 1(c), the customs authorities shall not require presentation of the goods together with the MRN of the transit declaration if all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) the goods are transferred from a means of transport that is not sealed;
(b) the holder of the procedure or the carrier on behalf of the holder of the procedure provides relevant information
concerning the transfer to the customs authority of the Member State in whose territory the means of transport is
located;
(c) the relevant information is recorded in the electronic transit system by that authority.
4.
In the case of an incident as referred to in paragraph 1(f), the carrier may continue the Union transit operation when one or more carriages or wagons are withdrawn from a set of coupled railway carriages or wagons due to technical problems.
5.
In the case of an incident as referred to in paragraph 1(f), where the tractor unit of a road vehicle is changed without its trailers or semi-trailers being changed, the customs authority shall not require presentation of the goods together with the MRN of the transit declaration if all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) the holder of the procedure or the carrier on behalf of the holder of the procedure provides relevant information
concerning the composition of the road vehicle to the customs authority of the Member State in whose territory that
road vehicle is located;
(b) the relevant information is recorded in the electronic transit system by that authority.
6.
Until the dates of deployment of the upgrading of the NCTS referred to in Annex to Implementing Decision
2014/255/EU, in the cases referred to in paragraph 1, the carrier shall make the necessary entries in the transit accompanying document or in the transit/security accompanying document and present without undue delay after the incident the goods together with the transit accompanying document or the transit/security accompanying document to the nearest customs authority of the Member State in whose territory the means of transport is located.
In the cases referred to in paragraphs 3(a) and (b), 4 and 5(a) the carrier is waived from the presentation of the goods and of the MRN of the transit declaration to this customs authority.
Relevant information concerning incidents during transit operation shall be recorded in the electronic transit system by the customs office of transit or by the customs office of destination.
7.
Until the dates of deployment of the upgrading of the NCTS referred to in Annex to Implementing Decision
2014/255/EU, the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of this Article shall not apply.
## S U B S E C T I O N 4 F O R M A L I T I E S A T T H E C U S T O M S O F F I C E O F D E S T I N A T I O N Article 306 Presentation Of Goods Placed Under The Union Transit Procedure At The Customs Office Of Destination (Articles 226(3)(A) And 227(2)(A) Of The Code)
1.
Where goods placed under a Union transit procedure arrive at the customs office of destination, the following shall be presented at that customs office:
(a) the goods;
(b) the MRN of the transit declaration;
(c) any information required by the customs office of destination.
The presentation shall take place during the official opening hours. However, the customs office of destination may, at the request of the person concerned, allow the presentation to take place outside the official opening hours or at any other place.
2.
With respect to the presentation of the MRN of the transit declaration at each customs office of transit Article 184(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 shall apply.
3.
Where the presentation has taken place after expiry of the time-limit set by the customs office of departure in accordance with Article 297(1) of this Regulation, the holder of the procedure shall be deemed to have complied with the time-limit where he or the carrier proves to the satisfaction of the customs office of destination that the delay is not attributable to him.
4.
The Union transit procedure may be ended at a customs office other than that declared in the transit declaration.
That customs office shall then be considered to be the customs office of destination.
5.
At the request of the person presenting the goods at the customs office of destination, that customs office shall endorse a receipt which certifies the presentation of the goods at that customs office and contains a reference to the MRN
of the transit declaration.
The receipt shall be provided using the form set out in Annex 72-03 and be completed in advance by the person concerned.
The receipt shall not be used as alternative proof of the Union transit procedure having ended within the meaning of Article 312 of this Regulation.
## Article 307 Notification Of Arrival Of Goods Under The Union Transit Procedure (Articles 226(3)(A) And 227(2)(A) Of The Code)
1.
The customs office of destination shall notify the customs office of departure of arrival of the goods on the day the goods and the MRN of the transit declaration are presented in accordance with Article 306(1) of this Regulation.
2.
Where the Union transit procedure is ended at a customs office other than that declared in the transit declaration, the customs office considered to be the customs office of destination in accordance with Article 306(4) of this Regulation shall notify the arrival to the customs office of departure on the day the goods and the MRN of the transit declaration are presented in accordance with Article 306(1) of this Regulation.
The customs office of departure shall notify the arrival to the customs office of destination declared in the transit declaration.
## Article 308 Controls And Issuing Of Alternative Proof (Articles 226(3)(A) And 227(2)(A) Of The Code)
1.
Where the Union transit procedure is ended, the customs office of destination shall carry out customs controls on the basis of the particulars of the Union transit operation received from the customs office of departure.
2.
Where the Union transit procedure is ended, no irregularity has been detected by the customs office of destination, and the holder of the procedure presents the transit accompanying document or the transit/security accompanying document, that customs office shall endorse that document at the request of the holder of the procedure for the purposes of providing alternative proof in accordance with Article 305. The endorsement shall consist of the stamp of that customs office, the official's signature, the date and the following mention:
'Alternative proof - 99202'.
## Article 309 Sending The Control Results (Articles 226(3)(A) And 227(2)(A) Of The Code)
1.
The customs office of destination shall notify the control results to the customs office of departure at the latest on the third day following the day the goods are presented at the customs office of destination or at another place in accordance with Article 306(1) of this Regulation. In exceptional cases, that time-limit may be extended up to 6 days.
2.
By derogation from paragraph 1, where goods are received by an authorised consignee as referred to in Article 233(4)(b) of the Code, the customs office of departure shall be notified at the latest on the sixth day following the day the goods were delivered to the authorised consignee.
Where goods are carried by rail and one or more carriages or wagons are withdrawn from a set of coupled railway carriages or wagons due to technical problems, as referred to in Article 305(4) of this Regulation, the customs office of departure shall be notified at the latest on the 12th day following the day the first part of goods has been presented.
3.
Until the dates of deployment of the upgrading of the NCTS referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision
2014/255/EU, the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of this Article shall not apply.
## S U B S E C T I O N 5 E N Q U I R Y P R O C E D U R E A N D R E C O V E R Y O F T H E C U S T O M S D E B T Article 310 Enquiry Procedure For Goods Moved Under The Union Transit Procedure (Articles 226(3)(A) And 227(2)(A) Of The Code)
1.
Where the customs office of departure has not received the control results within 6 days in accordance with Article 309(1) of this Regulation or the first subparagraph of Article 309(2) of this Regulation or within 12 days in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 309(2) of this Regulation after receiving the notification of arrival of the goods, that customs office shall immediately request the control results from the customs office of destination which sent the notification of arrival of the goods.
The customs office of destination shall send the control results immediately after receiving the request from the customs office of departure.
2.
Where the customs authority of the Member State of departure has not yet received information that allows for the discharge of the Union transit procedure or for the recovery of the customs debt, it shall request the relevant information from the holder of the procedure or, where sufficient particulars are available at the place of destination, from the customs office of destination, in the following cases:
(a) the customs office of departure has not received the notification of arrival of the goods by the expiry of the time-limit
for the presentation of the goods set in accordance with Article 297 of this Regulation;
(b) the customs office of departure has not received the control results requested in accordance with paragraph 1;
(c) the customs office of departure becomes aware that the notification of arrival of the goods or the control results were
sent in error.
3.
The customs authority of the Member State of departure shall send requests for information in accordance with paragraph 2(a) within a period of 7 days after the expiry of the time-limit referred to therein and requests for information in accordance with paragraph 2(b) within a period of 7 days after the expiry of the applicable time-limit referred to in paragraph 1.
However, if, before the expiry of those time-limits, the customs authority of the Member State of departure receives information that the Union transit procedure has not been ended correctly, or suspects that to be the case, it shall send the request without delay.
4.
Replies to requests made in accordance with paragraph 2 shall be sent within 28 days from the date on which the request was sent.
5.
Where, following a request in accordance with paragraph 2, the customs office of destination has not provided sufficient information for the Union transit procedure to be discharged, the customs authority of the Member State of departure shall request the holder of the procedure to provide that information, at the latest 35 days after initiating the enquiry procedure.
However, until the dates of deployment of the upgrading of the NCTS referred to in Annex to Implementing Decision
2014/255/EU, that customs authority shall request the holder of the procedure to provide that information, at the latest
28 days after the initiating the enquiry procedure.
The holder of the procedure shall reply to that request within 28 days from the date on which it was sent.
6.
If the information provided in a reply from the holder of the procedure in accordance with paragraph 5 is not sufficient to discharge the Union transit procedure, but the customs authority of the Member State of departure considers it sufficient in order to continue the enquiry procedure, that authority shall immediately send a request for supplementary information to the customs office involved.
That customs office shall reply to the request within 40 days from the date on which it was sent.
7.
Where during the steps of an enquiry procedure set out in paragraphs 1 to 6 it is established that the Union transit procedure was ended correctly, the customs authority of the Member State of departure shall discharge the Union transit procedure and shall immediately inform the holder of the procedure and, where appropriate, any customs authority that may have initiated a recovery procedure.
8.
Where during the steps of an enquiry procedure set out in paragraphs 1 to 6 it is established that the Union transit procedure cannot be discharged, the customs authority of the Member State of departure shall establish whether a customs debt has been incurred.
If a customs debt has been incurred, the customs authority of the Member State of departure shall take the following measures:
(a) identify the debtor;
(b) determine the customs authority responsible for the notification of the customs debt in accordance with Article 102(1)
of the Code.
## Article 311 Request To Transfer Recovery Of The Customs Debt (Articles 226(3)(A) And 227(2)(A) Of The Code)
1.
Where the customs authority of the Member State of departure, during the enquiry procedure, and before the timelimit referred to in Article 77(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 expires, obtains evidence that the place where the events from which the customs debt arises occurred is in another Member State, that authority shall immediately and in any event within that time-limit send all the information available to the competent customs authority at that place.
2.
The competent customs authority at that place shall acknowledge receipt of the information and inform the customs authority of the Member State of departure whether it is responsible for the recovery. If the customs authority of the Member State of departure has not received that information within 28 days, it shall immediately resume the enquiry procedure or start the recovery.
## Article 312 Alternative Proof Of Ending The Union Transit Procedure (Articles 226(3)(A) And 227(2)(A) Of The Code)
1.
The Union transit procedure shall be considered as having been ended correctly where the holder of the procedure presents, to the satisfaction of the customs authority of the Member State of departure, one of the following documents identifying the goods:
(a) a document certified by the customs authority of the Member State of destination which identifies the goods and
establishes that the goods have been presented at the customs office of destination, or have been delivered to an
authorised consignee as referred to in Article 233(4)(b) of the Code;
(b) a document or a customs record, certified by the customs authority of a Member State which establishes that the
goods have physically left the customs territory of the Union;
(c) a customs document issued in a third country where the goods are placed under a customs procedure;
(d) a document issued in a third country, stamped or otherwise certified by the customs authority of that country and
establishing that the goods are considered to be in free circulation in that country.
2.
Instead of the documents referred to in paragraph 1, copies thereof certified as being true copies by the body which certified the original documents, by the authority of the third country concerned or by an authority of a Member State may be provided as proof.
3.
The notification of arrival of the goods referred to in Article 300 shall not be considered to be proof that the Union transit procedure has been ended correctly.
S u b s e c t i o n 6
S i m p l i f i c a t i o n s u s e d f o r t h e U n i o n t r a n s i t p r o c e d u r e
## Article 313 Territorial Scope Of Simplifications
(Article 233(4) of the Code)
beginning in the Member State where the authorisation of the simplifications is granted.
2.
The simplification referred to in Article 233(4)(b) of the Code shall apply only to Union transit operations ending in the Member State where the authorisation of the simplification is granted.
3.
The simplification referred to in Article 233(4)(e) of the Code shall apply in the Member States specified in the authorisation of the simplification.
## Article 314 Placing Of Goods Under The Union Transit Procedure By An Authorised Consignor (Article 233(4)(A) Of The Code)
1.
Where an authorised consignor intends to place goods under the Union transit procedure, he shall lodge a transit declaration at the customs office of departure. The authorised consignor cannot start the Union transit procedure until the expiry of the time-limit specified in the authorisation referred to in Article 233(4)(a) of the Code.
2.
The authorised consignor shall enter the following information into the electronic transit system:
(a) the itinerary where an itinerary has been prescribed in accordance with Article 291;
(b) the time-limit set in accordance with Article 297 of this Regulation within which the goods shall be presented at the
customs office of destination;
(c) the number and the individual seal identifiers of the seals, where appropriate.
3.
The authorised consignor may print a transit accompanying document or transit/security accompanying document only after receipt of the notification of the release of the goods for the Union transit procedure from the customs office of departure. However, until the dates of deployment of the upgrading of the NCTS referred to in Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, the authorised consignor shall print those documents.
## Article 315 Formalities For Goods Moved Under The Union Transit Procedure Received By An Authorised Consignee (Article 233(4)(B) Of The Code)
1.
When the goods arrive at a place specified in the authorisation referred to in Article 233(4)(b) of the Code, the authorised consignee shall:
(a) immediately notify the customs office of destination of arrival of the goods and inform it of any irregularities or
incidents that occurred during transport;
(b) unload the goods only after obtaining the permission from the customs office of destination;
(c) after unloading, enter the results of the inspection and any other relevant information relating to the unloading into
his records without delay;
(d) notify the customs office of destination of the results of the inspection of the goods and inform it of any irregularities
on the third day following the day on which he has received the permission to unload the goods, at the latest.
2.
When the customs office of destination has received notification of arrival of the goods at the premises of the authorised consignee, it shall notify the customs office of departure of the arrival of the goods.
3.
When the customs office of destination has received the results of the inspection of the goods referred to in paragraph 1(d), it shall send the control results to the customs office of departure on the sixth day following the day the goods were delivered to the authorised consignee, at the latest.
## Article 316 End Of The Union Transit Procedure For Goods Received By An Authorised Consignee (Article 233(4)(B) Of The Code)
1.
The holder of the procedure shall be considered to have fulfilled his obligations and the transit procedure shall be deemed to end in accordance with Article 233(2) of the Code, when the goods have been presented intact to the authorised consignee as provided for in Article 233(4)(b) of the Code at the place specified in the authorisation within the time-limit set in accordance with Article 297(1) of this Regulation.
2.
At the carrier's request the authorised consignee shall issue the receipt which certifies the arrival of the goods at a place specified in the authorisation referred to in Article 233(4)(b) of the Code and contains a reference to the MRN of the Union transit operation. The receipt shall be provided using the form set out in Annex 72-03.
## Article 317 Formalities For The Use Of Seals Of A Special Type (Article 233(4)(C) Of The Code)
1.
Seals of a special type shall fulfil the requirements laid down in Article 301(1) of this Regulation.
Where seals have been certified by a competent body in accordance with ISO International Standard No 17712:2013
'Freight containers - Mechanical Seals', those seals shall be deemed to fulfil those requirements.
For containerised transports, seals with high-security features shall be used to the widest possible extent.
2.
The seal of a special type shall bear either of the following indications:
(a) the name of the person authorised in accordance with Article 233(4)(c) of the Code to use it;
(b) a corresponding abbreviation or code on the basis of which the customs authority of the Member State of departure
can identify the person concerned.
3.
The holder of the procedure shall enter the number and the individual seal identifiers of the seals of a special type in the transit declaration and shall affix seals no later than when goods are released for the Union transit procedure.
## Article 318 Customs Supervision For The Use Of Seals Of A Special Type (Article 233(4)(C) Of The Code)
The customs authority shall do the following:
(a) notify the Commission and the customs authorities of the other Member States of seals of a special type in use and of
seals of a special type which it has decided not to approve for reasons of irregularities or technical deficiencies;
(b) review the seals of a special type approved by it and in use, when it receives information that another authority has
decided not to approve a particular seal of a special type;
(c) conduct a mutual consultation in order to reach a common assessment;
(d) monitor the use of the seals of a special type by persons authorised in accordance with Article 197 of Delegated
Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
Where necessary, the Commission and the Member States in agreement with each other may establish a common numbering system, define use of common security features and technology.
## Article 319 Consultation Prior To Authorisations To Use An Electronic Transport Document As A Transit Declaration For Air Transport Or Maritime Transport (Article 22 Of The Code)
After having examined whether the conditions laid down in Article 191 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 and the conditions laid down in Article 199 of that Delegated Regulation for air transport or in Article 200 of that Delegated Regulation for maritime transport, respectively, for the authorisation are met, the customs authority competent to take a decision shall consult the customs authority at the airports of departure and destination in the event of air transport or the customs authority at the ports of departure and destination in the event of maritime transport.
The time-limit for the consultation shall be fixed at 45 days from the communication referred to in Article 15 from the customs authority competent to take a decision of the conditions and criteria which need to be examined by the consulted customs authority.
## Article 320 Formalities For The Use Of An Electronic Transport Document As A Transit Declaration For Air Transport Or Maritime Transport (Article 233(4)(E) Of The Code)
1.
The goods shall be released for the Union transit procedure when the particulars of the electronic transport document have been made available to the customs office of departure at the airport in the event of air transport or to the customs office of departure at the port in the event of maritime transport in accordance with the means defined in the authorisation.
2.
Where the goods are to be placed under the Union transit procedure, the holder of the procedure shall enter the appropriate codes next to all items in the electronic transport document.
3.
The Union transit procedure shall end when the goods are presented at the customs office of destination at the airport in the event of air transport or at the customs office of destination at the port in the event of maritime transport, and the particulars of the electronic transport document have been made available to that customs office in accordance with the means defined in the authorisation.
4.
The holder of the procedure shall notify the customs offices of departure and destination immediately of all offences and irregularities.
5.
The Union transit procedure is deemed to be discharged unless the customs authorities have received information or have established that the procedure has not ended correctly.
## S U B S E C T I O N 7 G O O D S T R A N S P O R T E D B Y F I X E D T R A N S P O R T I N S T A L L A T I O N Article 321 Transport By Fixed Transport Installation And Operation Of The Union Transit Procedure (Articles 226(3)(A) And 227(2)(A) Of The Code)
1.
Where the goods transported by a fixed transport installation enter the customs territory of the Union through that installation, those goods shall be deemed to be placed under the Union transit procedure when entering that territory.
2.
Where the goods are already in the customs territory of the Union and is transported by a fixed transport installation, those goods shall be deemed to be placed under the Union transit procedure when placed into the fixed transport installation.
3.
For the purposes of the Union transit procedure where goods are transported by fixed transport installations, the holder of the procedure shall be the operator of the fixed transport installation established in the Member State through the territory of which the goods enter the customs territory of the Union in the case referred to in paragraph 1 or the operator of the fixed transport installation in the Member State in which the movement starts in the case referred to in paragraph 2.
The holder of the procedure and the customs authority shall agree on the methods of customs supervision over the goods transported.
4.
For the purposes of Article 233(3) of the Code, the operator of a fixed transport installation established in a Member State through the territory of which the goods are transported by fixed transport installation shall be regarded as the carrier.
5.
The Union transit procedure shall be deemed to have ended when the appropriate entry is made in the commercial records of the consignee or the operator of the fixed transport installation certifying that the goods transported by fixed transport installation:
(a) have arrived at the consignee's plant;
(b) are accepted into the distribution network of the consignee; or
(c) have left the customs territory of the Union.
## Chapter 4 Specific Use S E C T I O N 1 T E M P O R A R Y A D M I S S I O N Article 322 Discharge Of The Temporary Admission Procedure In Cases Concerning Means Of Rail Transport, Pallets And Containers (Article 215 Of The Code)
1.
For means of rail transport used jointly under an agreement between Union and non-Union carriers providing transport services by rail, the temporary admission procedure maybe discharged when means of rail transport of the same type or of the same value as those which were put at the disposal of a person established in the customs territory of the Union are exported or re-exported.
2.
For pallets, the temporary admission procedure maybe discharged when pallets of the same type or of the same value as those which were placed under the procedure are exported or re-exported.
3.
For containers, in accordance with the Convention on Customs Treatment of Pool Containers used in International Transport (
1
), the temporary admission procedure shall be discharged when containers of the same type or of the same value as those which were placed under the procedure are exported or re-exported.
## Article 323 Special Discharge For Goods For Events Or For Sale (Article 215 Of The Code)
For the purposes of discharging the temporary admission procedure in respect of goods referred to in Article 234(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 with the exception of goods referred to in Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/118/EC, their consumption, destruction or distribution free of charge to the public at the event shall be considered as re-export provided that their quantity corresponds to the nature of the event, the number of visitors and the extent of the participation of the holder of the procedure therein.
## Chapter 5 Processing I N W A R D P R O C E S S I N G Article 324 Special Cases Of Discharge Of The Inward Processing Im/Ex Procedure (Article 215 Of The Code)
1.
For the purposes of discharging the inward processing IM/EX procedure, the following shall be regarded as reexport:
(b) the processed products are delivered to the armed forces of other countries stationed in the territory of a Member
State, where that Member State grants special relief from import duty in accordance with Article 131(1) of Regulation
(EC) No 1186/2009;
(c) the delivery of aircraft;
(d) the delivery of spacecraft and related equipment;
(e) the delivery of main processed products for which the *erga omnes* import duty rate is 'free' or for which an
airworthiness certificate as referred to in Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1147/2002 (
1
) has been issued;
(f) disposal, in accordance with the relevant provisions, of secondary processed products whose destruction under
customs supervision is prohibited on environmental grounds.
2.
Paragraph 1 shall not apply:
(a) where non-Union goods placed under the inward processing IM/EX procedure would be subject to an agricultural or
commercial policy measure, a provisional or definitive anti-dumping duty, a countervailing duty, a safeguard measure
or an additional duty resulting from a suspension of concessions if they were declared for release for free circulation;
(b) where a customs debt would be incurred in accordance with Article 78(1) of the Code for non-originating goods
placed under the inward processing IM/EX procedure if the holder of the authorisation intends to re-export the
processed products.
3.
In the case of paragraph 1(c), the supervising customs office shall allow the inward processing IM/EX procedure to be discharged once the goods placed under the procedure have been used for the first time for the manufacture, repair including maintenance, modification or conversion of aircraft or parts thereof, on condition that the records of the holder of the procedure are such as to make it possible to verify that the procedure is being correctly applied and operated.
4.
In the case of paragraph 1(d), the supervising customs office shall allow the inward processing IM/EX procedure to be discharged once the goods placed under the procedure have been used for the first time for the manufacture, repair including maintenance, modification or conversion of satellites, their launch vehicles and ground station equipment and parts thereof that are an integral part of the systems, on condition that the records of the holder of the procedure are such as to make it possible to verify that the procedure is being correctly applied and operated.
5.
In the case of paragraph 1(e), the supervising customs office shall allow the inward processing IM/EX procedure to be discharged once the goods placed under the procedure have been used for the first time in the processing operations related to the delivered processed products or to parts thereof, on condition that the records of the holder of the procedure are such as to make it possible to verify that the procedure is being correctly applied and operated.
6.
In the case of paragraph 1(f), the holder of the inward processing procedure shall prove that discharge of the inward processing IM/EX procedure in accordance with the normal rules is either impossible or uneconomic.
## Article 325 Processed Products Or Goods Deemed To Have Been Released For Free Circulation (Article 215 Of The Code)
1.
Where the authorisation for inward processing IM/EX has specified that processed products or goods placed under the procedure are deemed to have been released for free circulation if they have not been placed under a subsequent customs procedure or re-exported on expiry of the period for discharge, the customs declaration for release for free circulation shall be deemed to have been lodged and accepted and release granted on the date of expiry of the period for discharge.
2.
In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, the products or the goods placed under the inward processing IM/EX
procedure shall become Union goods when they are put on the market.
# Title Viii
## Goods Taken Out Of The Customs Territory Of The Union Chapter 1 Formalities Prior To The Exit Of Goods Article 326 Electronic System Relating To Exit (Article 16(1) Of The Code)
For the processing and exchange of information relating to the exit of goods out of the customs territory of the Union, an electronic system set up for those purposes pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Code shall be used.
The first paragraph of this Article shall be applicable from the dates of deployment of the UCC AES referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU.
## Article 327 Goods Not Covered By A Pre-Departure Declaration (Article 267 Of The Code)
Where it is found that goods intended to be taken out of the customs territory of the Union are not covered by a predeparture declaration, and except where the obligation to lodge such a declaration is waived, the exit of the goods shall be subject to the lodgement of such a declaration.
## Article 328 Risk Analysis (Article 264 Of The Code)
1.
Risk analysis shall be carried out prior to the release of the goods within a time-limit which corresponds to the period between the end of the time-limit for the lodgement of the pre-departure declaration as laid down in Article 244
of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 and the loading or the departure of the goods, as appropriate.
2.
Where a waiver from the obligation to lodge a pre-departure declaration pursuant to Article 245 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 applies, risk analysis shall be carried out upon presentation of the goods on the basis of the customs declaration or re-export declaration covering those goods or, where not available, on the basis of any other available information about the goods.
## Chapter 2 Formalities On Exit Of Goods Article 329 Determination Of The Customs Office Of Exit (Article 159(3) Of The Code)
1.
Except where paragraphs 2 to 7 apply, the customs office of exit shall be the customs office competent for the place from where the goods leave the customs territory of the Union for a destination outside that territory.
2.
In the case of goods leaving the customs territory of the Union by fixed transport installation, the customs office of exit shall be the customs office of export.
3.
Where the goods are loaded on a vessel or an aircraft for carriage to a destination outside the customs territory of the Union, the customs office of exit shall be the customs office competent for the place where the goods are loaded onto such vessel or aircraft.
4.
Where the goods are loaded onto a vessel that is not assigned to a regular shipping service referred to in Article 120
of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, the customs office of exit shall be the customs office competent for the place where the goods are loaded onto such vessel.
5.
Where, after having been released for export, goods are placed under an external transit procedure, the customs office of exit shall be the customs office of departure of the transit operation.
6.
Where, after having been released for export, goods are placed under a transit procedure other than the external transit procedure, the customs office of exit shall be the customs office of departure of the transit operation provided that either of the following conditions is fulfilled:
(a) the customs office of destination of the transit operation is situated in a common transit country;
(b) the customs office of destination of the transit operation is situated at the border of the customs territory of the
Union and the goods are taken out of that customs territory, after having passed through a country or territory
outside the customs territory of Union.
7.
On request the customs office of exit shall be the customs office competent for the place where the goods are taken over under a single transport contract for transport of the goods out of the customs territory of the Union by the railway companies, the postal operators, the airlines or the shipping companies provided that the goods are to leave the customs territory of the Union by rail, post, air or sea.
8.
Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 shall not apply in cases of excise goods under suspension of excise duty or goods subject to export formalities with a view to refunds being granted on export under the common agricultural policy.
9.
Where a re-export notification is to be lodged in accordance with Article 274(1) of the Code, the customs office of exit shall be the customs office competent for the place where the goods are in the free zone or in temporary storage.
## Article 330 Communication Between The Customs Offices Of Export And Exit (Article 267(1) Of The Code)
Except where the customs declaration takes the form of an entry in the declarant's records in accordance with Article 182
of the Code, on release of the goods, the customs office of export shall, transmit the particulars of the export declaration to the declared customs office of exit. Those particulars shall be based on data derived from the export declaration, as amended where appropriate.
## Article 331 Presentation Of Goods At The Customs Office Of Exit (Article 267 Of The Code)
1.
The person presenting goods on exit shall at the moment of presentation of the goods at the customs office of exit:
(a) indicate the MRN of the export or re-export declaration;
(b) indicate any discrepancies between the goods declared and released for export and those presented, including cases
where goods have been repackaged or containerised before their presentation at the customs office of exit;
(c) where only part of the goods covered by an export or re-export declaration is presented, the person presenting the
goods shall also indicate the quantity of the goods actually presented.
However, where those goods are presented in packages or containerised, he shall notify the number of packages and, if containerised, the container identification numbers.
3.
Goods declared for export or re-export may be presented at a customs office of exit other than that declared in the export or re-export declaration. Where the actual customs office of exit is located in another Member State than that originally declared, that customs office shall request the particulars of the export or re-export declaration from the customs office of export.
## Article 332 Formalities On Exit Of Goods (Article 267 Of The Code)
1.
Where goods to be taken out of the customs territory of the Union are subject to customs controls, the customs office of exit shall examine the goods on the basis of the information received from the customs office of export.
2.
Where the person presenting the goods indicates, or the customs office of exit discovers, that some of the goods declared for export, re-export or outward processing are missing when presented to the customs office of exit, that customs office shall inform the customs office of export about the missing goods.
3.
Where the person presenting the goods indicates, or the customs office of exit discovers, that some of the goods presented to the customs office of exit are in excess of those declared for export, re-export or outward processing, that customs office shall refuse the exit of the goods in excess until an export or re-export declaration has been lodged for those goods. That export or re-export declaration may be lodged at the customs office of exit.
4.
Where the person presenting the goods indicates, or the customs office of exit discovers, that there is a discrepancy in the nature of the goods declared for export, re-export or outward processing compared to those presented to the customs office of exit, the customs office of exit shall refuse the exit of those goods until an export or re-export declaration has been lodged for them and shall inform the customs office of export. That export or re-export declaration may be lodged at the customs office of exit.
5.
The carrier shall notify the exit of the goods to the customs office of exit by providing all of the following information:
(a) the unique consignment reference number or the transport document reference number;
(b) where the goods are presented in packages or containerised the number of packages and, if containerised, the
container identification numbers;
(c) the MRN of the export or re-export declaration where applicable.
That obligation shall not apply insofar as that information is available to the customs authorities through existing commercial, port or transport information systems.
6.
For the purposes of paragraph 5, the person handing over the goods to the carrier shall provide him with the particulars referred to in that paragraph.
The carrier may load the goods for carriage out of the customs territory of the Union where the information referred to in paragraph 5 is available to him.
## Article 333 Supervision Of Goods Released For Exit And Exchange Of Information Between Customs Offices (Article 267 Of The Code)
1.
Once goods have been released for exit, the customs office of exit shall supervise them until they are taken out of the customs territory of the Union.
2.
Where the customs offices of exit and export are different, the customs office of exit shall inform the customs office of export of the exit of the goods at the latest on the working day following the day on which the goods have left the customs territory of the Union.
However, in the cases referred to in paragraphs 3 to 7 of Article 329 of this Regulation, the time-limit for the customs office of exit to inform the customs office of export of the exit of the goods shall be the following:
(b) in the cases referred to in Article 329(5), at the latest on the working day following the day on which the goods have
been placed under the external transit procedure;
(c) in the cases referred to in Article 329(6), at the latest on the working day following the day on which the transit
procedure has been discharged;
(d) in the cases referred to in Article 329(7), at the latest on the working day following the day on which the goods have
been taken over under cover of a single transport contract.
3.
Where the customs offices of exit and export are different and the exit of the goods is refused, the customs office of exit shall inform the customs office of export at the latest on the working day following the day on which the exit of the goods has been refused.
4.
In unforeseen circumstances, where goods covered by one export or re-export declaration are moved to a customs office of exit and are subsequently to leave the customs territory of the Union through more than one customs office of exit, each customs office of exit where the goods were presented shall supervise the exit of the goods which are to be taken out of the customs territory of the Union. The customs offices of exit shall inform the customs office of export of the exit of the goods under their supervision.
5.
Where goods covered by one export or re-export declaration are moved to a customs office of exit and subsequently leave the customs territory of the Union as more than one consignment due to unforeseen circumstances, the customs office of exit shall inform the customs office of export of the exit of each consignment.
6.
Where goods are to leave the customs territory of the Union in the case referred to in Article 329(7) of this Regulation, the carrier shall upon the request by the competent customs authorities at the point of exit provide information on those goods. That information shall consist in one of the following:
(a) the MRN of the export declaration;
(b) a copy of the single transport contract for the goods concerned;
(c) the unique consignment reference number or the transport document reference number and where the goods are
presented in packages or containerised, the number of packages and, if containerised, the container identification
number.
7.
By derogation from point c of paragraph 2 of this Article, until the dates of deployment of the Automated Export System referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, in the cases referred to in Article 329(6) of this Regulation, the time-limit for the customs office of exit to inform the customs office of export of the exit of the goods shall be the first working day following the day the goods are placed under that transit procedure or the goods leave the customs territory of the union or the transit procedure is discharged.
8.
By derogation from paragraph 4 of this Article, until the dates of deployment of the Automated Export System referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, the customs office of exit where the consignment was first presented shall collect the exit results from the other customs offices of exit and shall inform the customs office of export of the exit of the goods. They may do so only when all of the goods have left the customs territory of the Union.
9.
By derogation from paragraph 5 of this Article, until the dates of deployment of the Automated Export System referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU, where goods covered by one export or re-export declaration are moved to a customs office of exit and subsequently leave the customs territory of the Union as more than one consignment due to unforeseen circumstances, the customs office of exit shall inform the customs office of export of the exit of the goods only when all of the goods have left the customs territory of the Union.
## Article 334 Certification Of Exit Of Goods (Article 267 Of The Code)
1.
The customs office of export shall certify the exit of the goods to the declarant or the exporter in the following cases:
(a) where that office has been informed of the exit of the goods by the customs office of exit;
(b) where that office is the same as the customs office of exit and the goods have exited;
(c) where that office considers that the evidence provided in accordance with Article 335(4) of this Regulation is
sufficient.
2.
Where the customs office of export has certified the exit of the goods in accordance with paragraph 1(c), it shall inform the customs office of exit thereof.
## Article 335 Enquiry Procedure (Article 267 Of The Code)
1.
Where, after 90 days from the release of goods for export, the customs office of export has not been informed of the exit of the goods, it may request the declarant to inform it of the date on which and the customs office of exit from which the goods left the customs territory of the Union.
2.
The declarant may, on his own initiative, inform the customs office of export of the dates on which and the customs offices of exit from which the goods left the customs territory of the Union.
3.
Where the declarant provides information to the customs office of export in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2, he may request the customs office of export to certify the exit. For that purpose, the customs office of export shall request information on the exit of the goods from the customs office of exit, which shall respond within 10 days.
Where the customs office of exit does not respond within that time-limit, the customs office of export shall inform the declarant thereof.
4.
Where the customs office of export informs the declarant that the customs office of exit has not responded within the time-limit referred to in paragraph 3, the declarant may provide to the customs office of export evidence that the goods have left the customs territory of the Union.
That evidence may be provided, in particular, by one of the following means or a combination thereof:
(a) a copy of the delivery note signed or authenticated by the consignee outside the customs territory of the Union;
(b) the proof of payment;
(c) the invoice;
(d) the delivery note;
(e) a document signed or authenticated by the economic operator which has taken the goods out of the customs territory
of the Union;
(f) a document processed by the customs authority of a Member State or a third country in line with the rules and
procedures applicable in that State or country;
(g) economic operators' records of goods supplied to ships, aircraft or offshore installations.
## Chapter 3 Export And Re-Export Article 336 Export Or Re-Export Declaration For Goods In Several Consignments
(Article 162 of the Code)
Where goods are intended to be taken out of the customs territory of the Union as more than one consignment each individual consignment shall be covered by a separate export or re-export declaration.
## Article 337 Retrospective Lodgement Of An Export Or Re-Export Declaration (Articles 162 And 267 Of The Code)
1.
Where an export or re-export declaration was required but the goods have been brought out of the customs territory of the Union without such declaration, the exporter shall lodge a retrospective export or re-export declaration. That declaration shall be lodged at the customs office competent for the place where the exporter is established. That customs office shall certify the exit of the goods to the exporter provided that the release would have been granted if the declaration had been lodged before the exit of the goods from the customs territory of the Union and it has the evidence at its disposal that the goods have left the customs territory of the Union.
2.
Where Union goods which were intended for re-import have left the customs territory of the Union but are no longer intended to be re-imported, and a different type of customs declaration would have been used if there was no intention of re-importation, the exporter may lodge a retrospective export declaration, replacing the original declaration, at the customs office of export. That customs office shall certify the exit of the goods to the exporter.
However, where the Union goods have left the customs territory of the Union under cover of an ATA and CPD carnet, the customs office of export shall certify the exit of the goods to the exporter provided that the re-importation voucher and counterfoil of the ATA and CPD carnet are invalidated.
## Article 338 Lodgement Of A Re-Export Declaration For Goods Covered By An Ata And Cpd Carnet (Article 159(3) Of The Code)
The competent customs office for the re-export of goods covered by an ATA and CPD carnet shall, in addition to the customs offices referred to in Article 221(2) of this Regulation, be the customs office of exit.
## Article 339 Use Of An Ata And Cpd Carnet As An Export Declaration (Article 162 Of The Code)
1.
An ATA and CPD carnet shall be considered an export declaration where the carnet has been issued in a Member State contracting party to the ATA Convention or Istanbul Convention and endorsed and guaranteed by an association established in the Union and forming part of a guaranteeing chain as defined in Article 1(d) of Annex A to the Istanbul Convention.
2.
The ATA and CPD carnet shall not be used as an export declaration in relation to Union goods where:
(a) those goods are subject to export formalities with a view to refunds being granted on export under the common
agricultural policy;
(b) those goods that have been part of intervention stocks, are subject to measures of control as to use or destination,
and have undergone customs formalities on export to territories outside the customs territory of the Union under the
common agricultural policy;
(c) those goods are eligible for the repayment or remission of import duty on the condition that they are exported from
the customs territory of the Union;
(d) those goods are moved under a duty suspension arrangement within the territory of the Union pursuant to Directive
2008/118/EC, except where the provisions of Article 30 of that Directive apply.
3.
Where an ATA carnet is used as an export declaration, the customs office of export shall carry out the following formalities:
(a) verify the information given in boxes A to G of the exportation voucher against the goods under cover of the carnet;
(b) complete, where appropriate, the box on the cover page of the carnet headed 'Certificate by customs authorities';
(c) complete the counterfoil and box H of the exportation voucher;
(d) identify the customs office of export in box H(b) of the re-importation voucher;
(e) retain the exportation voucher.
4.
Where the customs office of export is not the customs office of exit, the customs office of export shall carry out the formalities referred to in paragraph 3, but it shall not complete box 7 of the counterfoil, which shall be completed by the customs office of exit.
5.
The time-limits for re-importing the goods set by the customs office of export in box H(b) of the exportation voucher may not exceed the validity of the carnet.
## Article 340 Goods Released For Export Or Re-Export That Do Not Leave The Customs Territory Of The Union (Article 267 Of The Code)
1.
Where goods released for the export or re-export are no longer intended to be taken out of the customs territory of the Union, the declarant shall immediately inform the customs office of export.
2.
Without prejudice to paragraph 1, where the goods have already been presented to the customs office of exit, the person who removes the goods from the customs office of exit for carriage to a place within the customs territory of the Union shall inform the customs office of exit that the goods will not be taken out of the customs territory of the Union and specify the MRN of the export or re-export declaration.
3.
Where, in the cases referred to in Article 329(5), (6) and (7) of this Regulation, a modification in the transport contract has the effect of terminating inside the customs territory of the Union a transport operation which should have terminated outside, the companies or authorities in question may only carry out the modified contract with the prior agreement of the customs office of exit.
4.
In the case of an invalidation of the export or re-export declaration in accordance with Article 248 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, the customs office of export shall inform the declarant and the declared customs office of exit of that invalidation.
## Chapter 4 Exit Summary Declaration Article 341 Measures To Be Taken Upon Receipt Of An Exit Summary Declaration (Article 271 Of The Code)
The customs office where the exit summary declaration is lodged in accordance with Article 271(1) of the Code shall:
(a) register the exit summary declaration immediately upon its receipt;
(b) provide a MRN to the declarant;
(c) where appropriate, release the goods for exit from the customs territory of the Union.
## Article 342 Goods For Which An Exit Summary Declaration Has Been Lodged That Do Not Leave The Customs Territory Of The Union
(Article 174 of the Code)
Where goods for which an exit summary declaration has been lodged are no longer intended to be taken out of the customs territory of the Union, the person who removes the goods from the customs office of exit for carriage to a place within that territory shall inform the customs office of exit that the goods will not be taken out of the customs territory of the Union and specify the MRN of the exit summary declaration.
## Chapter 5 Re-Export Notification Article 343 Measures To Be Taken Upon Receipt Of A Re-Export Notification
(Article 274 of the Code)
The customs office of exit shall:
(a) register the re-export notification immediately upon its receipt;
(b) provide a MRN to the declarant;
(c) where appropriate, release the goods for exit from the customs territory of the Union.
## Article 344 Goods For Which A Re-Export Notification Has Been Lodged That Do Not Leave The Customs Territory Of The Union (Article 174 Of The Code)
Where goods for which a re-export notification has been lodged are no longer intended to be taken out of the customs territory of the Union, the person who removes the goods from the customs office of exit for carriage to a place within that territory shall inform the customs office of exit that the goods will not be taken out of the customs territory of the Union and specify the MRN of the re-export notification.
## Title Ix Final Provisions Article 345 Procedural Rules For The Reassessment Of Authorisations Already In Force On 1 May 2016
1.
Decisions following a reassessment of an authorisation in accordance with Article 250(1) of Delegated Regulation
(EU) 2015/2446 shall be taken before 1 May 2019.
Those decisions shall revoke the reassessed authorisations and, where appropriate, grant new authorisations. The decisions shall be notified to the holders of the authorisation without delay.
2.
In the cases referred to in Article 253(b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, if a new authorisation to use a comprehensive guarantee is granted as a result of the reassessment of an authorisation to use a comprehensive guarantee linked to a decision granting deferment of payment using one of the procedures referred to in Article 226(b) or (c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (
1
), a new deferment of payment authorisation shall be issued automatically at the same time in accordance with Article 110 of the Code.
3.
Where the authorisations referred to in Article 251 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 contains references to Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 or Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, those references shall be read in accordance with the table of correspondence set out in Annex 90 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
already in force on 1 May 2016 shall remain valid until the respective dates of deployment of the CCI and AES referred to in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/255/EU.
## Article 346 Transitional Provisions Concerning Applications For Authorisations Submitted Before 1 May 2016
Customs authorities may accept applications for the granting of authorisations in accordance with the Code and this Regulation submitted before 1 May 2016. The customs authority competent to take the decision may grant author
isations in accordance with the Code and this Regulation before 1 May 2016. However, those authorisations shall not be valid before 1 May 2016.
## Article 347 Transitional Provision On Transaction Value
1.
The transaction value of the goods may be determined on the basis of a sale occurring before the sale referred to in Article 128(1) of this Regulation where the person on whose behalf the declaration is lodged is bound by a contract concluded prior to 18 January 2016.
2.
This Article shall apply until 31 December 2017.
## Article 348 Transitional Provisions Concerning The Release Of Goods
Where goods have been declared for release for free circulation, customs warehousing, inward processing, processing under customs control, temporary admission, end-use, transit, export or outward processing in accordance with Regu lation (EEC) No 2913/92 before 1 May 2016 and have not been released by that date, they shall be released for the procedure stated in the declaration in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code, Delegated Regulation (EU)
2015/2446 and this Regulation.
## Article 349 Transitional Provisions For Goods Placed Under Certain Customs Procedures Which Have Not Been Discharged Before 1 May 2016
1.
Where goods were placed under the following customs procedures before 1 May 2016, and the procedure has not been discharged before that date, the procedure shall be discharged in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 and this Regulation:
(a) release of goods for free circulation with a favourable tariff treatment or at a reduced or zero rate of duty on account
of their end-use;
(b) customs warehousing of types A, B, C, E and F;
(c) inward processing in the form of the suspension system;
(d) processing under customs control.
2.
Where goods were placed under the following customs procedures before 1 May 2016, and the procedure has not been discharged before that date, the procedure shall be discharged in accordance with relevant provisions of Regulation
(EEC) No 2913/92 and Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93:
(a) customs warehousing of type D;
(b) temporary importation;
(c) inward processing in the form of the drawback system;
(d) outward processing.
However, as from 1 January 2019 the procedure for customs warehousing of Type D shall be discharged in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 and this Regulation.
3.
Goods placed in a free zone of control type II as referred to in Article 799 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 or in a free warehouse which have not been assigned to a customs approved treatment or use in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 shall, from 1 May 2016, be considered to be placed under a customs warehousing procedure in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 and this Regulation.
4.
Where goods have been released for a transit operation before 1 May 2016 and that operation has not been discharged by that date, it shall be discharged in accordance with the relevant provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
and Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.
## Article 350
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 May 2016.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 November 2015.
For the Commission The President Jean-Claude JUNCKER
## Table Of Contents Title I General Provisions
| ANNEX A | Formats and codes of the common data requirements for applications and decisions |
|--------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 710 | |
| ANNEX B | Formats and codes of the common data requirements for declarations, notifications and |
| proof of the customs status of Union goods | |
| 741 | |
| ANNEX 12-01 | Formats and codes of the common data requirements for the registration of economic |
| operators and other persons | |
| 804 | |
| ANNEX 12-02 | Binding origin information decisions |
| | |
## Title Ii Factors On The Basis Of Which Import Or Export Duty And Other Measures In Respect Of Trade In Goods Are Applied
| ANNEX 21-01 | List of surveillance data elements referred to in Article 55(1) |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 810 | |
| ANNEX 21-02 | List of surveillance data elements referred to in Article 55(6) and correlation with box |
| declaration and/or format | |
| 812 | |
| ANNEX 22-02 | Information certificate INF 4 and application for an information certificate INF 4 |
| ANNEX 22-06 | Application to become a registered exporter for the purpose of schemes of generalised tariff |
| preferences of the European Union, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey | |
| 818 | |
| ANNEX 22-07 | Statement on origin |
| ANNEX 22-08 | Certificate of origin Form A |
| ANNEX 22-09 | Invoice declaration |
| ANNEX 22-10 | Movement certificate EUR.1 and relevant applications |
| ANNEX 22-13 | Invoice declaration |
| ANNEX 22-14 | Certificate of origin for certain products subject to special non-preferential import |
| arrangements | |
| 836 | |
| ANNEX 22-15 | Supplier's declaration for products having preferential origin status |
| ANNEX 22-16 | Long-term supplier's declaration for products having preferential origin status |
| ANNEX 22-17 | Supplier's declaration for products not having preferential origin status |
| ANNEX 22-18 | Long-term supplier's declaration for products not having preferential origin status |
| ANNEX 22-19 | Requirements for drawing up replacement certificates of origin Form A |
| ANNEX 22-20 | Requirements for drawing up replacement statements on origin |
| ANNEX 23-01 | Air transport costs to be included in the customs value |
| ANNEX 23-02 | List of goods referred to in Article 142(6) |
| | |
## Title Iii Customs Debt And Guarantees
| ANNEX 32-01 | Guarantor's undertaking - Individual guarantee |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 851 | |
| ANNEX 32-02 | Guarantor's undertaking - Individual guarantee in the form of vouchers |
| ANNEX 32-03 | Guarantor's undertaking - Comprehensive guarantee | 855 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| ANNEX 32-06 | Individual guarantee voucher | 858 |
| ANNEX 33-03 | Model of the information memo on the claim for payment to the guaranteeing association of | |
| the debt in transit procedure under ATA/e-ATA carnet | | |
| 859 | | |
| ANNEX 33-04 | Taxation form for calculation of duties and taxes resulting from the claim for payment to the | |
| guaranteeing association of the debt in transit procedure under ATA/e-ATA carnet | 860 | |
| ANNEX 33-05 | Model of discharge indicating that claim proceedings have been initiated with respect to the | |
| guaranteeing association in the Member State where the customs debt is incurred in transit | | |
| procedure under ATA/e-ATA carnet | | |
| 862 | | |
| ANNEX 33-06 | Request for supplementary information where goods are situated in another Member State | 863 |
| ANNEX 33-07 | European Union repayment or remission of duty | 867 |
| | | |
## Title Iv Goods Brought Into The Customs Territory Of The Union
No Annex
## Title V General Rules On Customs Status, Placing Goods Under A Customs Procedure, Verification, Release And Disposal Of Goods
| ANNEX 51-01 |
|----------------|
| |
## Title Vi Release For Free Circulation And Relief From Import Duty
| ANNEX 61-02 | Banana weighing certificates - specimen |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------|
| 870 | |
| ANNEX 61-03 | Banana weighing certificate - procedure |
| ANNEX 62-02 | INF 3 - Returned goods information sheet |
| | |
## Title Vii Special Procedures
| ANNEX 72-01 | Yellow label |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------|
| 877 | |
| ANNEX 72-02 | Yellow label |
| ANNEX 72-03 | TC 11 - Receipt |
| ANNEX 72-04 | Business continuity procedure for Union transit |
| | |
## Title Viii Goods Taken Out Of The Customs Territory Of The Union
No Annex
## Annex A Formats And Codes Of The Common Data Requirements For Applications And Decisions General Provisions
1. The provisions included in these notes are applicable to all Titles of this Annex.
2. The formats, codes and if applicable, the structure of the data requirements included in this Annex are applicable in
relation with the data requirements for applications and decisions as provided for in Annex A to Delegated Regulation
(EU) 2015/2446.
3. The formats and the codes defined in this Annex shall apply to applications and decisions made by using an electronic
data processing technique as well as to paper-based applications and decisions.
4. Title I includes the formats of the data elements.
5. Whenever the information in an application or decision dealt with in Annex A to Delegated Regulation (EU)
2015/2446 takes the form of codes, the code-list provided for in Title II shall be applied.
6. The size of a data element shall not prevent the applicant to provide sufficient information. Where the details
necessary cannot fit within a given data element format, attachments shall be used.
7. The term 'type/length' in the explanation of an attribute indicates the requirements for the data type and the data
length. The codes for the data types are as follows:
a alphabetic n numeric an alphanumeric The number following the code indicates the admissible data length. The following applies:
The optional two dots before the length indicator mean that the data has no fixed length, but it can have up to a number of digits, as specified by the length indicator. A comma in the data length means that the attribute can hold decimals, the digit before the comma indicates the total length of the attribute, the digit after the comma indicates the maximum number of digits after the decimal point.
Examples of field lengths and formats:
a1
1 alphabetic character, fixed length
n2
2 numeric characters, fixed length
an3
3 alphanumeric characters, fixed length
a..4
up to 4 alphabetic characters
n..5
up to 5 numeric characters
an..6 up to 6 alphanumeric characters
n..7,2 up to 7 numeric characters including maximum 2 decimals, a delimiter being allowed to float.
8. The abbreviations and acronyms used in the Annex shall be interpreted the following way:
Abbreviation/acronym
Meaning
D.E.
Data element
n.a.
Not applicable
9. The cardinality refers to the maximum possible number of recurrences of a given data element within the application
or decision concerned.
## Formats Of The Common Data Requirements For Applications And Decisions
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Title I
1/1
Application/Decision
code type
an..4
1x
Y
Title I
1/2
Signature/authentication
an..256
1x
N
Title I
1/3
Type of application
Code: n1 + (if applicable)
1x
Y
Decision reference number: - country code: a2 + - decision code type: an..4 +
- reference number: an..29
Title I
1/4
Geographical validity -
Union
Code: n1 + (if applicable)
Validity code: 1x
Y
As for the country code, the code defined in
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1106/2012 (1
)
shall be used.
Country code: a2
Country code: 99x
Title I
1/5
Geographical validity -
Common transit
countries
Country code: a2
99x
N
As for the country code, the ISO 3166 alpha-2
codes shall be used.
Title I
1/6
Decision reference
number
Country code: a2 +
1x
Y
The structure is defined in Title II.
Decision code type: an..4 + Reference number: an..29
Title I
1/7
Decision taking customs
authority
Coded: an8
1x
N
The structure of the codes is defined in Title II.
OR Name: an..70 + Street and number: an..70 +
Country: a2 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Title I
2/1
Other applications and
decisions relating to
binding information held
Tick-box: n1 +
Tick-box: 1x
N
Country of application: a2 +
Otherwise: 99x
Place of application: an..35 +
Date of application: n8 (yyyymmdd) + Decision reference number: a2 (country code) + an..4 (decision code type) + an..29 (reference number) + Start date of the decision: n8 (yyyymmdd) +
Commodity code: an..22
Title I
2/2
Decisions relating to
binding information
issued to other Holders
Tick-box: n1 +
Tick-box: 1x
N
Decision reference number: a2 (country code) + an..4 (decision code type) + an..29 (reference number) +
Otherwise: 99x
Start date of the decision: n8 (yyyymmdd) +
Commodity code: an..22
Title I
2/3
Legal or administrative
procedures pending or
handed down
Country code: a2 +
99x
N
Name of the court: an..70 +
Address of the court: Street and number: an..70 +
Country: a2 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35 +
Reference to legal and/or
administrative procedures: an..512
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Title I
2/4
Attached documents
Number of documents: n..3 +
99x
Document type: an..70 + Document identifier: an..35 +
Document date: n8 (yyyymmdd)
Title I
2/5
Identification number of
the storage facility
an..35
999x
N
Title I
3/1
Applicant/Holder of the
authorisation or decision
Name: an..70 +
1x
N
Street and number: an..70 +
Country: a2 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
Title I
3/2
Applicant/Holder of the
authorisation or decision
identification
an..17
1x
N
Title I
3/3
Representative
Name: an..70 +
1x
N
Street and number: an..70 +
Country: a2 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
Title I
3/4
Representative
identification
an..17
1x
N
Title I
3/5
Name and contact details
of the person responsible
for customs matters
Name: an..70 +
1x
N
Telephone number: an..50 +
Fax number: an..50 +
E-mail address: an..50
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Title I
3/6
Contact person
responsible for the
application
Name: an..70 +
1x
N
Telephone number: an..50 +
Fax number: an..50 +
E-mail address: an..50
Title I
3/7
Person in charge of the
applicant company or exercising control over its
management
Name: an..70 +
99x
N
Street and number: an..70 +
Country: a2 +
Postcode: an..9 + City: an..35 +
National identification number:
an..35 +
Date of birth: n8 (yyyymmdd)
Title I
3/8
Owner of the goods
Name: an..70 +
99x
N
Street and number: an..70 +
Country: a2 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
Title I
4/1
Place
n.a.
N
Data element used only for paper-based appli
cations and decisions.
Title I
4/2
Date
n8 (yyyymmdd)
1x
N
Title I
4/3
Place where main
accounts for customs purposes are held or
accessible
Street and number: an..70 +
1x
N
If the UN/LOCODE is used to define the
location concerned, the structure shall follow the description provided for in UN-ECE Recom mendation 16 on UN/LOCODE - Code for ports and other locations.
Country: a2 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
OR
UN/LOCODE: an..17
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Title I
4/4
Place where records are
kept
Street and number: an..70 +
99x
N
If the UN/LOCODE is used to define the
location concerned, the structure shall follow the description provided for in UN-ECE Recom mendation 16 on UN/LOCODE - Code for
ports and other locations.
Country: a2 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35 OR
UN/LOCODE: an..17
Title I
4/5
First place of use or
processing
Country: a2 +
1x
N
The structure and the codes defined in Annex B
for D.E. 5/23 Location of goods shall be used
for the indication of the location.
Type of location code: a1 +
Qualifier of the identification: a1 + Coded:
Identification of location: an..35 +
Additional identifier: n..3 OR Free text description: Street and number: an..70 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
Title I
4/6
[Requested] Start date of
the decision
n8 (yyyymmdd)
1x
N
OR
Free text: an..512
Title I
4/7
Date of expiry of the
decision
n8 (yyyymmdd)
1x
N
Title I
4/8
Location of goods
Country: a2 +
9999x
N
The structure and the codes defined in Annex B
for D.E. 5/23 Location of goods shall be used
for the indication of the location.
Type of location code: a1 +
Qualifier of the identification: a1 +
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Coded: Identification of location: an..35 +
Additional identifier: n..3
OR Free text description: Name: an..70 + Street and number: an..70 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
Title I
4/9
Place(s) of processing or
use
Country: a2 +
999x
N
The structure and the codes defined in Annex B
for D.E. 5/23 Location of goods shall be used
for the indication of the location.
Type of location code: a1 +
Qualifier of the identification: a1 + Coded: Identification of location: an..35 +
Additional identifier: n..3 OR Free text description: Name: an..70 + Street and number: an..70 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
Title I
4/10
Customs office(s) of
placement
an8
999x
N
The structure of the codes is defined in Title II
for D.E. 1/7 Decision taking customs authority.
Title I
4/11
Customs office(s) of
discharge
an8
999x
N
The structure of the codes is defined in Title II
for D.E. 1/7 Decision taking customs authority.
Title I
4/12
Customs office of
guarantee
an8
1x
N
The structure of the codes is defined in Title II
for D.E. 1/7 Decision taking customs authority.
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Title I
4/13
Supervising customs
office
an8
1x
N
The structure of the codes is defined in Title II
for D.E. 1/7 Decision taking customs authority.
Title I
4/14
Customs office(s) of
destination
an8
999x
N
The structure of the codes is defined in Title II
for D.E. 1/7 Decision taking customs authority.
Title I
4/15
Customs office(s) of
departure
an8
999x
N
The structure of the codes is defined in Title II
for D.E. 1/7 Decision taking customs authority.
Title I
4/16
Time-limit
n..4
1x
N
Title I
4/17
Period for discharge
Period: n..2 +
1x
N
Tick-box: n1 +
Free text: an..512
Title I
4/18
Bill of discharge
Tick-box: n1 +
1x
N
Deadline: n2 +
Free text: an..512
Title I
5/1
Commodity code
1st subdivision (Combined
Nomenclature code): an..8 +
999x
N
As regards decisions
relating to binding
information:
2nd *subdivision (TARIC subheading):*
an2 +
3rd subdivision (TARIC additional
code(s)): an4 +
1x
4th subdivision (national additional
code(s)): an..4
Title I
5/2
Description of goods
Free text: an..512
999x
N
As regards the application for and
the decision relating to Binding
Tariff Information, the format
should be an..2560
As regards decisions
relating to binding
information:
1x
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Title I
5/3
Goods quantity
Measurement unit: an..4 +
999x
N
Quantity: n..16,6
Title I
5/4
Goods value
Currency: a3 +
999x
N
The ISO-alpha-3 currency codes (ISO 4217)
shall be used for the currency.
Amount: n..16,2
Title I
5/5
Rate of yield
Free text: an..512
999x
N
Title I
5/6
Equivalent goods
Commodity code: an8 +
999x
N
The codes provided for D.E. 5/8 Identification
of goods in Title II may be used.
Tick-box: n1 + Code: n1 + Commercial quality and technical
characteristics of goods: an..512
Title I
5/7
Processed products
Commodity code: an8 +
999x
N
Description of goods: an..512
Title I
5/8
Identification of goods
Code: n1 +
999x
Y
Free text: an..512
Title I
5/9
Excluded categories or
movement of goods
an6
999x
N
Title I
6/1
Prohibitions and
restrictions
Free text: an..512
1x
N
Title I
6/2
Economic conditions
n..2 +
999x
Y
Free text: an..512
Title I
6/3
General remarks
Free text: an..512
1x
N
Title I
7/1
Type of transaction
Tick-box: n1 +
99x
N
Type of special procedure: a..70
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Title I
7/2
Type of customs
procedures
Procedure code: an2 +
99x
N
The codes provided for in Annex B concerning
D.E. 1/10 Procedure shall be used for the indi cation of the type of customs procedure. Where the authorisation is intended to be used in the context of transit procedure, code '80' shall be
used.
Decision reference number (Country code: a2 + d*ecision code type:* an..
4 + *Reference number*: an..29)
Where the authorisation is intended to be used for the operation of a temporary storage
facility, code 'XX' shall be used.
Title I
7/3
Type of declaration
Type of declaration: n1 +
9x
Y
Decision reference number (Country code: a2 + d*ecision code type:* an..
4 + *Reference number*: an..29)
Title I
7/4
Number of operations
n..7
1x
N
Title I
7/5
Details of planned
activities
Free text: an..512
1x
N
Title I
8/1
Type of main accounts
for customs purposes
Free text: an..512
1x
N
Title I
8/2
Type of records
Free text: an..512
99x
N
Title I
8/3
Access to data
Free text: an..512
1x
N
Title I
8/4
Samples etc.
Tick-box: n1
1x
N
Title I
8/5
Additional information
Free text: an..512
1x
N
Title I
8/6
Guarantee
Tick-box: n1 +
1x
Y
GRN: an..24
Title I
8/7
Guarantee amount
Currency: a3 +
1x
N
The ISO-alpha-3 currency codes (ISO 4217)
shall be used for the currency.
Amount: n..16,2
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Title I
8/8
Transfer of rights and
obligations
Tick-box: n1 +
1x
N
Free text: an..512
Title I
8/9
Keywords
Free text: an..70
99x
N
Title I
8/10
Details about the storage
facilities
Free text: an..512
999x
N
Title I
8/11
Storage of Union goods
Tick-box: n1 +
1x
N
Free text: an..512
Title I
8/12
Consent for publication
in the list of
authorisation holders
Tick-box: n1
1x
N
Title I
8/13
Calculation of the
amount of the import duty in accordance with
Article 86(3) of the Code
Tick-box: n1
1x
N
Title II
II/1
Reissue of a BTI decision *Tick-box*: n1 +
1x
N
BTI Decision reference number: a2 (country code) + an..4 (decision code type) + an..29 (reference number) + BTI Decision validity: n8 (yyyymmdd) +
Commodity code: an..22
Title II
II/2
Customs nomenclature
Tick-box: n1 +
1x
N
an..70
Title II
II/3
Commercial
denomination and
additional information
Free text: an..2560
1x
N
Title II
II/4
Justification of the
classification of the goods
Free text: an..2560
1x
N
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Title II
II/5
Material provided by the
applicant on the basis of which the BTI decision
has been issued
Tick-box: n1
99x
N
Title II
II/6
Images
Tick-box: n1
1x
N
Title II
II/7
Date of application
n8 (yyyymmdd)
1x
N
Title II
II/8
End date of extended use n8 (yyyymmdd)
1x
N
Title II
II/9
Invalidation reason
n2
1x
Y
Title II
II/10
Registration number of
the application
Country code: a2 +
N
The structure defined in Title II for D.E. 1/6
Decision reference number shall be used.
Decision code type: an..4 +
Reference number: an..29
Title III
III/1
Legal basis
n.a.
N
Title III
III/2
Composition of the
goods
n.a.
N
Title III
III/3
Information enabling the
determination of origin
n.a.
N
Title III
III/4
Indicate which data
should be treated as
confidential
n.a.
N
Title III
III/5
Country of origin and
legal framework
n.a.
N
Title III
III/6
Justification of the
assessment of the origin
n.a.
N
Title III
III/7
Ex-works price
n.a.
N
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Title III
III/8
Materials used, country of
origin, Combined Nomenclature code and
value
n.a.
N
Title III
III/9
Description of the
processing required in
order to obtain origin
n.a.
N
Title III
III/10
Language
a2
N
ISO alpha 2 codes as specified in ISO - 639-1
of 2002 shall be used for the language.
Title IV
IV/1
Legal status of applicant
an.. 50
1x
N
Title IV
IV/2
Date of establishment
n8 (yyyymmdd)
1x
N
Title IV
IV/3
Role(s) of the applicant in
the international supply
chain
an..3
99x
Y
Title IV
IV/4
Member States where
customs related activities
are carried out
Country: a2 +
99x
N
Street and number: an..70 +
Postcode: an..9 + City: an..35 +
Type of facility: an..70 (*free text)*
Title IV
IV/5
Border crossing
information
an8
99x
N
The structure of the codes is defined in Title II
for D.E. 1/7 Decision taking customs authority.
Title IV
IV/6
Simplifications and
facilitations already granted, security and/or safety certificates issued
on the basis of
international conventions, of an
International Standard of
Type of simplification/ facilitation an..70 +
99x
N
The codes provided for in Annex B concerning
D.E. 1/10 Procedure shall be used for the indi cation of the type of customs procedure.
Certificate identification number: an..35 +
Country code: a2 +
Customs procedure code: an2
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
the International Organisation for Standardisation, or of a European Standard of a European Standardisation
bodies, or AEO- equivalent certificates
issued in third countries
Title IV
IV/7
Consent for the exchange
of the information in the AEO authorisation in order to ensure the proper functioning of systems set out in international agreements/
arrangements with third countries related to mutual recognition of the status of authorised economic operator and measures related to
security
Tick-box: n1 +
1x
N
Transliterated name: an..70 + Transliterated street and number: an..70 + Transliterated postcode: an..9 +
Transliterated city: an..35
Title IV
IV/8
Permanent Business
Establishment (PBE)
Name an..70 +
99x
N
Street and number: an..70 +
Country: a2 +
Postcode: an..9 + City: an..35 +
VAT number: an..17
Title IV
IV/9
Office(s) where customs
documentation is kept
and accessible
Name an..70 +
99x
N
Street and number: an..70 +
Country: a2 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Title IV
IV/10
Place where general
logistical activities are
conducted
Name an..70 +
1x
N
Street and number: an..70 +
Country: a2 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
Title IV
IV/11
Business activities
an..4
99x
N
The codes provided for in Regulation (EC) No
1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of
the Council (2
) shall be used.
Title V
V/1
Subject and nature of the
simplification
Free text : an..512
1x
N
Title VI
VI/1
Amount of duty and
other charges
Currency: a3 +
99x
N
The ISO-alpha-3 currency codes (ISO 4217)
shall be used for the currency.
Amount: n..16,2
Title VI
VI/2
Average period between
the placing of goods under the procedure and the discharge of the
procedure
Free text: an…35
99x
N
Title VI
VI/3
Level of guarantee
Level of guarantee code: a2
99x
Y
Free text: an..512
Title VI
VI/4
Form of the guarantee
Guarantee form: n..2 +
1x
Y
Name an..70 + Street and number: an..70 +
Country: a2 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35 +
Free text: an..512
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Title VI
VI/5
Reference amount
Currency: a3 +
1x
N
The ISO-alpha-3 currency codes (ISO 4217)
shall be used for the currency.
Amount: n..16,2
Free text: an..512
Title VI
VI/6
Time-limit for payment
n1
1x
Y
Title VII
VII/1
Type of deferment of
payment
n1
1x
Y
Title VIII
VIII/1
Title for recovery
an..35
999x
N
Title VIII
VIII/2
Customs office where the
customs debt was
notified
an8
1x
N
The structure of the codes is defined in Title II
for D.E. 1/7 Decision taking customs authority.
Title VIII
VIII/3
Customs office
responsible for the place where the goods are
located
an8
1x
N
The structure of the codes is defined in Title II
for D.E. 1/7 Decision taking customs authority.
Title VIII
VIII/4
Comments of the
customs office responsible for the place where the goods are
located
Free text: an..512
1x
N
Title VIII
VIII/5
Customs procedure
(request for prior completion of
formalities)
Procedure code: an2 +
1x
N
The codes provided for in Annex B concerning
D.E. 1/10 Procedure shall be used.
Tick-box: n1 + Decision reference number (Country code: a2 + d*ecision code type:* an..4
+ *Reference number*: an..29)
Title VIII
VIII/6
Customs value
Currency: a3 +
1x
N
The ISO-alpha-3 currency codes (ISO 4217)
shall be used for the currency.
Amount: n..16,2
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Title VIII
VIII/7
Amount of import or
export duty to be repaid
or remitted of
Currency: a3 +
1x
N
The ISO-alpha-3 currency codes (ISO 4217)
shall be used for the currency.
Amount: n..16,2
Title VIII
VIII/8
Type of import or export
duty
Union codes: a1+n2
99x
N
The codes provided for in Annex B concerning
D.E. 4/3 Calculation of taxes - tax type shall
be used.
National codes: n1+an2
Title VIII
VIII/9
Legal basis
a1
1x
Y
Title VIII
VIII/10
Use or destination of
goods
Free text: an..512
1x
N
Title VIII
VIII/11
Time-limit for
completion of formalities
n..3
1x
N
Title VIII
VIII/12
Statement of the
decision-taking customs
authority
Free text: an..512
1x
N
Title VIII
VIII/13
Description of the
grounds for repayment or
remission
Free text: an..512
1x
N
Title VIII
VIII/14
Bank and account details
Free text: an..512
1x
N
Title IX
IX/1
Movement of goods
Legal base code: an1 +
999x
Y
The structure and the codes defined in Annex B
for D.E. 5/23 Location of goods shall be used for the indication of the address of the temporary storage facility.
EORI number: an..17 + Country: a2 +
Type of location code: a1 +
Qualifier of the identification: a1 +
Coded:
Identification of location: an..35 +
Additional identifier: n..3
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
OR Free text description: Name: an..70 +
Street and number: an..70 +
Country: a2 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
Title X
X/1
Member State(s)
concerned by the regular
shipping service
Qualifier: n1 +
99x
Y
The country codes provided for in Commission
Regulation (EU) No 1106/2012 (3
) shall be
used.
Country code: a2
Title X
X/2
Name of vessels
Name of vessel an..35 +
99x
N
IMO number of vessel: IMO + n7
Title X
X/3
Ports of call
an8
99x
N
The structure of the codes is defined in Title II
for D.E. 1/7 Decision taking customs authority.
Title X
X/4
Undertaking
Tick-box: n1
1x
N
Title XI
XI/1
Customs office(s)
responsible for the registration of the proof of the customs status of
Union goods
an8
999x
N
The structure of the codes is defined in Title II
for D.E. 1/7 Decision taking customs authority.
Title XII
XII/1
Time-limit for the
submission of a supplementary
declaration
n..2
1x
N
Title XII
XII/2
Subcontractor
Name: an..70 +
1x
N
Street and number: an..70 +
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Country: a2 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
Title XII
XII/3
Subcontractor
identification
an..17
1x
N
Title XIII
XIII/1
Companies involved in
the authorisation in other
Member States
Name an..70 +
999x
N
Street and number: an..70 +
Country: a2 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
Title XIII
XIII/2
Companies involved in
the authorisation in other Member States
identification
an..17
999x
N
Title XIII
XIII/3
Customs office(s) of
presentation
an8
999x
N
The structure of the codes is defined in Title II
for D.E. 1/7 Decision taking customs authority.
Title XIII
XIII/4
Identification of the VAT,
excise and statistical
authorities
Name an..70 +
999x
N
Street and number: an..70 +
Country: a2 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
Title XIII
XIII/5
Method of VAT payment a1
1x
N
The codes provided for in Annex B concerning
D.E. 4/8 Calculation of taxes - Method of
payment shall be used.
Title XIII
XIII/6
Tax representative
Name an..70 +
99x
N
Street and number: an..70 +
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Country: a2 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
Title XIII
XIII/7
Tax representative
identification
an..17
99x
N
The VAT number shall be used
Title XIII
XIII/8
Tax representative status
code
n1
1x (per represen
tative)
Y
Title XIII
XIII/9
Person responsible for
excise formalities
Name an..70 +
99x
N
Street and number: an..70 +
Country: a2 +
Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
Title XIII
XIII/10
Person responsible for
excise formalities
identification
an..17
99x
N
Title XIV
XIV/1
Waiver of the
presentation notification
Tick box: n1 +
1x
N
Free text: an..512
Title XIV
XIV/2
Waiver of pre-departure
declaration
Free text: an..512
1x
N
Title XIV
XIV/3
Customs office
responsible for the place where the goods are
available for controls
an8
1x
N
The structure of the codes is defined in Title II
for D.E. 1/7 Decision taking customs authority.
Title XIV
XIV/4
Deadline for submitting
the particulars of the
complete customs
declaration
n..2
1x
N
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Title XV
XV/1
Identification of
formalities and controls to be delegated to the
economic operator
Free text: an..512
1x
N
Title XVI
XVI/1
Economic activity
n1
1x
Y
Title XVI
XVI/2
Weighing equipment
Free text: an..512
1x
N
Title XVI
XVI/3
Additional guarantees
Free text: an..512
1x
N
Title XVI
XVI/4
Advanced notification to
customs authorities
Free text: an..512
1x
N
Title XVII
XVII/1
Prior exportation (IP
EX/IM)
Tick-box: n1 +
1x
N
Time limit: n..2
Title XVII
XVII/2
Release for free
circulation by use of bill
of discharge
Tick-box: n1
1x
N
Title XVIII
XVIII/1
Standard exchange
system
Tick-box: n1 +
1x
Y
Type of standard exchange system: n1 +
Free text: an..512
Title XVIII
XVIII/2
Replacement products
Commodity code: an..8 +
999x
Y
Description: an..512 +
Code: n1
Title XVIII
XVIII/3
Prior import of
replacement products
Tick-box: n1 +
1x
N
Time limit: n..2
Title XVIII
XVIII/4
Prior import of processed
products (OP IM/EX)
Tick-box: n1 +
1x
N
Time limit: n..2
Reference to the Title in
Annex A to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
D.E. order
number
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Cardinality
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
Notes
Title XIX
XIX/1
Temporary removal
Tick-box: n1 +
1x
N
Free text: an..512
Title XIX
XIX/2
Loss rate
Free text: an..512
1x
N
Title XX
XX/1
Identification measures
Free text: an..512
1x
N
The structure of the authorisations for the use
of special seals shall follow the structure defined in Title II. in relation with D.E. 1/6
Decision reference number.
Decision reference number (Country code: a2 +
Decision code type: an..4 +
Reference number: an..29)
Title XX
XX/2
Comprehensive guarantee *Tick box:* n1 +
1x
N
The structure of the authorisations for the
provision of a comprehensive guarantee or guarantee waiver shall follow the structure
defined in Title II. in relation with D.E. 1/6
Decision reference number.
Decision reference number (Country
code: a2 +
Decision code type: an..4 +
Reference number: an..29)
Title XXI
XXI/1
Type of seal
Free text: an..512
1x
N
(1
) Commission Regulation (EU) No 1106/2012 of 27 November 2012 implementing Regulation (EC) No 471/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics relating to external
trade with non-member countries, as regards the update of the nomenclature of countries and territories Text with EEA relevance (OJ L 328, 28.11.2012, p. 7).
(2
) Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the statistical classification of economic activities NACE Revision 2 and amending Council
Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90 as well as certain EC Regulations on specific statistical domains (OJ L 393, 30.12.2006, p. 1).
(3
) Commission Regulation (EU) No 1106/2012 of 27 November 2012 implementing Regulation (EC) No 471/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics relating to external
trade with non-member countries, as regards the update of the nomenclature of countries and territories Text with EEA relevance (OJ L 328, 28.11.2012, p. 7).
## Title Ii Codes In Relation With The Common Data Requirements For Applications And Decisions 1. Introduction
This Title contains the codes to be used on applications and decisions.
## 2. Codes 1/1. **Application/Decision Code Type**
The following codes shall be used:
| Code | Application/Decision type |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Table column heading in Annex | |
| A to Delegated Regulation (EU) | |
| 2015/2446 | |
| | |
| BTI | Application or decision relating to Binding Tariff Information |
| BOI | |
| Application or decision relating to Binding Origin | |
| Information | |
| 1b | |
| AEOC | Application or authorisation for the status of Authorised |
| Economic Operator - Customs simplifications | |
| 2 | |
| AEOS | Application or authorisation for the status of Authorised |
| Economic Operator - Security and safety | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | AEOF |
| Economic Operator - Customs simplifications/Security and | |
| safety | |
| 3 | |
| CVA | |
| Application or authorisation for the simplification of the | |
| determination of amounts being part of the customs value of | |
| goods | |
| CGU | |
| Application or authorisation for the provision of a compre | |
| hensive guarantee, including possible reduction or waiver | |
| 4a | |
| DPO | Application or authorisation for the deferment of payment |
| REP | |
| Application or decision for the repayment of the amounts of | |
| import or export duty | |
| 4c | |
| REM | Application or decision for the remission of the amounts of |
| import or export duty | |
| 4c | |
| TST | Application or authorisation for the operation of storage |
| facilities for the temporary storage of goods | |
| 5 | |
| RSS | Application or authorisation to establish regular shipping |
| services | |
| 6a | |
Code
Application/Decision type
Table column heading in Annex
A to Delegated Regulation (EU)
2015/2446
6b
ACP
Application or authorisation for the status of authorised
issuer to establish the proof of the customs status of Union
goods
SDE
Application or authorisation to use simplified declaration
7a
CCL
Application or authorisation for centralised clearance
7b
7c
EIR
Application or authorisation for making a customs
declaration through an entry of data in the declarant's
records, including for the export procedure
SAS
Application or authorisation for self-assessment
7d
AWB
Application or authorisation for the status of authorised
weigher of bananas
7e
IPO
Application or authorisation for the use of inward processing
procedure
8a
OPO
Application or authorisation for the use of outward
processing procedure
8b
EUS
Application or authorisation for the use of end use
8c
TEA
Application or authorisation for the use of temporary
admission
8d
8e
CWP
Application or authorisation for the operation of storage
facilities for the customs warehousing of goods in a private
customs warehouse
8e
CW1
Application or authorisation for the operation of storage
facilities for the customs warehousing of goods in a public
customs warehouse type I
8e
CW2
Application or authorisation for the operation of storage
facilities for the customs warehousing of goods in a public
customs warehouse type II.
ACT
Application or authorisation for the status of authorised
consignee for TIR procedure
9a
ACR
Application or authorisation for the status of authorised
consignor for Union transit
9b
Code
Application/Decision type
Table column heading in Annex
A to Delegated Regulation (EU)
2015/2446
ACE
Application or authorisation for the status of authorised
consignee for Union transit
9c
SSE
Application or authorisation for the use of seals of a special
type
9d
TRD
Application or authorisation to use transit declaration with a
reduced dataset
9e
ETD
Authorisation for the use of an electronic transport document
as customs declaration
9f
## 1/3. **Type Of Application**
The following codes shall be used:
1 first application
2 application for amendment of the decision
3 application for renewal of the authorisation
4 application for revocation of the decision
## 1/4 **Geographical Validity - Union**
The following codes shall be used:
1 application or authorisation valid in all Member States
2 application or authorisation limited to certain Member States
3 application or authorisation limited to one Member State
## 1/6. **Decision Reference Number**
The decision reference number is structured as follows:
Field
Content
Format
Examples
a2
PT
1
Identifier of the Member
State where the decision is taken (alpha 2 country
code)
2
Decision code type
an..4
SSE
3
Unique identifier for the
decision per country
an..29
1234XYZ12345678909876543210AB
Field 1 as explained above.
Field 2 shall be filled in with the code of the decision as defined for D.E. 1/1 Decision code type in this Title.
Field 3 shall be filled in with an identifier for the decision concerned. The way that field is used is under the responsibility of national administrations but each decision taken within the given country must have a unique number in relation to the decision type concerned.
## 1/7. **Decision Taking Customs Authority**
The structure of the codes is the following:
- the first two characters (a2) serve to identify the country by means of the country code as defined in Commission
Regulation (EU) No 1106/2012,
- the next six characters (an6) stand for the office concerned in that country. It is suggested that the following
structure be adopted:
The first three characters (an3) would be taken up by the UN/LOCODE (
1
) location name and the last three by a national alphanumeric subdivision (an3). If this subdivision is not used, the characters '000' should be inserted.
Example: BEBRU000: BE = ISO 3166 for Belgium, BRU = UN/LOCODE location name for the city of Brussels, 000 for the unused subdivision.
## 5/8. **Identification Of Goods**
Codes to be used for the identification of goods are the following:
1 serial or manufacturer's number
2 affixing of plumbs, seals, clip-marks or other distinctive marks
4 taking of samples, illustrations or technical descriptions
5 carrying out of analyses
6 information document to facilitate the temporary exportation of goods sent from one country for manufacture,
processing or repair in another (only suitable for outward processing)
7 other means of identification (provide an explanation on the means of identification to be used)
8 without identification measures according to Article 250(2)(b) of the Code (only suitable for temporary admission)
## 6/2. **Economic Conditions**
Codes to be used for the cases in which the economic conditions are deemed to be fulfilled for inward processing:
Code 1
the processing of goods not listed in Annex 71-02 to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446,
Code 2
repair,
Code 3
processing of goods directly or indirectly put at the disposal of the holder of the authorisation, carried out
according to specifications on behalf of a person established outside of the customs territory of the Union,
generally against payment of processing costs alone,
Code 4
the processing of durum wheat into pasta,
Code 5
the placing of goods under inward processing within the limits of the quantity determined on the basis of a
balance in accordance with Article 18 of (
2
),
Code 6
the processing of goods which are listed in Annex 71-02 to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, in case
of unavailability of goods produced in the Union sharing the same 8-digit Combined Nomenclature code, the same commercial quality and technical characteristics as the goods intended to be imported for the processing operations envisaged,
Code 7
the processing of goods which are listed in Annex 71-02 to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446,
provided there are differences in price between goods produced in the Union and those intended to be imported, where comparable goods cannot be used because their price would not make the proposed
commercial operation economically viable,
Code 8
the processing of goods which are listed in Annex 71-02 to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446,
provided there are contractual obligations, where comparable goods do not conform to the contractual requirements of the third-country purchaser of the processed products, or where, in accordance with the contract, the processed products must be obtained from the goods intended to be placed under inward processing in order to comply with provisions concerning the protection of industrial or commercial
property rights,
Code 9
the processing of goods which are listed in Annex 71-02 to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446,
provided the aggregate value of the goods to be placed under the inward processing procedure per applicant and calendar year for each eight-digit Combined Nomenclature code does not exceed EUR
150 000,
Code 10 the processing of goods to ensure their compliance with technical requirements for their release for free
circulation,
Code 11 the processing of goods of a non-commercial nature,
Code 12 the processing of goods obtained under a previous authorisation, the issuing of which was subject to an
examination of the economic conditions,
Code 13 the processing of solid and fluid fractions of palm oil, coconut oil, fluid fractions of coconut oil, palm
kernel oil, fluid fractions of palm kernel oil, babassu oil or castor oil into products which are not destined
for the food sector,
Code 14 the processing into products to be incorporated in or used for civil aircraft for which an airworthiness
certificate has been issued,
Code 15
the processing into products benefitting from the autonomous suspension of import duty on certain
weapons and military equipment in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 150/2003 (
1
),
Code 16 the processing of goods into samples,
Code 17 the processing of any electronic type of components, parts, assemblies or any other materials into
information technology products,
Code 18 the processing of goods falling within Combined Nomenclature codes 2707 or 2710 into products falling
within Combined Nomenclature codes 2707, 2710 or 2902,
Code 19 the reduction to waste and scrap, destruction, recovery of parts or components, Code 20 denaturing, Code 21 usual forms of handling referred to in Article 220 of the Code,
Code 22 the aggregate value of goods to be placed under the inward processing procedure per applicant and
calendar year for each eight-digit Combined Nomenclature code does not exceed EUR 150 000 with regard to goods which are covered by Annex 71-02 to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 and EUR 300 000 for other goods, except where the goods intended to be placed under the inward-processing procedure would be subject to a provisional or definitive anti-dumping duty, a countervailing duty, a safeguard measure or an additional duty resulting from a suspension of concessions if they were declared for release for free circulation.
## 7/3. **Type Of Declaration**
The following codes shall be used for the declaration types:
1 Standard declaration (in accordance with Article 162 of the Code)
2 Simplified declaration (in accordance with Article 166 of the Code)
3 Entry in the declarant's records (in accordance with Article 182 of the Code)
## 8/6. **Guarantee**
The following codes shall be used:
0 Guarantee not required
1 Guarantee required
## Ii/9. **Invalidation Reason**
Enter one of the following codes:
55 Annulled
61 Invalidated due to customs nomenclature code changes
62 Invalidated due to a Union measure
63 Invalidated due to national legal measure
64 Revocation due to incorrect classification
65 Revocation for reasons other than classification
66 Invalidated due to limited validity of nomenclature code at the time of issue
## Iv/3. **Role(S) Of The Applicant In The International Supply Chain**
The following codes shall be used:
| Code | Role | Description |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | |
| MF | Manufacturer of goods | Party who manufactures goods. |
| This code should be used only if the economic operator manu | | |
| facturers the goods. It does not cover cases where the economic | | |
| operator is only involved in trading with the goods (e.g. | | |
| exporting, importing). | | |
| IM | | |
| Importer | Party who makes, or on whose behalf a Customs clearing agent | |
| or other authorised person makes an import declaration. This | | |
| may include a person who has possession of the goods or to | | |
| whom the goods are consigned. | | |
| EX | | |
| Exporter | Party who makes, or on whose behalf the export declaration is | |
| made, and who is the owner of the goods or has similar rights | | |
| of disposal over them at the time when the declaration is | | |
| accepted. | | |
| CB | Customs broker | Agent or representative or a professional Customs clearing |
| agent who deals directly with Customs on behalf of the | | |
| importer or exporter. | | |
| The code can be used also for economic operators who acts as | | |
| agents/representatives also for other purposes (e.g. carrier's | | |
| agent). | | |
| Code | Role | Description |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | |
| CA | | |
| Carrier | Party undertaking or arranging transport of goods between | |
| named points. | | |
| FW | Freight forwarder | Party arranging forwarding of goods. |
| CS | Consolidator | Party consolidating various consignments, payments etc. |
| TR | Terminal operator | A party which handles the loading and unloading of marine |
| vessels. | | |
| WH | Warehouse keeper | Party taking responsibility for goods entered into a warehouse. |
| This code should be used also by economic operators who | | |
| operate other type of storage facilities (e.g. temporary storage, | | |
| free zone, etc.). | | |
| CF | Container operator | Party to whom the possession of specified property (e.g. |
| container) has been conveyed for a period of time in return | | |
| for rental payments. | | |
| DEP | Stevedore | A party which handles the loading and unloading of marine |
| vessels from several terminals. | | |
| HR | Shipping line service | Identifies the shipping line service organisation. |
| 999 | Others | |
## Vi/3. **Level Of Guarantee**
The following codes shall be used for the level of the guarantee:
To cover existing customs debts and, where applicable, other charges:
AA 100% of the relevant part of the reference amount
AB 30% of the relevant part of the reference amount
To cover potential customs debts and, where applicable, other charges:
BA 100 % of the relevant part of the reference amount
BB
50 % of the relevant part of the reference amount
BC 30 % of the relevant part of the reference amount
BD 0 % of the relevant part of the reference amount
## Vi/4. **Form Of The Guarantee**
The following codes shall be used for the form of the guarantee:
1 Cash deposit
2 Undertaking given by a guarantor
3* Other forms as specified in Article 83 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446
31 the creation of a mortgage, a charge on land, an antichresis or other right deemed equivalent to a right
pertaining to immovable property;
32 the cession of a claim, the pledging, with or without surrendering possession, of goods, securities or claims or
a savings bank book or entry in the national debt register;
33 the assumption of joint contractual liability for the full amount of the debt by a third party approved for that
purpose by the customs authorities or the lodging of a bill of exchange the payment of which is guaranteed by
such third party;
34 a cash deposit or means of payment deemed equivalent thereto other than in euro or the currency of the
Member State in which the guarantee is required;
35 participation, subject to payment of a contribution, in a general guarantee scheme administered by the
customs authorities.
## Vi/6. **Time-Limit For Payment**
The following codes shall be used for the time limit:
1 Normal period before payment, i.e. maximum 10 days following the notification to the debtor of the customs debt
in accordance with Article 108 of the Code
2 Deferred payment (Article 110 of the Code)
## Vii/1. **Type Of Deferment Of Payment**
The following codes shall be used for the deferment of payment:
1 Article 110(b) of the Code, i.e. globally in respect of each amount of import or export duty entered in the accounts
in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 105(1) during a fixed period that does not exceed 31 days
2 Article 110(c) of the Code, i.e. globally in respect of all amounts of import or export duty forming a single entry in
accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 105(1)
## Viii/9. **Legal Basis**
The following codes shall be used as legal basis:
Code
Description
Legal basis
A
Overcharged amounts of import or export duty
Article 117 of the Code
B
Defective goods or goods not complying with the terms
of the contract
Article 118 of the Code
C
Error by the competent authorities
Article 119 of the Code
D
Equity
Article 120 of the Code
Article 116(1) of the Code
E
Amount of import or export duty paid in relation with
a customs declaration invalidated in accordance with
Article 174 of the Code
## Ix/1. **Movement Of Goods**
The following codes shall be used for the legal basis of the movement:
For goods under temporary storage:
A Article 148(5)(a) of the Code
B Article 148(5)(b) of the Code
C Article 148(5)(c) of the Code
## X/1. **Member State(S) Concerned By The Regular Shipping Service**
The following codes shall be used as qualifier:
0 involved Member States;
1 potentially involved Member States.
## Xiii/8. **Tax Representative Status Code**
The following codes shall be used:
1 the applicant is acting in his own name and on his own behalf;
2 a tax representative is acting on behalf of the applicant.
## Xvi/1. **Economic Activity**
The following codes shall be used for the activity:
1 Importation
2 Carriage
3 Storage
4 Handling
## Xviii/1. **Standard Exchange System**
The following codes shall be used:
1 Standard exchange system without prior importation of replacement products
2 Standard exchange system with prior importation of replacement products
## Xviii/2. **Replacement Products**
The following codes shall be used:
4 Taking of samples, illustrations or technical descriptions
5 Carrying out of analyses
7 Other means of identification
## Annex B Formats And Codes Of The Common Data Requirements For Declarations, Notifications And Proof Of The Customs Status Of Union Goods Introductory Notes
1. The formats, codes and, if applicable, the structure of the data elements included in this Annex are applicable in
relation with the data requirements for declarations notifications and proof of the customs status of Union goods as
provided for in Annex B to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
2. The formats, codes and, if applicable, the structure of the data elements defined in this Annex shall apply to
declarations, notifications and proof of the customs status of Union goods made by using an electronic data processing technique as well as to paper-based declarations, notifications and proof of the customs status of Union
goods.
3. Title I includes the formats of the data elements.
4. Whenever the information in a declaration, notification or proof of the customs status of Union goods dealt with in
Annex B to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 takes the form of codes, the code-list provided for in Title II shall
be applied.
5. The term 'type/length' in the explanation of an attribute indicates the requirements for the data type and the data
length. The codes for the data types are as follows:
a alphabetic n numeric an alphanumeric The number following the code indicates the admissible data length. The following applies.
The optional two dots before the length indicator mean that the data has no fixed length, but it can have up to a number of digits, as specified by the length indicator. A comma in the data length means that the attribute can hold decimals, the digit before the comma indicates the total length of the attribute, the digit after the comma indicates the maximum number of digits after the decimal point.
Examples of field lengths and formats:
a1
1 alphabetic character, fixed length
n2
2 numeric characters, fixed length
an3
3 alphanumeric characters, fixed length
a..4
up to 4 alphabetic characters
n..5
up to 5 numeric characters
an..6
up to 6 alphanumeric characters
n..7,2 up to 7 numeric characters including maximum 2 decimals, a delimiter being allowed to float.
7. The cardinality at item level included in the table in Title I of this Annex indicates how many times the data element
may be repeated in relation with the declaration item concerned.
8. National codes can be used by Member States for data elements 1/11 Additional procedure, 2/2 Additional
information, 2/3 Documents produced, certificates and authorisations, additional references, 4/3 Calculation of
taxes (Tax type), 4/4 Calculation of taxes (Tax base), 6/17 Commodity code (national additional codes) and 8/7 Writing-off. Member States shall notify the Commission of the list of national codes used for these data elements. The Commission shall publish the list of those codes.
## Formats And Cardinality Of The Common Data Requirements For Declarations And Notifications
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
1/1
Declaration type
a2
Y
1x
1/2
Additional declaration
type
a1
Y
1x
an..5
Y
1x
1x
1/3
Transit declaration/
Proof of customs
status type
1/4
Forms
n..4
N
1x
1/5
Loading lists
n..5
N
1x
1/6
Goods item number
n..5
N
1x
1/7
Specific circumstance
indicator
an3
Y
1x
1/8
Signature/ authenti
cation
an..35
N
1x
1/9
Total number of items n..5
N
1x
Y
1x
1/10
Procedure
Requested procedure code:
an2 + Previous procedure code:
an2
Y
99x
The Union codes are further
specified in Title II
1/11
Additional procedure
Union codes: a1 + an2
OR National codes: n1 +
an2
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
2/1
Simplified declaration/
Previous documents
Document category: a1+ Previous document type: an ..3 + Previous document reference: an ..35+ Goods item identifier:
n..5
2/2
Additional information Coded version
(Union codes): n1 + an4 OR
(national codes): a1 +an4 OR Free text description:
an..512
2/3
Documents produced,
certificates and authorisations,
additional references
Document type (Union codes): a1+ an3 OR (national codes): n1+an3 + Document identifier:
an..35
2/4
Reference
number/UCR
an..35
N
1x
1x
This data element may take
the form of WCO (ISO
15459) codes or equivalent.
2/5
LRN
an..22
N
1x
2/6
Deferred payment
an..35
N
1x
2/7
Identification of ware
house
Warehouse type: a1 + Warehouse identifier:
an..35
3/1
Exporter
Name: an..70 +
Street and number: an..70 + Country: a2 + Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
Y
9999x
99x
Y
99x
The Union codes are further
specified in Title II
Y
1x
99x
Y
1x
N
1x
1x
Country code:
The Union's alphabetic codes for countries and territories are based on the current ISO alpha 2 codes (a2) in so far as they are compatible with the requirements of Commission Regulation (EU) No
1106/2012
of
27 November 2012 imple menting Regulation (EC) No 471/2009 of the European Parliament
and
of
the
Council on Community stat istics relating to external trade
with
non-member
countries,
as
regards
the
update
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
3/2
Exporter identification n
o
an..17
N
1x
1x
The structure of the EORI
number is defined in Title II. The structure of a third country unique identification number recognised by the
Union is defined in Title II.
3/3
Consignor - Master
level transport
contract
Name: an..70 + Street and number: an..70 + Country: a2 + Postcode: an..9 + City: an..35 +
Phone number: an..50
3/4
Consignor identifi
cation n
o - Master
level transport
contract
an..17
N
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
3/5
Consignor - House
level transport
contract
Name: an..70 + Street and number: an..70 + Country: a2 + Postcode: an..9 + City: an..35 +
Phone number: an..50
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
of
the
nomenclature
of
countries and territories (
1
).
The Commission regularly publishes
regulations
updating the list of country codes. In case of groupage consign ments,
where
paper-based
declarations are used, code '00200'
may
be
used
together
with
a
list
of
exporters in accordance with
the notes described for D.E. 3/1 Exporter in Title II of Annex B to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446.
N
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used.
The structure of a third country unique identification number recognised by the Union is defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identi fication n
o
.
N
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be used.
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
an..17
N
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
3/6
Consignor identifi
cation n
o - House
level transport
contract
3/7
Consignor
Name: an..70 +
Street and number: an..70 + Country: a2 + Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
3/8
Consignor identifi
cation n
o
an..17
N
1x
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
3/9
Consignee
Name: an..70 +
Street and number:
an..70 + Country: a2 + Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
3/10
Consignee identifi
cation n
o
an..17
N
1x
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
.
The structure of a third country unique identification number recognised by the Union is defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identi fication n
o
.
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
The structure of a third country unique identification number
shall
follow
the
structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identi fication n
o —.
N
1x
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used.
The structure of a third country unique identification number
shall
follow
the
structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identi fication n
o
.
N
1x
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used. In case of groupage consign ments,
where
paper-based
declarations are used, code '00200'
may
be
used
together
with
a
list
of
consignees
in
accordance
with the notes described for D.E. 3/9 Consignee in Title II of Annex B to Delegated
Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
3/11
Consignee - Master
level transport
contract
Name: an..70 + Street and number: an..70 + Country: a2 + Postcode: an..9 + City: an..35+
Phone number: an..50
3/12
Consignee identifi
cation n
o - Master
level transport
contract
an..17
N
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
3/13
Consignee - House
level transport
contract
Name: an..70 + Street and number: an..70 + Country: a2 + Postcode: an..9 + City: an..35 +
Phone number: an..50
3/14
Consignee identifi
cation n
o - House
level transport
contract
an..17
N
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined
in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
.
The structure of a third country unique identification number
shall
follow
the
structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identi fication n
o
.
3/15
Importer
Name: an..70 +
Street and number: an..70 + Country: a2 + Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
3/16
Importer identification n
o
an..17
N
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
.
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
N
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used.
The structure of a third country unique identification number
shall
follow
the
structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identi fication n
o
.
N
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used.
N
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used.
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
N
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used.
3/17
Declarant
Name: an..70 +
Street and number: an..70 + Country: a2 + Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
3/18
Declarant identifi
cation n
o
an..17
N
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2
Exporter identification n
o
N
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used.
3/19
Representative
Name: an..70 +
Street and number: an..70 + Country: a2 + Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35 +
3/20
Representative identifi
cation n
o
an..17
N
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
3/21
Representative status
code
n1
Y
1x
N
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used.
3/22
Holder of the transit
procedure
Name: an..70 + Street and number: an..70 + Country: a2 + Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
3/23
Holder of the transit
procedure identifi cation n
o
an..17
N
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
N
1x
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be used.
3/24
Seller
Name: an..70 +
Street and number: an..70 + Country: a2 + Postcode: an..9 + City: an..35 +
Phone number: an..50
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
3/25
Seller identification n
o
an..17
N
1x
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
.
The structure of a third country unique identification number
shall
follow
the
structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identi fication n
o
.
3/26
Buyer
Name: an..70 +
Street and number: an..70 + Country: a2 + Postcode: an..9 + City: an..35 +
Phone number: an..50
3/27
Buyer identification n
o an..17
N
1x
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
.
The structure of a third country unique identification number
shall
follow
the
structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identi fication n
o
.
3/28
Person notifying the
arrival identification n
o an..17
N
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined
in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
.
3/29
Person notifying the
diversion identification n
o
an..17
N
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
.
3/30
Person presenting the
goods to customs identification n
o
an..17
N
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
.
3/31
Carrier
Name: an..70 +
Street and number: an..70 + Country: a2 + Postcode: an..9 + City: an..35 +
Phone number: an..50
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
N
1x
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used.
N
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be used.
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
3/32
Carrier identification n
o
an..17
N
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
.
The structure of a third country unique identification number
shall
follow
the
structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identi fication n
o
.
3/33
Notify party - Master
level transport
contract
Name: an..70 + Street and number: an..70 + Country: a2 + Postcode: an..9 + City: an..35 +
Phone number: an..50
3/34
Notify party identifi
cation n
o - Master
level transport
contract
an..17
N
1x
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
.
The structure of a third country unique identification number
shall
follow
the
structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identi fication n
o
.
3/35
Notify party - House
level transport
contract
Name: an..70 + Street and number: an..70 + Country: a2 + Postcode: an..9 + City: an..35 +
Phone number: an..50
3/36
Notify party identifi
cation n
o - House
level transport
contract
an..17
N
1x
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
.
The structure of a third country unique identification number
shall
follow
the
structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identi fication n
o
.
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
N
1x
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used.
N
1x
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used.
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
3/37
Additional supply
chain actor(s) identifi cation n
o
Role code: a..3 +
Identifier: an..17
Y
99x
99x
The
role
codes
for
the
additional
supply
chain
actors are defined in Title II. The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
.
The structure of a third country unique identification number
shall
follow
the
structure defined in Title II
for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identi fication n
o
.
3/38
Person submitting the
additional ENS particulars identifi cation n
o
an..17
N
1x
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
.
Authorisation type code: an..4 +
Identifier: an..17
3/39
Holder of the author
isation identification n
o
3/40
Additional fiscal
references identifi cation n
o
Role code: an3 + VAT identification
number: an..17
an..17
N
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
.
3/41
Person presenting the
goods to customs in case of entry in the declarant's records or pre-lodged customs declarations identifi cation n
o
3/42
Person lodging the
customs goods manifest identification n
o
an..17
N
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
.
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
N
99x
The codes defined in Annex
A for D.E. 1/1 Application/ Decision code type shall be used for the authorisation type code. The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
.
Y
99x
99x
The
role
codes
for
the
additional fiscal references
are defined in Title II.
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
3/43
Person requesting a
proof of the customs status of Union goods identification n
o
an..17
N
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter
identification n
o
.
an..17
N
1x
The
EORI
number
shall
follow the structure defined in Title II for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n
o
.
3/44
Person notifying the
arrival of goods following movement under temporary storage identification n
o
4/1
Delivery terms
Coded version:
INCOTERM code: a3 + UN/LOCODE: an..17 OR Free text description: INCOTERM code: a3 + Country code: a2 +
Location name: an..35
4/2
Transport charges
method of payment
a1
Y
1x
1x
4/3
Calculation of taxes -
Tax type
Union codes: a1 + n2
OR
National codes: n1 +
an2
4/4
Calculation of taxes -
Tax base
Measurement unit and qualifier, if applicable: an..6 +
Quantity: n..16,6
4/5
Calculation of taxes -
Tax rate
n..17,3
N
99x
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
Y
1x
The
codes
and
headings
describing the commercial contract are defined in Title II. The code provided for the description of the location shall adhere to the pattern of
UN/LOCODE.
If
no
UN/LOCODE is available for the location, use the country code as provided for D.E. 3/1 Exporter followed by the
name of the location.
Y
99x
The Union codes are further
specified in Title II
N
99x
The measurement units and
qualifiers defined in TARIC should be used. In such case,
the
format
of
the
measurement
units
and
qualifiers will be an..6, but will never have n..6 formats, reserved
for
national
measurement
units
and
qualifiers. If
no
such
measurement
units
and
qualifiers
are
available in TARIC, national measurement
units
and
qualifiers can be used. Their
format will be n..6.
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
4/6
Calculation of taxes -
Payable tax amount
n..16,2
N
99x
4/7
Calculation of taxes -
Total
n..16,2
N
1x
4/8
Calculation of taxes -
Method of payment
a1
Y
99x
4/9
Additions and deduc
tions
Code: a2 +
Amount: n..16,2
Y
99x
99x
4/10
Invoice currency
a3
N
1x
The
ISO-alpha-3
currency
codes (ISO 4217) shall be
used for the currency.
4/11
Total amount invoiced n..16,2
N
1x
4/12
Internal currency unit
a3
N
1x
The
ISO-alpha-3
currency
codes (ISO 4217) shall be
used for the currency.
4/13
Valuation indicators
an4
Y
1x
4/14
Item price/amount
n..16,2
N
1x
4/15
Exchange rate
n..12,5
N
1x
4/16
Valuation method
n1
Y
1x
4/17
Preference
n3 (n1+n2)
Y
1x
The Commission will publish
at regular intervals the list of the combinations of codes usable
together
with
examples and notes.
4/18
Postal value
Currency code: a3 +
Value: n..16,2
N
1x
The
ISO-alpha-3
currency
codes (ISO 4217) shall be
used for the currency.
4/19
Postal charges
Currency code: a3 +
Amount: n..16,2
N
1x
The
ISO-alpha-3
currency
codes (ISO 4217) shall be
used for the currency.
5/1
Estimated date and
time of arrival at first place of arrival in the Customs territory of
the Union
Date and time: an..15
(yyyymmddhhmmzzz)
N
1x
yyyy: year
mm: month dd: day hh: hour mm: minute zzz: time-zone
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
5/2
Estimated date and
time of arrival at the
port of unloading
Date and time: an..15
(yyyymmddhhmmzzz)
N
1x
1x
yyyy: year
mm: month dd: day hh: hour mm: minute
zzz: time-zone
5/3
Actual date and time
of arrival in the customs territory of
the Union
an..15
(yyyymmddhhmmzzz)
N
1x
yyyy: year
mm: month dd: day
hh: hour mm: minute
zzz: time-zone
5/4
Declaration date
n8 (yyyymmdd)
N
1x
5/5
Declaration place
an..35
N
1x
5/6
Office of destination
(and country)
an8
N
1x
The structure of the customs
office identifier is defined in
Title II.
5/7
Intended offices of
transit (and country)
an8
N
9x
The identifier of the customs
office
shall
follow
the
structure defined for D.E. 5/6 Office of destination
(and country).
5/8
Country of destination
code
a2
N
1x
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used.
5/9
Region of destination
code
an..9
N
1x
1x
Codes are defined by the
Member State concerned.
5/10
Place of delivery code
- Master level
transport contract
UN/LOCODE: an..17 OR Country code: a2 +
Postcode: an..9
N
1x
Where the place of loading is
coded
according
to
the
UN/LOCODE,
the
information
shall
be
the
UN/LOCODE as defined in Title II for D.E. 5/6 Office of destination (and country). Where the place of delivery is not coded according to the
UN/LOCODE,
the
country code as defined for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be used.
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
5/11
Place of delivery code
- House level
transport contract
UN/LOCODE: an..17 OR Country code: a2 +
Postcode: an..9
N
1x
Where the place of loading is
coded
according
to
the
UN/LOCODE,
the
information
shall
be
the
UN/LOCODE as defined in Title II for D.E. 5/6 Office of destination (and country). Where the place of delivery is not coded according to the
UN/LOCODE,
the
country code as defined for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used.
5/12
Customs office of exit
an8
N
1x
The identifier of the customs
office
shall
follow
the
structure defined for D.E. 5/6 Office of destination
(and country).
5/13
Subsequent customs
office(-s) of entry
an8
N
99x
The identifier of the customs
office
shall
follow
the
structure defined for D.E. 5/6 Office of destination
(and country).
5/14
Country of dispatch/
export code
a2
N
1x
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used.
5/15
Country of origin code a2
N
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used.
5/16
Country of preferential
origin code
an..4
N
1x
The country code as for D.E.
3/1 Exporter shall be used. Where the proof of origin refers
to
a
group
of
countries use the numeric identifier codes specified in the integrated tariff estab lished in accordance with Article 2 of Council (EEC)
Regulation No 2658/87.
5/17
Region of origin code
an..9
N
1x
Codes are defined by the
Member State concerned.
5/18
Countries of routing
codes
a2
N
99x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be used.
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
5/19
Countries of routing
of the means of
transport codes
a2
N
99x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used.
a2
N
99x
99x
The country code as for D.E.
3/1 Exporter shall be used.
5/20
Countries of routing
of the consignment
codes
5/21
Place of loading
Coded: an..17
OR Free text description: a2 (country code) +
an..35 (location)
5/22
Place of unloading
Coded: an..17
OR Free text description: a2 (country code) +
an..35 (location)
5/23
Location of goods
Country: a2 +
Type of location: a1 +
Qualifier of the identifi
cation: a1 +
Coded Identification of location: an..35 + Additional identifier: n..3
OR
Free text description Street and number: an..70 + Postcode: an..9 +
City: an..35
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
N
1x
Where the place of loading is
coded
according
to
the
UN/LOCODE,
the
information
shall
be
the
UN/LOCODE as defined in Title II for D.E. 5/6 Office of destination (and country). Where the place of loading is not coded according to the UN/LOCODE, the country where the place of loading is located is identified by the code as defined for
D.E3/1 Exporter.
N
1x
1x
Where
the
place
of
unloading
is
coded
according
to
the
UN/LOCODE,
the
information
shall
be
the
UN/LOCODE as defined in Title II for D.E. 5/6 Office of destination (and country).
Where
the
place
of
unloading
is
not
coded
according
to
the
UN/LOCODE, the country where
the
place
of
unloading
is
located
is
identified by the code as
defined for D.E. 3/1 Exporter.
Y
1x
The structure of the code is
defined in Title II.
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
5/24
Customs office of first
entry code
an8
N
1x
The identifier of the customs
office
shall
follow
the
structure defined for D.E. 5/6 Office of destination
(and country).
5/25
Actual customs office
of first entry code
an8
N
1x
The identifier of the customs
office
shall
follow
the
structure defined for D.E. 5/6 Office of destination
(and country).
5/26
Customs office of
presentation
an8
N
1x
The identifier of the customs
office
shall
follow
the
structure defined for D.E. 5/6 Office of destination
(and country).
5/27
Supervising customs
office
an8
N
1x
The identifier of the customs
office
shall
follow
the
structure defined for D.E. 5/6 Office of destination
(and country).
5/28
Requested period of
validity of the proof
n..3
N
1x
5/29
Date of presentation
of the goods
n8 (yyyymmdd)
N
1x
1x
5/30
Place of acceptance
Coded: an..17
OR Free text description: a2 (country code) +
an..35 (location)
N
1x
1x
Where
the
place
of
unloading
is
coded
according
to
the
UN/LOCODE,
the
information
shall
be
the
UN/LOCODE as defined in Title II for D.E. 5/6 Office of destination (and country). Where
the
place
of
unloading
is
not
coded
according
to
the
UN/LOCODE, the country where
the
place
of
unloading
is
located
is
identified by the code as
defined for D.E. 3/1 Exporter.
6/1
Net mass (kg)
n..16,6
N
1x
6/2
Supplementary units
n..16,6
N
1x
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
n..16,6
N
1x
1x
6/3
Gross mass (kg) -
Master level transport
contract
n..16,6
N
1x
1x
6/4
Gross mass (kg) -
House level transport
contract
6/5
Gross mass (kg)
n..16,6
N
1x
1x
an..512
N
1x
6/6
Description of goods
- Master level
transport contract
an..512
N
1x
6/7
Description of goods
- House level
transport contract
6/8
Description of goods
an..512
N
1x
6/9
Type of packages
an..2
N
99x
The code-list corresponds to
the latest version of UN/ECE
Recommendations 21
6/10
Number of packages
n..8
N
99x
6/11
Shipping marks
an..512
N
99x
6/12
UN Dangerous Goods
code
an..4
N
99x
The
United
Nations
Dangerous Goods identifier
(UNDG)
is
the
serial
number assigned within the United Nations to substances and articles contained in a list of the dangerous goods
most commonly carried.
6/13
CUS code
an8
N
1x
Code assigned within the
European Customs Inventory of
Chemical
Substances
(ECICS).
an..8
N
1x
6/14
Commodity code -
Combined nomen
clature code
6/15
Commodity code -
TARIC code
an2
N
1x
To
be
completed
in
accordance with the TARIC code (two characters for the application of specific Union measures
in
respect
of
formalities to be completed at destination).
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
6/16
Commodity code -
TARIC additional
code(s)
an4
N
99x
To
be
completed
in
accordance with the TARIC
codes (additional codes).
an..4
N
99x
Codes to be adopted by the
Member States concerned.
6/17
Commodity code -
National additional
code(s)
6/18
Total packages
n..8
N
1x
6/19
Type of goods
a1
N
1x
UPU code-list 116 shall be
used
7/1
Transhipments
Place of transhipment:
Country: a2 + Type of location: a1 +
Qualifier of the identifi
cation: a1 +
Coded Identification of location: an..35 + Additional identifier: n..3
OR
Free text description Street and number: an..70 + Postcode: an..9 + City: an..35 + Identity of new means of transport Type of identification:
n2 + Identification number: an..35 + Nationality of new
means of transport: a2 +
Indicator whether the consignment is
containerised or not: n1
7/2
Container
n1
Y
1x
7/3
Conveyance reference
number
an..17
N
9x
7/4
Mode of transport at
the border
n1
Y
1x
7/5
Inland mode of
transport
n1
N
1x
The codes provided for in
Title II as regards D.E. 7/4 Mode of transport at the border shall be used.
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
N
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be used. The place of transhipment shall follow the structure of D.E. 5/23 Location of goods. The identity of means of transport shall follow the structure
of
D.E.
7/7
Identity
of
means
of
transport at departure. The nationality of means of transport shall follow the structure
of
D.E.
7/8
Nationality
of
means
of
transport at departure. For the indicator whether the goods are containerised, the
codes provided for D.E. 7/2
Container in Title II shall be
used.
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
7/6
Identification of actual
means of transport
crossing the border
Type of identification: n2 + Identification number:
an..35
7/7
Identity of means of
transport at departure
Type of identification: n2 + Identification number: an..35
7/8
Nationality of means
of transport at
departure
a2
N
1x
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used.
7/9
Identity of means of
transport on arrival
Type of identification: n2 + Identification number:
an..35
7/10
Container identifi
cation number
an..17
N
9999x
9999x
7/11
Container size and
type
an..10
Y
99x
99x
7/12
Container packed
status
an..3
Y
99x
99x
7/13
Equipment supplier
type
an..3
Y
99x
99x
7/14
Identity of active
means of transport
crossing the border
Type of identification: n2 + Identification number:
an..35
7/15
Nationality of active
means of transport
crossing the border
a2
N
1x
1x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be used.
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
Y
1x
Y
1x
1x
N
1x
The codes defined for D.E.
7/6 Identification of actual means of transport crossing the border or for D.E. 7/7 Identity
of
means
of
transport at departure shall be used for the type of
identification.
N
1x
1x
The codes defined for D.E.
7/6 Identification of actual means of transport crossing the border or for D.E. 7/7 Identity
of
means
of
transport at departure shall be used for the type of
identification.
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
7/16
Identity of passive
means of transport
crossing the border
Type of identification: n2 + Identification number:
an..35
N
999x
999x
The codes defined for D.E.
7/6 Identification of actual means of transport crossing the border or for D.E. 7/7 Identity
of
means
of
transport at departure shall be used for the type of
identification.
7/17
Nationality of passive
means of transport
crossing the border
a2
N
999x
999x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be
used.
7/18
Seal number
Number of seals: n..4 +
Seal identifier: an..20
N
1x
9999x
1x 9999x
7/19
Other incidents during
carriage
an..512
N
1x
7/20
Receptacle identifi
cation number
an..35
N
1x
8/1
Quota order number
an6
N
1x
8/2
Guarantee type
Guarantee type: an 1
Y
9x
N
99x
The
ISO-alpha-3
currency
codes (ISO 4217) shall be used for the currency. The identifier of the customs office
shall
follow
the
structure defined for D.E. 5/6 Office of destination
(and country).
8/3
Guarantee reference
GRN: an..24 OR
Other guarantee reference: an..35 +
Access code: an..4 +
Currency code: a3 +
Amount of import or export duty and, where Article 89(2) first subparagraph of the Code applies, other charges: n..16,2 + Customs office of guar
antee: an8
8/4
Guarantee not valid in a2
N
99x
The country code as defined
for D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be used.
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Header level
cardinality
Item level
cardinality
Notes
Code-list
in Title II
(Y/N)
D.E.
order
numb
er
8/5
Nature of transaction
n..2
N
1x
1x
The single digit codes listed
in column A of the table provided
for
under
Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation
(EC)
No
113/2010 (
2
) shall be used.
Where paper-based customs declarations are used, this digit will be entered in the left-hand side of box 24. Member
States
may
also
provide for a second digit
from the list in column B of that table to be collected. Where paper-based customs declarations are used, the second
digit
must
be
entered in the right-hand
side of box 24.
8/6
Statistical value
n..16,2
N
1x
N
99x
The
measurement
units
defined in TARIC shall be used.
8/7
Writing-off
Document type
(Union codes): a1+an3 OR (national codes): n1+an3 + Document identifier: an..35 + Issuing authority name: an..70 + Date of validity: an8 (yyyymmdd) + Measurement unit and qualifier, if applicable: an..4 +
Quantity: an..16,6
## Codes In Relation With The Common Data Requirements For Declarations And Notifications Codes 1. Introduction
This Title contains the codes to be used on standard electronic and paper-based declarations and notifications.
## 2. Codes
1/1. **Declaration type**
EX:
For trade with countries and territories situated outside of the customs territory of the Union other than the
EFTA countries.
For placing goods under a customs procedure referred to in columns B1, B2 and C1 and for re-export referred to in column B1 of the data requirements table in Title I of Annex B to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
IM:
For trade with countries and territories situated outside of the customs territory of the Union other than the
EFTA countries.
For placing goods under a customs procedure referred to in columns H1 to H4, H6 and I1 of the data requirements table in Title I of Annex B to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
For placing non-Union goods under a customs procedure in the context of trade between Member States.
CO: - Union goods subject to specific measures during the transitional period following the accession of new
Member States
- Placing of Union goods under the customs warehousing procedure referred to in column B3 of the data
requirements table in Title I of Annex B to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 in order to obtain payment of special export refunds prior to exportation or manufacturing under customs supervision and
under customs control prior to exportation and payment of export refunds.
- Union goods in the context of trade between parts of the customs territory of the Union to which the
provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (
1
) or Council Directive 2008/118/EC (
2
) are applicable and
parts of that territory to which those provisions do not apply, or in the context of trade between parts of that territory where those provisions do not apply as referred to in columns B4 and H5 of the data
requirements table in Title I of Annex B to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
## 1/2. **Additional Declaration Type**
A
for a standard customs declaration (under Article 162 of the Code)
B
for a simplified declaration on occasional basis (under Article 166(1) of the Code
C
for a simplified customs declaration with regular use (under Article 166(2) of the Code)
D
For lodging a standard customs declaration (such as referred to under code A) in accordance with Article 171 of
the Code.
E
For lodging a simplified declaration (such as referred to under code B) in accordance with Article 171 of the Code.
F
For lodging a simplified declaration (such as referred to under code C) in accordance with Article 171 of the Code.
X
for a supplementary declaration of simplified declarations covered by B and E
Y
for a supplementary declaration of simplified declarations covered by C and F
Z
for a supplementary declaration under the procedure covered under Article 182 of the Code
## 1/3. **Transit Declaration/Proof Of Customs Status Type**
Codes to be used in the context of transit
C
Union goods not placed under a transit procedure
T
Mixed consignments comprising both goods which are to be placed under the external Union transit
procedure and goods which are to be placed under the internal Union transit procedure, covered by Article 294
of this Regulation.
T1
Goods placed under the external Union transit procedure.
T2
Goods placed under the internal Union transit procedure in accordance with Article 227 of the Code, unless
Article 293(2) applies.
T2F
Goods placed under the internal Union transit procedure, in accordance with Article 188 of Delegated
Regulation (EU) 2015/2446
T2SM Goods placed under the internal Union transit procedure, in application of Article 2 of Decision 4/92 of the
EEC-San Marino Co-operation Committee of 22 December 1992.
TD
Goods already placed under a transit procedure, or carried under the inward processing, customs warehouse or
temporary admission procedure in the context of the application of Article 233(4)(e) of the Code
X
Union goods to be exported, not placed under a transit procedure in the context of the application of
Article 233(4)(e)
Codes to be used in the context of proof of the customs status of Union goods
T2L
Proof establishing the customs status of Union goods
T2LF
Proof establishing the customs status of Union goods consigned to, from or between special fiscal territories.
T2LSM Proof establishing the status of goods destined for San Marino in application of Article 2 of Decision 4/92 of
the EEC-San Marino Cooperation Committee of 22 December 1992.
Codes to be used in the context of customs goods manifest
N
All goods which are not falling under the situations described under codes T2L and T2LF
T2L
Proof establishing the customs status of Union goods
T2LF Proof establishing the customs status of Union goods consigned to, from or between special fiscal territories.
## 1/7. **Specific Circumstance Indicator**
The following codes shall be used:
Code
Description
Dataset in the data requirements
table in Title I of Annex B to
Delegated Regulation (EU)
2015/2446
A20
Express consignments in the context of exit summary declarations
A2
F10
Sea and inland waterways - Complete dataset - Straight bill of
lading containing the necessary information from consignee
F1a = F1b+F1d
F1a = F1b + F1c + F1d
F11
Sea and inland waterways - Complete dataset - Master bill of lading
with underlying house bill(s) of lading containing the necessary information from consignee at the level of the lowest house bill of
lading
F12
Sea and inland waterways - Partial dataset - Master bill of lading
only
F1b
F13
Sea and inland waterways - Partial dataset - Straight bill of lading
only
F1b
F14
Sea and inland waterways - Partial dataset - House bill of lading
only
F1c
F15
Sea and inland waterways - Partial dataset - House bill of lading
with the necessary information from consignee
F1c + F1d
| Code | Description |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dataset in the data requirements | |
| table in Title I of Annex B to | |
| Delegated Regulation (EU) | |
| 2015/2446 | |
| | |
| F1d | |
| F16 | |
| Sea and inland waterways - Partial dataset - Necessary information | |
| required to be provided by consignee at the lowest level of transport | |
| contract (straight bill or the lowest house bill of lading) | |
| F20 | Air cargo (general) - Complete dataset lodged pre-loading |
| F21 | Air cargo (general) - Partial dataset - Master air waybill lodged pre- |
| arrival | |
| F2b | |
| F22 | Air cargo (general) - Partial dataset - House air waybill lodged pre- |
| arrival | |
| F2c | |
| Part of F2d | |
| F23 | Air cargo (general) - Partial dataset - Minimum dataset lodged pre- |
| loading in accordance with Article 106(1) second subparagraph of | |
| Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 without master air waybill | |
| reference number | |
| F2d | |
| F24 | Air cargo (general) - Partial dataset - Minimum dataset lodged pre- |
| loading in accordance with Article 106(1) second subparagraph of | |
| Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 with master air waybill | |
| reference number | |
| F25 | Air cargo (general) - Partial dataset - Master air waybill reference |
| number lodged pre-loading in accordance with Article 106(1) second | |
| subparagraph of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 | |
| Part of F2d complementing the | |
| message with specific circum | |
| stance indicator F23 | |
| F2c + F2d | |
| F26 | Air cargo (general) - Partial dataset - Minimum dataset lodged pre- |
| loading in accordance with Article 106(1) second subparagraph of | |
| Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 and containing additional | |
| house air waybill information | |
| F27 | Air cargo (general) - Complete dataset lodged pre-arrival |
| F3a by air mode | F30 |
| accordance with Article 106(1) second subparagraph of Delegated | |
| Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 | |
| F31 | Express consignments - Complete dataset in accordance with the |
| time-limits applicable for the mode of transport concerned | |
| F3a by other than air mode | |
| F3b | F32 |
| pre-loading in accordance with Article 106(1) second subparagraph of | |
| Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 | |
| F4a by air mode | F40 |
| accordance with Article 106(1) second subparagraph of Delegated | |
| Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 | |
| F4a by other than air mode | F41 |
| limits applicable for the mode of transport concerned (other than the | |
| air) | |
| Code | Description |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dataset in the data requirements | |
| table in Title I of Annex B to | |
| Delegated Regulation (EU) | |
| 2015/2446 | |
| | |
| F4b | |
| F42 | Postal consignments - Partial dataset - Master air waybill containing |
| necessary postal air waybill information lodged in accordance with the | |
| time-limits applicable for the mode of transport concerned | |
| F4c | F43 |
| loading in accordance with Article 106(1) second subparagraph of | |
| Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 | |
| F4d | F44 |
| number lodged pre-loading in accordance with Article 106(1) second | |
| subparagraph of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 | |
| F50 | Road mode of transport |
| F51 | Rail mode of transport |
## 1/10. **Procedure**
The codes to be entered in this subdivision are four-digit codes, composed of a two-digit code representing the procedure requested, followed by a second two-digit code representing the previous procedure. The list of two-digit codes is given below.
'Previous procedure' means the procedure under which the goods were placed before being placed under the procedure requested.
It should be noted that where the previous procedure is customs warehousing or temporary admission, or where the goods have come from a free zone, the relevant code should be used only where the goods have not been placed under inward or outward processing or end-use.
For example: re-export of goods imported under inward processing and subsequently placed under customs ware
housing = 3151 (not 3171). (First operation = 5100; second operation = 7151: third operation re-export = 3151).
Similarly, where goods previously temporarily exported are re-imported and released for free circulation after having been placed under customs warehousing, temporary admission or in a free zone this is regarded as simple reimportation after temporary export.
For example: entry for home use with simultaneous entry for free circulation of goods exported under outward processing and placed under customs warehousing upon re-importation = 6121 (not 6171). (First operation: temporary export under outward processing = 2100; second operation: storage in a customs warehouse = 7121;
third operation: entry for home use + entry for free circulation = 6121).
The codes marked in the list below with the letter (a) cannot be used as the first two digits of the procedure code, but only to indicate the previous procedure.
For example: 4054 = entry for free circulation and home use of goods previously placed under inward processing in another Member State.
## List Of Procedures For Coding Purposes
Two of these basic elements must be combined to produce a four-digit code.
01
Release for free circulation of goods simultaneously redispatched in the context of trade between parts of the
customs territory of the Union in which the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC or Directive 2008/118/EC are applicable and parts of that territory in which these provisions do not apply, or in the context of trade between
the parts of that territory where these provisions do not apply.
Release for Free circulation of goods simultaneously redispatched in the context of trade between the European Union and the countries with which it has formed a customs union (goods that fall under a Customs Union Agreement).
Examples:
Non-Union goods arriving from a third country, released for free circulation in France and sent on
to the Channel Islands.
Non-Union goods arriving from a third country, released for free circulation in Spain and sent on to
Andorra.
07
Release of goods for free circulation simultaneously placed under a warehousing procedure other than a customs
warehousing procedure where neither VAT nor, when applicable, excise duties have been paid.
Explanation:
This code is to be used where the goods are released for free circulation but where VAT and excise
duties have not been paid.
Examples:
Imported raw sugar is released for free circulation but VAT has not been paid. While the goods
are placed in a warehouse or approved area other than customs warehouse, payment of the VAT
is suspended.
Imported mineral oils are released for free circulation and no VAT has been paid. While the goods
are stored in a tax warehouse, payment of VAT and excise duties is suspended.
10
Permanent export.
Example:
Normal export of Union goods to a third country, but also dispatch of Union goods to parts of the
customs territory of the Union to which the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC or
Directive 2008/118/EC do not apply.
11
Export of processed products obtained from equivalent goods under inward processing before placing non-Union
goods under inward processing.
Explanation:
Prior export (EX-IM) in accordance with Art. 223(2)c) of the Code.
Example:
Export of cigarettes manufactured from Union tobacco leaves before placing of non-Union
tobacco leaves under inward processing.
21
Temporary export under the outward processing procedure, if not covered by code 22.
Example:
Outward processing procedure under Articles 259 to 262 of the Code. The simultaneous application
to textile products of the outward processing procedure and the economic outward processing procedure (Council Regulation (EC) No 3036/94 (
1
)) is not covered by this code.
22
Temporary export other than that referred to under code 21 and 23.
This code covers the following situations:
- The simultaneous application to textile products of the outward processing procedure and the economic
outward processing procedure (Regulation (EC) No 3036/94)
- Temporary export of goods from the Union for repair, processing, adaptation, making up or re-working
where no customs duties will be due at re-importation.
23
Temporary export for return in the unaltered state.
Example:
Temporary export for exhibitions of articles such as samples, professional equipment, etc.
31
Re-export.
Explanation:
Re-export of non-Union goods following a special procedure.
Example:
Goods are placed under customs warehousing and subsequently declared for re-export.
40
Simultaneous release for free circulation and home use of goods.
Entry for home use of goods in the context of trade between the Union and the countries with which it has formed a customs union.
Entry for home use of goods in the context of trade referred to in Article 1(3) of the Code.
Examples:
- Goods coming from Japan with payment of customs duty, VAT and when applicable excise duties.
- Goods coming from Andorra and entered for home use in Germany
- Goods arriving from Martinique and entered for home use in Belgium.
42
Simultaneous release for free circulation and home use of goods which are the subject of a VAT-exempt supply
to another Member State and, when applicable, an excise-duty suspension.
Entry for home use of Union goods, in the context of trade between parts of the customs territory of the Union in which the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC and Directive 2008/118/EC are not applicable and parts of that territory in which those provisions are applicable, which are the subject of a VAT-exempt supply to another Member State and, when applicable, an excise duty suspension.
Explanation:
Exemption from payment of VAT and, where applicable, the excise duty suspension, is granted
because the import is followed by intra-Union supply or transfer of the goods to another Member State. In that case the VAT and, where applicable, the excise duty will be due in the Member State of final destination. In order to use this procedure, the persons must meet other conditions listed in in Article 143(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC and, where applicable, the conditions listed in Article 17(1)(b) of Directive 2008/118/EC. The information required by Article 143 (2) of Directive 2006/112/EC shall be entered in D.E. 3/40 Additional fiscal references identification n
o
.
Examples:
Non-Union goods are released for free circulation in one Member State and are the subject of a VAT-exempt supply to another Member State. The VAT formalities are dealt with by a customs agent who is a tax representative using the intra-Union VAT system.
Non-Union goods subject to excise duties imported from a third country, which are released for free circulation and are the subject of a VAT-exempt supply to another Member State. The release for free circulation is immediately followed by a movement under excise duty suspension from the place of importation initiated by a registered consignor in accordance with Article 17(1)(b) of Directive 2008/118/EC.
Example:
Release for free circulation of agricultural products subject, during a special transitional period
following the accession of new Member States, to a special customs procedure or special measures between the new Member States and the rest of the Union.
44
End-use
Release for free circulation and home use under a duty exemption or at a reduced rate of duty on account of their specific use.
Example:
Release for free circulation of non-Union engines for integration into a civil aircraft built in the
European Union.
Non-union goods for integration in certain categories of ships, boats and other vessels and for drilling or production platforms
45
Release of goods for free circulation and partial entry for home use for either VAT or excise duties and their
placing in a warehouse other than customs warehouses.
Explanation:
This code is to be used for goods which are subjected to both VAT and excise duties and where
only one of these categories of taxes are paid when the goods are released for free circulation.
Examples:
Non-Union cigarettes are released for free circulation and VAT has been paid. While the goods are
in the tax warehouse, the payment of excise duties is suspended.
Excise goods imported from a third country or from a third territory referred to in Article 5(3) of Directive 2008/118/EC are released for free circulation. The release for free circulation is immediately followed by a movement under excise duty suspension initiated by a registered consignor at the place of importation, in accordance with Article 17(1)(b) of Directive
2008/118/EC, to a tax warehouse in the same Member State.
46
Import of processed products obtained from equivalent goods under the outward-processing procedure before
exportation of goods they are replacing.
Explanation:
Prior import in accordance with Article 223(2)d) of the Code.
Example:
Import of tables manufactured from non-Union wood before placing Union wood under outward
processing.
48
Entry for home use with simultaneous release for free circulation of replacement products under outward
processing prior to the export of the defective goods.
Explanation:
Standard exchange system (IM-EX), prior importation in accordance with Article 262(1) of the
Code.
51
Placing goods under inward processing procedure.
Explanation:
Inward processing in accordance with Article 256 of the Code.
53
Placing of goods under temporary admission.
Explanation:
Placing of non-Union goods intended for re-export under the temporary admission procedure.
May be used in the customs territory of the Union, with total or partial relief from import duties in accordance with article 250 of the Code.
Example:
Temporary admission, e.g. for an exhibition.
54
Inward processing in another Member State (without their being released for free circulation in that Member
State) (a).
Explanation:
This code is used to record the operation for the purposes of statistics on intra-Union trade.
Example:
Non-Union goods are placed under inward processing in Belgium (5100). After undergoing
inward processing, they are dispatched to Germany for release for free circulation (4054) or
further processing (5154).
61
Re-importation with simultaneous release for free circulation and home use of goods.
Explanation:
Goods re-imported from a third country with payment of the customs duties and VAT.
63
Re-importation with simultaneous release for free circulation and home use of goods which are the subject of a
VAT-exempt supply to another Member State and, when applicable, an excise duty suspension.
Explanation:
Exemption from payment of VAT and, where applicable, the excise duty suspension, is granted
because that the reimportation is followed by intra-Union supply or transfer of the goods to another Member State. In such a case the VAT and, where applicable, the excise duty, will be due
in the Member State of final destination. In order to use this procedure, the persons must meet other conditions listed in in Article 143(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC and, where applicable, the conditions listed in Article 17(1)(b) of Directive 2008/118/EC. The information required by Article 143 (2) of Directive 2006/112/EC shall be entered in D.E. 3/40 Additional fiscal references identification n
o
.
Examples:
Reimportation after outward processing or temporary export, with any VAT debt being charged to
a tax representative.
Excise goods reimported after outward processing and released for free circulation, which are the subject of a VAT-exempt supply to another Member State. The release for free circulation is immediately followed by a movement under excise duty suspension from the place of reimpor tation initiated by a registered consignor in accordance with Article 17(1)(b) of Directive
2008/118/EC.
68
Re-importation with partial entry for home use and simultaneous release for free circulation and placing of
goods under warehousing other than customs warehousing procedure.
Example:
Processed alcoholic beverages are re-imported and placed in a tax warehouse.
71
Placing of goods under the customs warehousing procedure.
Explanation:
Placing of goods under the customs warehousing procedure.
76
Placing of Union goods under the customs warehousing procedure in accordance with Article 237(2) of the
Code.
Explanation:
Boned meat of adult male bovine animals placed under customs warehousing prior to export
(Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1741/2006 (
1
) of 24 November 2006 laying down
the conditions for granting the special export refund on boned meat of adult male bovine animals
placed under the customs warehousing procedure prior to export)
Following the release for free circulation, application for repayment or remission of import duty based on the goods being defective or not complying with the terms of the contract (Art. 118 of the Code).
In accordance with Article 118(4) of the Code the goods in question may be placed under the customs warehousing procedure instead of having to be taken out of the customs territory of Union in order for the repayment or remission to be granted.
77
Manufacturing of Union goods under customs supervision by the customs authorities and under customs control
(within the meaning of Art. 5(27) and (3) of Code) prior to exportation and payment of export refunds.
Explanation:
Preserved beef and veal products manufactured under supervision by the customs authorities and
under customs control prior to export (Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1731/2006 (
1
))
78
Placing of goods under free-zone.
95
Placing of Union Goods under a warehousing procedure other than a customs warehousing procedure where
neither VAT nor, when applicable, excise duties have been paid.
Explanation:
This code is to be used in the context of trade referred to in Article 1(3) of the Code as well as
trade between the Union and the countries with which it has formed a customs union and where
neither VAT nor excise duties have been paid.
Example:
Cigarettes from the Canary Islands are brought to Belgium and stored in a tax warehouse;
payment of VAT and excise duties is suspended.
96
Placing of Union Goods under a warehousing procedure other than a customs warehousing procedure where
either VAT or, when applicable, excise duties have been paid and the payment of the other tax is suspended.
Explanation:
This code is to be used in the context of trade referred to in Article 1(3) of the Code as well as
trade between the Union and the countries with which it has formed a customs union and where
either VAT or excise duties have been paid and the payment of the other tax is suspended.
Example:
Cigarettes from the Canary Islands are brought to France and stored in a tax warehouse; VAT has
been paid and the payment of excise duties is suspended.
## Procedure Codes Used In The Context Of Customs Declarations
Declarations
Union procedure codes, where appropriate
Columns (table
heading in Annex
B to Delegated
Regulation (EU)
2015/2446)
B1
Export declaration and re-export declaration
10, 11, 23, 31
B2
Special procedure - processing - declaration
for outward processing
21, 22
B3
Declaration for Customs warehousing of Union
goods
76, 77
B4
Declaration for dispatch of goods in the context
of trade with special fiscal territories
10
C1
Export Simplified declaration
10, 11, 23, 31
01, 07, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 61, 63, 68
H1
Declaration for release for free circulation and
special procedure - specific use - declaration
for end-use
H2
Special procedure - storage - declaration for
customs warehousing
71
H3
Special procedure - specific use - declaration
for temporary admission
53
H4
Special procedure - processing - declaration
for inward processing
51
Declarations
Union procedure codes, where appropriate
Columns (table
heading in Annex
B to Delegated
Regulation (EU)
2015/2446)
H5
Declaration for the introduction of goods in the
context of trade with special fiscal territories
40, 42, 61, 63, 95, 96
H6
Customs declaration in postal traffic for release
for free circulation
01, 07, 40
I1
Import Simplified declaration
01, 07, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 51, 53,
61, 63, 68
## 1/11. **Additional Procedure**
Where this data element is used to specify a Union procedure, the first character of the code identifies a category of measures in the following manner:
| Inward processing | Axx |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|
| Outward processing | Bxx |
| Relief | |
| Cxx | |
| Temporary admission | |
| Dxx | |
| Agricultural products | |
| Exx | |
| Other | Fxx |
| Inward processing | (Article 256 of the Code) |
| | |
| Procedure | Code |
| | |
| Import | |
| Goods which are placed under an inward processing procedure (VAT only) | A04 |
| Outward processing | (Article 259 of the Code) |
| | |
| Procedure | Code |
| | |
| Import | |
| | |
| Processed products returning after repair under guarantee in accordance with Article 260 of | |
| the Code (goods repaired free of charge). | |
| B02 | |
| Processed products returning after replacement under guarantee in accordance with | |
| Article 261 of the Code (standard exchange system) | |
| B03 | |
| Processed products returning - VAT only | B06 |
| Export | |
| | |
| Goods imported for IP exported for repair under OP | B51 |
| Goods imported for IP exported for replacement under guarantee | B52 |
| OP under agreements with third countries, possibly combined with VAT OP | B53 |
| VAT outward processing only | B54 |
| | |
Relief *(Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009* (
1
))
| Article No | Code |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| | |
| Relief from import duties | |
| | |
| Personal property belonging to natural persons transferring their normal place of | |
| residence to the Union | |
| 3 | |
| C01 | |
| 9(1) | C42 |
| Personal property entered for free circulation before the person concerned estab | |
| lishes his normal place of residence in the customs territory of the Union (duty | |
| relief subject to an undertaking) | |
| 10 | C43 |
| Personal property belonging to a natural person having intention to transfer his | |
| normal place of residence to the Union (duty-free admission subject to an | |
| undertaking) | |
| Trousseaux and household effects imported on the occasion of a marriage | 12(1) |
| 12(1), 15(1)(a) | C60 |
| Trousseaux and household effects imported on the occasion of a marriage | |
| entered for free circulation in the first two months before the wedding (duty | |
| relief subject to the lodging of appropriate security) | |
| Presents customarily given on the occasion of a marriage | 12(2) |
| 12(2), 15(1)(a) | |
| C61 | |
| Presents customarily given on the occasion of a marriage entered for free circu | |
| lation in the last two months before the wedding (duty relief subject to the | |
| lodging of appropriate security) | |
| Personal property acquired by inheritance by a natural person having his normal | |
| place of residence in the customs territory of the Union | |
| 17 | |
| C04 | |
| Personal property acquired by inheritance by legal persons engaged in a non- | |
| profit making activity who are established in the customs territory of the Union | |
| 20 | |
| C44 | |
| School outfits, educational materials and related household effects | 21 |
| Consignments of negligible value | 23 |
| Consignments sent from one private individual to another | 25 |
| Capital goods and other equipment imported on the transfer of activities from a | |
| third country into the Union | |
| 28 | |
| C09 | |
| Capital goods and other equipment belonging to persons engaged in a liberal | |
| profession and to legal persons engaged in a non-profit making activity | |
| 34 | |
| C10 | |
| 35 | C45 |
| Agricultural, stock-farming, bee-keeping, horticultural and forestry products from | |
| properties located in a third country adjoining the customs territory of the | |
| Union | |
| 38 | |
| C46 | |
| Products of fishing or fish-farming activities carried out in the lakes or | |
| waterways bordering a Member State and a third country by Union fishermen | |
| and products of hunting activities carried out on such lakes or waterways by | |
| Union sportsmen. | |
| Article No | Code |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| | |
| 39 | C47 |
| Seeds, fertilisers and products for treatment of soil and crops, intended for use | |
| on property located in the customs territory of the Union adjoining a third | |
| country | |
| Goods contained in the personal luggage and exempted from VAT | 41 |
| Educational, scientific and cultural materials; scientific instruments and apparatus | |
| as listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009) | |
| 42 | |
| C11 | |
| Educational, scientific and cultural materials; scientific instruments and apparatus | |
| as listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 | |
| 43 | |
| C12 | |
| 44-45 | C13 |
| Educational, scientific and cultural materials; scientific instruments and apparatus | |
| imported exclusively for non-commercial purposes (including spare parts, | |
| components, accessories and tools) | |
| Equipment imported for non-commercial purposes by or on behalf of a scientific | |
| research establishment or organisation based outside the Union | |
| 51 | |
| C14 | |
| Laboratory animals and biological or chemical substances intended for research 53 | |
| C15 | |
| Therapeutic substances of human origin and blood-grouping and tissue-typing | |
| reagents | |
| 54 | |
| C16 | |
| Instruments and apparatus used in medical research, establishing medical | |
| diagnoses or carrying out medical treatment | |
| 57 | |
| C17 | |
| Reference substances for the quality control of medicinal products | |
| 59 | C18 |
| Pharmaceutical products used at international sports events | 60 |
| Goods for charitable or philanthropic organisations - basic necessities imported | |
| by State organisations or other approved organisations | |
| 61 (1) point a | |
| C20 | |
| 61 (1) point b | C49 |
| Goods for charitable or philanthropic organisations - goods of every | |
| description sent free of charge and to be used for fund-raising at occasional | |
| charity events for the benefit of needy persons | |
| Goods for charitable or philanthropic organisations - equipment and office | |
| materials sent free of charge | |
| 61 (1) point c | |
| C50 | |
| Articles in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 intended for the blind 66 | |
| C21 | |
| 67(1),point a and | |
| 67(2) | |
| C22 | |
| Articles in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 intended for the blind | |
| imported by blind persons themselves for their own use (including spare parts, | |
| components, accessories and tools) | |
| 67(1),point b and | |
| 67(2) | |
| C23 | |
| Articles in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 intended for the blind | |
| imported by certain institutions or organisations (including spare parts, | |
| components, accessories and tools) | |
| Article No | Code |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| | |
| 68(1) point a and | |
| 68(2) | |
| C24 | |
| Articles intended for other handicapped persons (other than blind persons) | |
| imported by handicapped persons themselves for their own use (including | |
| spare parts, components, accessories and tools) | |
| 68(1) point b and | |
| 68(2) | |
| C25 | |
| Articles intended for other handicapped persons (other than blind persons) | |
| imported by certain institutions or organisations (including spare parts, | |
| components, accessories and tools) | |
| Goods imported for the benefit of disaster victims | 74 |
| Decorations conferred by governments of third countries on persons whose | |
| normal place of residence is in the customs territory of the Union | |
| 81 point a | |
| C27 | |
| 81 point b | |
| C51 | |
| Cups, medals and similar articles of an essentially symbolic nature which, having | |
| been awarded in a third country to persons having their normal place of | |
| residence in the customs territory of the Union | |
| 81 point c | C52 |
| Cups, medals and similar articles of an essentially symbolic nature which are | |
| given free of charge by authorities or persons established in a third country to be | |
| presented in the customs territory of the Union | |
| 81 point d | C53 |
| Awards, trophies and souvenirs of a symbolic nature and of limited value | |
| intended for distribution free of charge to persons normally resident in third | |
| countries at business conferences or similar international events | |
| 82 point a | C28 |
| Goods imported into the customs territory of the Union by persons who have | |
| paid an official visit to a third country and who have received them on this | |
| occasion as gifts from the host authorities | |
| 82 point b | C54 |
| Goods imported into the customs territory of the Union by persons coming to | |
| pay an official visit in the customs territory of the Union and who intend to | |
| offer them on that occasion as gifts to the host authorities | |
| 82 point c | |
| C55 | |
| Goods sent as gifts, in token of friendship or goodwill, by an official body, | |
| public authority or group, carrying on an activity in the public interest which is | |
| located in a third country, to an official body, public authority or group carrying | |
| on an activity in the public interest which is located in the customs territory of | |
| the Union and approved by the competent authorities to receive such articles | |
| free of duty | |
| Goods to be used by monarchs or heads of state | 85 |
| Samples of goods of negligible value imported for trade promotion purposes 86 | |
| C30 | |
| Printed advertising matter | 87 |
| 89 | C56 |
| Articles for advertising purposes, of no intrinsic commercial value, sent free of | |
| charge by suppliers to their customers, which, apart from their advertising | |
| function, are not capable of being used otherwise | |
| Small representative samples of goods manufactured outside the customs | |
| territory of the Union intended for a trade fair or similar event | |
| 90(1) point a | |
| C32 | |
| 90(1) point b | C57 |
| Goods imported solely in order to be demonstrated or in order to demonstrate | |
| machines and apparatus, manufactured outside the customs territory of the | |
| Union and displayed at a trade fair or similar event | |
| Article No | Code |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| | |
| 90(1) point c | |
| C58 | |
| Various materials of little value such as paints, varnishes, wallpaper, etc., used in | |
| the building, fitting-out and decoration of temporary stands occupied by repre | |
| sentatives of third countries at a trade fair or similar event, which are destroyed | |
| by being used | |
| 90(1) point d | |
| C59 | |
| Printed matter, catalogues, prospectuses, price lists, advertising posters, calendars, | |
| whether or not illustrated, unframed photographs and other articles supplied free | |
| of charge in order to advertise goods manufactured outside the customs territory | |
| of the Union and displayed at a trade fair or similar event | |
| Goods imported for examination, analysis or test purposes | 95 |
| Consignments sent to organisations protecting copyrights or industrial and | |
| commercial patent rights | |
| 102 | |
| C34 | |
| Tourist information literature | 103 |
| Miscellaneous documents and articles | |
| 104 | C36 |
| Ancillary materials for the stowage and protection of goods during their | |
| transport | |
| 105 | |
| C37 | |
| Litter, fodder and feeding stuffs for animals during their transport | 106 |
| Fuel and lubricants present in land motor vehicles and special containers | |
| 107 | C39 |
| Materials for cemeteries for, and memorials to, war victims | 112 |
| Coffins, funerary urns and ornamental funerary articles | |
| 113 | C41 |
| Relief from export duties | |
| Consignments of negligible value | |
| 114 | C73 |
| Domesticated animals exported at the time of transfer of agricultural activities | |
| from the Union to a third country | |
| 115 | |
| C71 | |
| 116 | |
| C74 | |
| Agricultural or stock-farming products obtained in the customs territory of the | |
| Union from properties adjacent to a third country, operated, in the capacity of | |
| owner or lessee, by persons having their principal undertaking in a third country | |
| adjoining the customs territory of the Union | |
| Article No | Code |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| | |
| 119 | |
| C75 | |
| Seeds for use on properties located in a third country adjacent to the customs | |
| territory of the Union and operated, in the capacity of owner or lessee, by | |
| persons having their principal undertaking in the said customs territory in the | |
| immediate proximity of the third country in question | |
| Fodder and feeding stuffs accompanying animals during their exportation | |
| 121 | C72 |
| | |
(
1
) Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ
L 324, 10.12.2009, p. 23).
## Temporary Admission
Procedure
Article No of
Delegated Regulation
(EU) 2015/2446
Code
Pallets (including pallet accessories and equipment)
208 and 209
D01
Containers (including container accessories and equipment)
210 and 211
D02
Means of road, rail, air, sea and inland waterway transport
212
D03
216
D30
Means of transport for persons established outside the customs territory of the Union or for persons preparing the transfer of their normal place of residence
outside that territory
Personal effects and goods for sports purposes imported by travellers
219
D04
Welfare material for seafarers
220
D05
Disaster relief material
221
D06
Medical, surgical and laboratory equipment
222
D07
Animals (twelve months or more)
223
D08
Goods for use in frontier zone
224
D09
Sound, image or data carrying media
225
D10
Publicity material
225
D11
Professional equipment
226
D12
Pedagogic material and scientific equipment
227
D13
Packings, full
228
D14
Packings, empty
228
D15
Procedure
Article No of
Delegated Regulation
(EU) 2015/2446
Code
Moulds, dies, blocks, drawings, sketches, measuring, checking and testing
instruments and other similar articles
229
D16
Special tools and instruments
230
D17
Goods subject to tests, experiments or demonstrations (six months)
231(a)
D18
Goods imported, subject to satisfactory acceptance tests, in connection with a
sales contract
231(b)
D19
Goods used to carry out tests, experiments or demonstrations without financial
gain
231(c)
D20
Samples
232
D21
Replacement means of production (six months)
233
D22
Goods for events or for sale
234(1)
D23
Goods for approval (six months)
234(2)
D24
Works of art, collectors' items and antiques
234(3)(a)
D25
Goods imported with a view to their sale by auction
234(3)(b)
D26
Spare parts, accessories and equipment
235
D27
Goods imported in particular situations having no economic effect
236(b)
D28
Goods imported for a period not exceeding three months
236(a)
D29
Temporary admission with partial relief from duties
206
D51
Agricultural products
Procedure
Code
Import
Use of the unit price for the determination of the customs value for certain perishable goods
(*Article 74(2)(c) of the Code and Article 142(6))*
E01
Standard import values (for example: Commission Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 (*))
E02
Export
Agricultural products listed in Annex I to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union for which a refund is requested, subject to an export certificate
E51
Agricultural products listed in Annex I to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union for which a refund is requested, not requiring an export certificate
E52
| Procedure | Code |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| | |
| E53 | |
| Agricultural products listed in Annex I to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European | |
| Union for which a refund is requested, exported in small quantities, not requiring an export | |
| certificate | |
| Processed agricultural products not listed in Annex I to the Treaty on the Functioning of the | |
| European Union for which a refund is requested, subject to a refund certificate | |
| E61 | |
| Processed agricultural products not listed in Annex I to the Treaty on the Functioning of the | |
| European Union for which a refund is requested, not requiring a refund certificate | |
| E62 | |
| E63 | |
| Processed agricultural products not listed in Annex I to the Treaty on the Functioning of the | |
| European Union for which a refund is requested, exported in small quantities, without a | |
| refund certificate | |
| Agricultural products for which a refund is requested, exported in small quantities | |
| disregarded for the calculation of minimum rates of checks | |
| E71 | |
| Victualing of goods eligible for refunds (Article 33 Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 (**) | E64 |
| Entry in victualing warehouse (Article 37 Regulation (EC) No 612/2009) | E65 |
| | |
(*) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1).
(**) Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 of 7 July 2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ L 186, 17.7.2009, p. 1).
Other
Procedure
Code
Import
Relief from import duties for returned goods (Article 203 of the Code)
F01
Relief from import duties for returned goods (Special circumstances provided for in
Article 159 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446: agriculture goods)
F02
Relief from import duties for returned goods (Special circumstances provided for in
Article 158(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 repair or restoration)
F03
Processed products which return to the European Union after having been previously reexported subsequent to an inward processing procedure (Article 205(1) of the Code)
F04
Relief from import duties and from VAT and/or excise duties for returned goods (Art. 203 of
the Code and Art. 143(1)(e) (Directive 2006/112/EC)
F05
A movement of excise goods under an excise duty suspension arrangement from the place of
importation in accordance with Article 17(1)(b) of Directive 2008/118/EC
F06
F07
Processed products which return to the European Union after having been previously reexported subsequent to an inward processing procedure where the import duty is determined
in accordance with Article 86(3) of the Code (Article 205(2) of the Code)
| Procedure | Code |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | |
| Goods introduced in the context of trade with special fiscal territories (Article 1 (3) of the | |
| Code) | |
| F15 | |
| Goods introduced in the context of trade between the Union and the countries with which it | |
| has formed a customs union | |
| F16 | |
| F21 | Exemption from import duties of products of sea-fishing and other products taken from the |
| territorial sea of a country or territory outside the customs territory of the Union by vessels | |
| solely registered or recorded in a Member State and flying the flag of that state | |
| F22 | |
| Exemption from import duties of products obtained from products of sea-fishing and other | |
| products taken from the territorial sea of a country or territory outside the customs territory | |
| of the Union on board factory-ships registered or recorded in a Member State and flying the | |
| flag of the state | |
| Goods which, after having been under outward processing, are placed under customs ware | |
| housing without suspension of excise duties | |
| F31 | |
| Goods which, after having been under an inward processing procedure, are placed under | |
| customs warehousing without suspension of excise duties | |
| F32 | |
| Goods which, after having been in a free zone, are placed under customs warehousing | |
| procedure without suspension of excise duties | |
| F33 | |
| Goods which, after having been subject to end-use, are placed under customs warehousing | |
| without suspension of excise duties | |
| F34 | |
| Release for free circulation of processed products when Article 86(3) of Code) is to be | |
| applied | |
| F42 | |
| Exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods (Council Directive | |
| 2009/132/EC (*)) | |
| F45 | |
| | |
| Export | |
| | |
| Victualing and bunkering | F61 |
| Goods dispatched in the context of trade with special fiscal territories (Article 1 (3) of the | |
| Code) | |
| F75 | |
| | |
## 2/1. **Simplified Declaration/Previous Document**
This data element consists of alphanumeric (an..44) codes.
Each code has four components. The first component (a1) consists of a letter and is used to distinguish between the three categories mentioned below. The second component (an..3), which consists of a combination of digits and/or letters, serves to identify the type of document. The third component (an..35) represents the data needed to recognise the document, either its identification number or another recognisable reference. The fourth component (an..5) is used to identify which item of the previous document is being referred to.
Where a paper-based customs declaration is lodged, the four components are separated by dashes (-).
1. *The first component (a1):*
the declaration for temporary storage represented by 'X'
the simplified declaration or the entry in the declarant's records, represented by 'Y'
the previous document, represented by 'Z'.
2. *The second component (an..3):*
Choose the abbreviation for the document from the 'list of abbreviations for documents' below.
List of abbreviations for documents
(numeric codes extracted from the 2014b UN Directories for electronic data interchange for administration, commerce and transport: List of code for data element 1001, Document/message name, coded.)
| Container list | 235 |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Delivery note | 270 |
| Packing list | |
| 271 | |
| Proforma invoice | 325 |
| Temporary storage declaration | 337 |
| Entry summary declaration | 355 |
| Commercial invoice | 380 |
| House waybill | |
| 703 | |
| Master bill of lading | 704 |
| Bill of lading | 705 |
| House bill of lading | 714 |
| Rail consignment note | 720 |
| Road consignment note | 730 |
| Air waybill | |
| 740 | |
| Master air waybill | 741 |
| Despatch note (post parcels) | 750 |
| Multimodal/combined transport document | 760 |
| Cargo manifest | 785 |
| Bordereau | |
| 787 | |
| Union/common transit declaration - Mixed consignments (T) | 820 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| External Union/common transit declaration (T1) | |
| 821 | |
| Internal Union/common transit declaration (T2) | |
| 822 | |
| Control document T5 | |
| 823 | |
| Proof of the customs status of Union goods T2L | |
| 825 | |
| TIR carnet | |
| 952 | |
| ATA carnet | 955 |
| Reference/date of entry in the declarant's records | CLE |
| Information sheet INF3 | |
| IF3 | |
| Cargo manifest - simplified procedure | MNS |
| Declaration/notification MRN | |
| MRN | |
| Internal Union transit Declaration - Article 227 of the Code | |
| T2F | |
| Proof of the customs status of Union goods T2LF | |
| T2G | |
| T2M proof | |
| T2M | |
| Simplified declaration | |
| SDE | |
| Other | |
| ZZZ | |
Code 'CLE', included in this list stands for 'date and reference of the entry in the declarant's records'. (Article 182(1)
of the Code). The date is coded as follows: yyyymmdd.
## 3. *The Third Component (An..35):*
The identification number or another recognisable reference of the document is inserted here.
In case the MRN is referred to as previous document, the reference number shall have the following structure:
Field
Content
Format
Examples
1
Last two digits of year of formal acceptance of the
declaration (YY)
n2
15
a2
RO
2
Identifier of the country where the declaration/proof
of the customs status of Union goods/ notification is
lodged (alpha 2 country code)
3
Unique identifier for message per year and country
an12
9876AB889012
4
Procedure identifier
a1
B
5
Check digit
an1
5
Fields 1 and 2 as explained above.
Field 3 shall be filled in with an identifier for the message concerned. The way that field is used is under the responsibility of national administrations but each message handled during one year within the given country must have a unique number in relation to the procedure concerned.
National administrations that want to have the reference number of the competent customs office included in the MRN, may use up to the first 6 characters to represent it.
Field 4 shall be filled in with an identifier of the procedure as defined in the table below.
Field 5 shall be filled with a value that is a check digit for the whole MRN. This field allows for detection of an error when capturing the whole MRN.
Codes to be used in field 4 Procedure identifier:
Code
Procedure
Corresponding columns in the table of Title I, Chapter 1
A
Export only
B1, B2, B3 or C1
B
Export and exit summary declaration
Combinations of A1 or A2, with B1, B2, B3 or C1
C
Exit summary declaration only
A1 or A2
D
Re-export notification
A3
E
Dispatch of goods in relation with special fiscal
territories
B4
J
Transit declaration only
D1, D2 or D3
K
Transit declaration and exit summary declaration Combinations of D1, D2 or D3 with A1 or A2
L
Transit declaration and entry summary declaration Combinations of D1, D2 or D3 with F1a, F2a, F3a,
F4a or F5
M
Proof of the customs status of Union goods/
Customs goods manifest
E1, E2
R
Import declaration only
H1, H2, H3, H4, H6 or I1
S
Import declaration and entry summary declaration Combinations of H1, H2, H3, H4, H6 or I1 with F1a,
F2a, F3a, F4a or F5
T
Entry summary declaration only
F1a, F1b, F1c, F1d, F2a, F2b, F2c, F2d, F3a, F3b, F4a,
F4b, F4c or F5
U
Temporary storage declaration
G4
V
Introduction of goods in relation with special
fiscal territories
H5
W
Temporary
storage
declaration
and
entry
summary declaration
Combinations of G4 with F1a, F2a, F3a, F4a or F5
4. *The fourth component (an..5)*
The item number of the goods concerned as provided in D.E. 1/6. Goods item number on the summary declaration or previous document.
## Examples:
- The declaration item concerned was the 5
th item on the T1 transit document (previous document) to which the
office of destination has assigned the number '238 544'. The code will therefore be 'Z-821-238544-5'. ('Z' for previous document, '821' for the transit procedure, '238544' for the document's registration number (or the
MRN for the NCTS operations) and '5' for the item number).
- Goods were declared through a simplified declaration. The MRN '14DE9876AB889012X1' has been allocated.
In the supplementary declaration, the code will therefore be 'Y-SDE-14DE9876AB889012X1'. ('Y' for simplified
declaration, 'SDE' for the simplified declaration, '14DE9876AB889012X1' for the MRN of the document).
If the above document is drawn up using the paper-based customs declaration (SAD), the abbreviation will comprise the codes specified for the first subdivision of D.E. 1/1 Declaration type (IM, EX, CO and EU).
Where, in the case of paper-based transit declarations, more than one reference has to be entered, and the Member States provide that a coded information shall be used, code 00200 as defined in D.E. 2/2 Additional information shall be applicable.
## 2/2. **Additional Information**
A five-digit code is used to encode additional information of a customs nature. This code follows the additional information unless the Union law provides for the code to be used in place of the text.
Example: Where the declarant and the consignor are the same person, code 00300 shall be entered.
The Union law provides for certain additional information to be entered in data elements other than D.E. 2/2
Additional information. However, such additional information should be coded according to the same rules as the information to be specifically entered in D.E. 2/2 Additional information.
## Additional Information - Code Xxxxx
General category - Code 0xxxx
Legal basis
Subject
Additional
information
Code
'Simplified
authorisation'
00100
Article 163 of Delegated Regulation (EU)
2015/2446
Application for authorisation for the use of a special procedure other than transit based
on the customs declaration
Title II of Annex B to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
Several
occurrences
of
documents
or
parties.
'Various'
00200
Title II of Annex B to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
Identity between declarant and consignor
'Consignor'
00300
Title II of Annex B to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
Identity between declarant and exporter
'Exporter'
00400
Title II of Annex B to Delegated Regu lation (EU) 2015/2446
Identity between declarant and consignee
'Consignee'
00500
00600
Art. 177(1) of the Code
Simplification
of
the
drawing-up
of
customs declarations for goods falling
under different tariff subheadings
'The
highest
rate of import
or export duty'
On import: Code 1xxxx
Legal basis
Subject
Additional
information
Code
10 200
Article 241(1) first sub-paragraph of
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446
Discharge of inward processing
'IP'
and
the
relevant 'authorisation number or INF
number …'
Legal basis
Subject
Additional
information
Code
Article 241(1) second sub-paragraph of
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446
Discharge of inward processing (specific commercial policy measures)
IP CPM
10 300
10 500
Article 238 of Delegated Regulation (EU)
2015/2446
Discharge of temporary admission
'TA'
and
the
relevant 'authorisation
number …'
'Consignee
unknown'
10 600
Title II of Annex B to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
Situations where negotiable bills of lading that are 'to order blank endorsed' are concerned, in the case of entry summary declarations, where the consignee details
are unknown.
'Original
tariff
classification'
10 700
Article 86(2) of the Code
Request to use the original tariff classifi
cation of the goods in situations provided
for in Article 86(2) of the Code
On transit: Code 2xxxx
Legal basis
Subject
Additional
information
Code
20 100
Article 18 of the 'common transit
procedure' (*)
Export from one EFTA country subject to restriction or export from the Union
subject to restriction
20200
Article 18 of the 'common transit
procedure'
Export from one EFTA country subject to duties or export from the Union subject to
duties
Article 18 of the 'common transit
procedure'
Export
'Export'
20 300
(*) Convention on a common transit procedure of 20 May 1987 (OJ L 226, 13.8.1987, p. 2).
On export: Code 3xxxx
Legal basis
Subject
Additional
information
Code
Article 254(4)(b) of the Code
Export of goods subject to end-use
'E-U'
30 300
Article 160 Delegated Regulation (EU)
2015/2446
The request to have an information sheet
INF3
'INF3'
30 400
Customs office
of exit
30 500
Article 329(6)
Request for the customs office competent
for the place where the goods are taken over under a single transport contract for transport of the goods out of the customs territory of the Union to be the customs
office of exit
'Consignee
unknown'
30 600
Title II of Annex B to Delegated Regu
lation (EU) 2015/2446
Situations where negotiable bills of lading that are 'to order blank endorsed' are concerned, in the case of exit summary declarations, where the consignee details
are unknown
Other: Code 4xxxx
Legal basis
Subject
Additional
information
Code
40 100
Article 123 of Delegated Regulation (EU)
2015/2446
Request for a longer period of validity of the proof of the customs status of Union
goods
'Longer period of validity of the
proof
of
the
customs
status of Union
goods'
## 2/3. **Documents Produced, Certificates And Authorisations, Additional References**
(a) Union or international documents, certificates and authorisations produced in support of the declaration, and
additional references must be entered in the form of a code defined in Title I, followed either by an identification number or another recognisable reference. The list of documents, certificates and authorisations, and of additional
references and their respective codes can be found in the TARIC database.
(b) National documents, certificates and authorisations produced in support of the declaration, and additional
references must be entered in the form of a code as defined in Title I (Ex: 2123, 34d5), possibly followed either by an identification number or another recognisable reference. The four characters represent codes based on
that Member State's own nomenclature.
## 2/7. **Identification Of Warehouse**
The code to be entered has the following two-part structure:
- The character identifying the type of warehouse:
R
Public customs warehouse type I
S
Public customs warehouse type II
T
Public customs warehouse type III
U
Private customs warehouse
V
Storage facilities for the temporary storage of goods
Y
Non-customs warehouse
Z
Free zone
- The identification number allocated by the Member State when issuing the authorisation in cases where such an
authorisation is issued
## 3/1. **Exporter**
In the case of groupage consignments, where paper-based customs declarations are used, and the Member States provide for the use of coded information, code 00200 as defined in D.E. 2/2 Additional information shall be applicable.
## 3/2. Exporter Identification N O
The EORI number is structured as follows:
| Field | Content | Format |
|----------|-----------------------------------------------|----------|
| | | |
| 1 | Identifier of the Member State (country code) | a2 |
| 2 | Unique identifier in a Member State | an..15 |
Country code: The country code as defined in Title I regarding the country code of D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be used.
The structure of a third country unique identification number which has been made available to the Union is as follows:
Field
Content
Format
1
Country code
a2
2
Unique identification number in a third country
an..15
Country code: The country code as defined in Title I regarding the country code of D.E. 3/1 Exporter shall be used.
## 3/9. **Consignee**
In the case of groupage consignments, where paper-based customs declarations are used, and the Member States provide for the use of coded information, code 00200 as defined in D.E. 2/2 Additional information shall be applicable.
## 3/21. **Representative Status Code**
Insert one of the following codes (n1) before the full name and address to designate the status of the representative:
2
Representative (direct representation within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the Code)
3
Representative (indirect representation within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the Code).
Where this data element is printed on a paper document, it will be in square brackets (Ex: [2] or [3])
## 3/37. Additional Supply Chain Actor(S) Identification N O
This data element consists of two components:
## 1. *Role Code*
The following parties can be declared:
Role Code
Party
Description
CS
Consolidator
Freight forwarder combining individual smaller consignments
into a single larger consignment (in a consolidation process) that is sent to a counterpart who mirrors the consolidator's activity by dividing the consolidated consignment into its
original components
MF
Manufacturer
Party which manufactures goods
FW
Freight Forwarder
Party undertaking forwarding of goods
WH
Warehouse Keeper
Party taking responsibility for goods entered into a warehouse
## 2. Identification N O *Of The Party*
The structure of that number corresponds to the structure as specified for D.E. 3/2 Exporter identification n o
.
## 3/40. Additional Fiscal References Identification N O
This data element consists of two components:
## 1. *Role Code*
The following parties can be declared:
| Role Code | Party | Description |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | |
| FR1 | Importer | Person or persons designated or recognised as liable for the |
| payment of value added tax by the Member State of | | |
| importation in accordance with Article 201 of Directive | | |
| 2006/112/EC | | |
| FR2 | Customer | Person liable for the payment of Value Added Tax on the |
| intra-Union acquisition of goods in the Member State of | | |
| final destination in accordance with Article 200 of Directive | | |
| 2006/112/EC | | |
| FR3 | Tax Representative | Tax representative liable for the payment of value added tax |
| in the Member State of importation appointed by the | | |
| importer | | |
| FR4 | Holder of the deferred payment | |
| authorisation | | |
| The taxable person or the person liable for payment or | | |
| another person that has received deferment of payment in | | |
| accordance with Article 211 of Directive 2006/112/EC | | |
2. *The value added tax identification number is structured as follows:*
| Field | Content | Format |
|--------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------------|
| | | |
| a2 | 1 | Identifier of the Member State of issue |
| (ISO code 3166 - alpha 2 -; Greece | | |
| may use EL) | | |
| an..15 | | |
| 2 | Individual | number |
| Member States for the identification | | |
| of taxable persons referred to in | | |
| Article 214 of Directive 2006/112/EC | | |
## 4/1. **Delivery Terms**
The codes and statements to be entered, as appropriate, in the first two subdivisions are as follows:
| First subdivision | Meaning | Second subdivision |
|---------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| | | |
| Incoterms code | Incoterms - ICC/ECE | Place to be specified |
| Code applicable for road and rail transport | | |
| | | |
| DAF (Incoterms 2000) | | |
| Delivered at frontier | Named place | |
| Codes applicable for all modes of transport | | |
| EXW (Incoterms 2010) | | |
| Ex works | Named place | |
| FCA (Incoterms 2010) | Free carrier | Named place |
| CPT (Incoterms 2010) | Carriage paid to | Named place of destination |
| CIP (Incoterms 2010) | Carriage and insurance paid to | Named place of destination |
| DAT (Incoterms 2010) | Delivered at terminal | Named terminal at port or place of |
| destination | | |
| First subdivision | Meaning | Second subdivision |
|----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|----------------------------|
| | | |
| DAP (Incoterms 2010) | Delivered at place | Named place of destination |
| DDP (Incoterms 2010) | | |
| Delivered duty paid | Named place of destination | |
| DDU (Incoterms 2000) | | |
| Delivered duty unpaid | Named place of destination | |
| Codes applicable for sea and inland waterway | | |
| transport | | |
| | | |
| FAS (Incoterms 2010) | Free along ship | Named port of shipment |
| FOB (Incoterms 2010) | | |
| Free on board | Named port of shipment | |
| CFR (Incoterms 2010) | | |
| Cost and freight | Named port of destination | |
| CIF (Incoterms 2010) | Cost, insurance and freight | Named port of destination |
| DES (Incoterms 2000) | | |
| Delivered ex ship | Named port of destination | |
| DEQ (Incoterms 2000) | | |
| Delivered ex quay | Named port of destination | |
| XXX | Delivery terms other than those | |
| listed above | | |
| Narrative description of delivery | | |
| terms given in the contract | | |
## 4/2. **Transport Charges Method Of Payment**
The following codes shall be used:
A Payment in cash
B Payment by credit card
C Payment by cheque
D Other (e.g. direct debit to cash account)
H Electronic funds transfer
Y Account holder with carrier
Z Not pre-paid
## 4/3. **Calculation Of Taxes**
The codes applicable are given below:
Customs duties
A00
Definitive antidumping duties
A30
Provisional antidumping duties
A35
Definitive countervailing duties
A40
Provisional countervailing duties
A45
VAT
B00
Export taxes
C00
Export taxes on agricultural products
C10
Duties collected on behalf of other countries
E00
## 4/8. **Calculation Of Taxes**
The following codes may be used by the Member States:
A Payment in cash
B Payment by credit card
C Payment by cheque
D Other (e. g. direct debit to agent's cash account)
E Deferred or postponed payment
G Postponed payment - VAT system (Article 211 of Directive 2006/112/EC)
H Electronic credit transfer
J Payment through post office administration (postal consignments) or other public sector or government
department
K Excise credit or rebate
P From agent's cash account
R Guarantee of the amount payable
S Individual guarantee account T From agent's guarantee account
U From agent's guarantee - standing authority
V From agent's guarantee - individual authority
O Guarantee lodged with Intervention Agency.
## 4/9. **Additions And Deductions** Additions **(As Defined Under Articles 70 And 71 Of The Code):**
AB:
Commissions and brokerage, except buying commissions
AD: Containers and packing
AE:
Materials, components, parts and similar items incorporated in the imported goods
AF:
Tools, dies, moulds and similar items used in the production of the imported goods
AG:
Materials consumed in the production of the imported goods
AH:
Engineering, development, artwork, design work and plans and sketches undertaken elsewhere than in the
European Union and necessary for the production of the imported goods
AI:
Royalties and license fees
AJ:
Proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal or use accruing to the seller
AK:
Transport costs, loading and handling charges and insurance costs up to the place of introduction in the
European Union
AL:
Indirect payments and other payments (Article 70 of the code)
AN:
Additions based on a decision granted in accordance with Article 71 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446
Deductions **(As defined under Article 72 of the Code)**:
BA:
Costs of transport after arrival at the place of introduction
BB:
Charges for construction, erection, assembly, maintenance or technical assistance undertaken after importation
BC:
Import duties or other charges payable in the Union for reason of the import or sale of goods
BD: Interest charges
BE:
Charges for the right to reproduce the imported goods in the European Union
BF:
Buying commissions
BG:
Deductions based on a decision granted in accordance with Article 71 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446
## 4/13. **Valuation Indicators**
The code comprises four digits, each of which being either a '0' or a '1'.
Each '1' or '0' digit reflects whether or not a valuation indicator is relevant to the valuation of the goods concerned.
1
st digit: Party relationship, whether there is price influence or not
2
nd digit: Restrictions as to the disposal or use of the goods by the buyer in accordance with Article 70(3)(a) of the Code
3
rd digit: Sale or price is subject to some condition or consideration in accordance with Article 70(3)(b) of the Code.
4
th digit: The sale is subject to an arrangement under which part of the proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal or use accrues directly or indirectly to the seller Example: Goods subject to party relationship, but not to any of the other situations defined under 2
nd
, 3
rd and 4
th digits would entail the use of code combination '1000.'
## 4/16. **Valuation Method**
The provisions used to determine the customs value of imported goods are to be coded as follows:
Code
Relevant Article of the
Code
Method
1
70
Transaction value of the imported goods
2
74(2)a)
Transaction value of identical goods
3
74(2)b)
Transaction value of similar goods
4
74(2)c)
Deductive value method
5
74(2)d)
Computed value method
6
74(3)
Value based on the data available ('fall-back' method)
## 4/17. **Preference**
This information includes three-digit codes comprising a single-digit component from 1) and a two-digit component from 2).
The relevant codes are given below:
1. First digit of the code
1 Tariff arrangement *erga omnes*
2 Generalised System of Preferences (GSP)
3 Tariff preferences other than those mentioned under code 2
4 Customs duties under the provisions of customs union agreements concluded by the European Union
5 Preferences in the context of trade with special fiscal territories.
2. Next two digits
00 None of the following
10 Tariff suspension
18 Tariff suspension with certificate confirming the special nature of the product
19 Temporary suspension for products imported with a certificate of airworthiness
20 Tariff quota (
1
)
25 Tariff quota with certificate confirming the special nature of the product (
1
)
28 Tariff quota following outward processing (
1
)
50 Certificate confirming the special nature of the product
## 5/6. **Office Of Destination (And Country)**
Use (an8) codes structured as follows:
- the first two characters (a2) serve to identify the country by means of the country code specified for Exporter
identification n
o
,
- the next six characters (an6) stand for the office concerned in that country. It is suggested that the following
structure be adopted:
The first three characters (an3) would be taken up by the UN/LOCODE (
2
) location name and the last three by a national alphanumeric subdivision (an3). If this subdivision is not used, the characters '000' should be inserted.
Example: BEBRU000: BE = ISO 3166 for Belgium, BRU = UN/LOCODE location name for the city of Brussels, 000
for the unused subdivision.
## 5/23. **Location Of Goods**
Use the ISO alpha 2 country codes used in field 1 of D.E. 3/1 Exporter.
For the type of location, use the codes specified below:
A Designated location B Authorised place C Approved place D Other For the identification of the location use one of the identifiers below:
Qualifier
Identifier
Description
T
Postal code
Use the postal code for the location concerned.
U
UN/LOCODE
Use the codes defined in the UN/LOCODE Code List by Country
V
Customs office identifier
Use the codes specified under D.E. 5/6 Office of destination and country
W
GPS coordinates
Decimal degrees with negative numbers for South and West.
Examples: 44.424896
o
/8.774792
o or 50.838068
o
/ 4.381508
o
X
EORI number
Use the identification number as specified in the description for D.E. 3/2
Exporter identification n
o
. In case the economic operator has more than
one premises, the EORI number shall be completed by an identifier
unique for the location concerned.
Y
Authorisation number
Enter the authorisation number of the location concerned, i.e. of the
warehouse where the goods can be examined. In case the authorisation concerns more than one premises, the authorisation number shall be
completed by an identifier unique for the location concerned.
Z
Free text
Enter the address of the location concerned.
In case code 'X' (EORI number)or 'Y'(authorisation number) is used for the identification of the location, and there are several locations associated with the EORI number or the authorisation number concerned, an additional identifier can be used to enable the unambiguous identification of the location.
## 7/2. **Container**
The relevant codes are given below:
0 Goods not transported in containers
1 Goods transported in containers.
## 7/4. **Mode Of Transport At The Border**
The codes applicable are given below:
Code
Description
1
Maritime transport
2
Rail transport
3
Road transport
4
Air transport
5
Mail (Active mode of transport unknown)
7
Fixed transport installations
8
Inland waterway transport
9
Mode unknown (i.e. own propulsion)
## 7/6. **Identification Of Actual Means Of Transport Crossing The Border**
The codes applicable are given below:
| Code | Description |
|---------|--------------------------------|
| 10 | IMO ship identification number |
| 40 | IATA flight number |
## 7/7. **Identity Of Means Of Transport At Departure**
The codes applicable are given below:
| Code | Description |
|---------|--------------------------------------------------|
| 10 | IMO ship identification number |
| 11 | Name of the sea-going vessel |
| 20 | Wagon number |
| 30 | Registration number of the road vehicle |
| 40 | IATA flight number |
| 41 | Registration number of the aircraft |
| 80 | European Vessel Identification Number (ENI code) |
| 81 | Name of the inland waterways vessel |
| | |
## 7/11. **Container Size And Type**
The following codes shall be used:
Code
Description
1
Dime coated tank
2
Epoxy coated tank
6
Pressurised tank
7
Refrigerated tank
9
Stainless steel tank
10
Non-working reefer container 40 feet
12
Europallet - 80 × 120 cm
13
Scandinavian pallet - 100 × 120 cm
14
Trailer
15
Non-working reefer container 20 feet
16
Exchangeable pallet
17
Semi-trailer
18
Tank container 20 feet
19
Tank container 30 feet
20
Tank container 40 feet
21
Container IC 20 feet, owned by InterContainer, a European railway subsidiary
22
Container IC 30 feet, owned by InterContainer, a European railway subsidiary
23
Container IC 40 feet, owned by InterContainer, a European railway subsidiary
24
Refrigerated tank 20 feet
25
Refrigerated tank 30 feet
26
Refrigerated tank 40 feet
27
Tank container IC 20 feet, owned by InterContainer, a European railway subsidiary
28
Tank container IC 30 feet, owned by InterContainer, a European railway subsidiary
29
Tank container IC 40 feet, owned by InterContainer, a European railway subsidiary
30
Refrigerated tank IC 20 feet, owned by InterContainer, a European railway subsidiary
31
Temperature controlled container 30 feet.
| Code | Description |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | |
| 32 | |
| Refrigerated tank IC 40 feet, owned by InterContainer, a European railway subsidiary. | |
| 33 | A movable case with a length less than 6,15 metres. |
| 34 | A movable case with a length between 6,15 metres and 7,82 metres. |
| 35 | A movable case with a length between 7,82 metres and 9,15 metres. |
| 36 | A movable case with a length between 9,15 metres and 10,90 metres. |
| 37 | A movable case with a length between 10,90 metres and 13,75 metres. |
| 38 | Totebin |
| 39 | Temperature controlled container 20 feet |
| 40 | Temperature controlled container 40 feet |
| 41 | Non-working refrigerated (reefer) container 30 feet |
| 42 | Dual trailers |
| 43 | 20 feet IL container (open top) |
| 44 | 20 feet IL container (closed top) |
| 45 | 40 feet IL container (closed top) |
## 7/12. **Container Packed Status**
The following codes shall be used:
Code
Description
Meaning
A
Empty
Indicates that the container is empty.
B
Not
empty
Indicates that the container is not empty.
## 7/13. **Equipment Supplier Type**
The following codes shall be used:
Code
Description
1
Shipper supplied
2
Carrier supplied
## 8/2. **Guarantee Type**
Guarantee codes The codes applicable are given below:
Description
Code
For guarantee waiver (Article 95(2) of the Code)
0
For comprehensive guarantee (Article 89(5) of the Code
1
For individual guarantee in the form of an undertaking by a guarantor (Article 92(1)(b) of the Code) 2
3
For individual guarantee in cash or other means of payment recognised by the customs authorities as being equivalent to a cash deposit, made in euro or in the currency of the Member State in which the
guarantee is required (Article 92(1)(a) of the Code
For individual guarantee in the form of vouchers (Article 92(1)(b) of the Code and Article 160)
4
5
For guarantee waiver where the amount of import or export duty to be secured does not exceed the statistical value threshold for declarations laid down in accordance with Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC)
No 471/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (*) (Article 89(9) of the Code)
7
For individual guarantee in another form which provides equivalent assurance that the amount of import or export duty corresponding to the customs debt and other charges will be paid (Article 92(1)(c) of the
Code)
For guarantee not required for certain public bodies (Article 89(7) of the Code)
8
For guarantee furnished for goods dispatched under TIR procedure
B
For guarantee not required for goods carried by fix transport installations (Article 89(8)(b) of the Code) C
For guarantee not required for goods placed under the temporary admission procedure in accordance
with Article 81(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (Article 89(8)(c) of the Code)
D
For guarantee not required for goods placed under the temporary admission procedure in accordance
with Article 81(b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (Article 89(8)(c) of the Code)
E
For guarantee not required for goods placed under the temporary admission procedure in accordance
with Article 81(c) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (Article 89(8)(c) of the Code)
F
For guarantee not required for goods placed under the temporary admission procedure in accordance
with Article 81(d) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (Article 89(8)(c) of the Code)
G
For guarantee not required for goods placed under the Union transit procedure in accordance with
Article 89(8)(d) of the Code
H
(*) Regulation (EC) No 471/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on Community statistics relating to external trade with non-member countries and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1172/95 (OJ L 152, 16.6.2009, p. 23).
## Linguistic References And Their Codes Table Of Linguistic References And Their Codes
| Linguistic references |
|--------------------------|
| |
| Limited validity - 99200 |
Linguistic references
Codes
- DA Begrænset gyldighed - DE Beschränkte Geltung
- EE Piiratud kehtivus - EL Περιορισμένη ισχύς - ES Validez limitada - FR Validité limitée - HR Ograničena valjanost - IT Validità limitata - LV Ierobežots derīgums - LT Galiojimas apribotas
- HU Korlátozott érvényű - MT Validità limitata - NL Beperkte geldigheid - PL Ograniczona ważność
- PT Validade limitada - RO Validitate limitată - SL Omejena veljavnost - SK Obmedzená platnost' - FI Voimassa rajoitetusti - SV Begränsad giltighet
- EN Limited validity
- BG Освободено - CS Osvobození - DA Fritaget - DE Befreiung - EE Loobutud
- EL Απαλλαγή
- ES Dispensa - FR Dispense - HR Oslobođeno - IT Dispensa - LV Derīgs bez zīmoga - LT Leista neplombuoti - HU Mentesség - MT Tneħħija - NL Vrijstelling - PL Zwolnienie - PT Dispensa - RO Dispensă - SL Opustitev - SK Upustenie - FI Vapautettu - SV Befrielse
- EN Waiver Waiver - 99201
Linguistic references
Codes
- BG Алтернативно доказателство - CS Alternativní důkaz
- DA Alternativt bevis - DE Alternativnachweis - EE Alternatiivsed tõendid - EL Εναλλακτική απόδειξη
- ES Prueba alternativa - FR Preuve alternative - HR Alternativni dokaz - IT Prova alternativa - LV Alternatīvs pierādījums
- LT Alternatyvusis įrodymas
- HU Alternatív igazolás - MT Prova alternattiva - NL Alternatief bewijs - PL Alternatywny dowód - PT Prova alternativa - RO Probă alternativă - SL Alternativno dokazilo - SK Alternatívny dôkaz - FI Vaihtoehtoinen todiste - SV Alternativt bevis
- EN Alternative proof
- BG Различия: митническо учреждение, където са
представени стоките …… (наименование и държава)
- CS Nesrovnalosti: úřad, kterému bylo zboží předloženo
…… (název a země)
- DA Forskelle: det sted, hvor varerne blev frembudt
…… (navn og land)
- DE Unstimmigkeiten: Stelle, bei der die Gestellung
erfolgte …… (Name und Land)
- EE Erinevused: asutus, kuhu kaup esitati …….(nimi ja
riik)
- EL Διαφορές: εμπορεύματα προσκομισθέντα στο τελωνείο
…… (Όνομα και χώρα)
- ES Diferencias: mercancías presentadas en la oficina
…… (nombre y país)
- FR Différences: marchandises présentées au bureau
…… (nom et pays)
- HR Razlike: carinarnica kojoj je roba podnesena …
(naziv i zemlja)
- IT Differenze: ufficio al quale sono state presentate le
merci …… (nome e paese)
- LV Atšķirības: muitas iestāde, kurā preces tika uzrādītas
…… (nosaukums un valsts)
- LT Skirtumai: įstaiga, kuriai pateiktos prekės ……
(pavadinimas ir valstybė)
Alternative proof - 99202
Differences: office where goods were presented …… (name and country) - 99 203
Linguistic references
Codes
- HU Eltérések: hivatal, ahol az áruk bemutatása
megtörtént …… (név és ország)
- MT Differenzi: uffiċċju fejn l-oġġetti kienu ppreżentati
…… (isem u pajjiż)
- NL Verschillen: kantoor waar de goederen zijn aange
bracht …… (naam en land)
- PL Niezgodności: urząd, w którym przedstawiono
towar …… (nazwa i kraj)
- PT Diferenças: mercadorias apresentadas na estãncia
…… (nome e país)
- RO Diferențe: mărfuri prezentate la biroul vamal ……
(nume și țara)
- SL Razlike: urad, pri katerem je bilo blago predloženo
…… (naziv in država)
- SK Rozdiely: úrad, ktorému bol tovar predložený ……
(názov a krajina).
- FI Muutos: toimipaikka, jossa tavarat esitetty …… (nimi
ja maa)
- SV Avvikelse: tullkontor där varorna anmäldes ……
(namn och land)
- EN Differences: office where goods were presented
…… (name and country)
Exit from …………… subject to restrictions or charges under Regulation/Directive/Decision No … - 99 204
- BG
Извеждането
от
……………
подлежи
на
ограничения
или
такси
съгласно
Регламент/Директива/Решение № …,
- CS Výstup ze …………… podléhá omezením nebo
dávkám podle nařízení/směrnice/ rozhodnutí č …
- DA Udpassage fra …………… undergivet restriktioner
eller afgifter i henhold til forordning/direktiv/ afgørelse nr. …
- DE Ausgang aus ……………- gemäß Verordnung/Rich
tlinie/Beschluss Nr. … Beschränkungen oder Abgaben
unterworfen.
- EE … territooriumilt väljumise suhtes kohaldatakse piir
anguid ja makse vastavalt määrusele/direktiivile/otsusele nr…
- EL
Η
έξοδος
από
……………
υποβάλλεται
σε
περιορισμούς ή σε επιβαρύνσεις από τον Κανονισμό/την
Οδηγία/την Απόφαση αριθ. …
- ES Salida de …………… sometida a restricciones o
imposiciones en virtud del (de la) Reglamento/Directiva/ Decisión no …
- FR Sortie de …………… soumise à des restrictions ou
à des impositions par le règlement ou la directive/ décision no …
- HR Izlaz iz … podliježe ograničenjima ili pristojbama
na temelju Uredbe/Direktive/Odluke br. …
- IT Uscita dalla ……………soggetta a restrizioni o ad
imposizioni a norma del(la) regolamento/direttiva/ decisione n. …
- LV Izvešana no …………… piemērojot ierobežojumus
vai maksājumus saskaņā ar Regulu/Direktīvu/Lēmumu
Nr. …,
| Linguistic references |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
| |
| - LT Išvežimui iš …………… taikomi apribojimai arba |
| mokesčiai, nustatytiReglamentu/ Direktyva/Sprendimu |
| Nr.…, |
- HU A kilépés …………… területéről a … rendelet/ir
ányelv/határozat szerinti korlátozás vagy teher megfize tésének kötelezettsége alá esik
- MT Ħruġ mill- …………… suġġett għall-restrizzjonijiet
jew ħlasijiet taħt Regola/ Direttiva/Deċiżjoni Nru …
- NL Bij uitgang uit de ………………zijn de beperkingen
of heffingen van Verordening/ Richtlijn/Besluit nr. … van toepassing.
- PL Wyprowadzenie z …………… podlega ogranic
zeniom
lub
opłatom
zgodnie
z
rozporządzeniem/dyrektywą/decyzją nr …
- PT Saída da …………… sujeita a restrições ou a
imposições pelo(a) Regulamento/ Directiva/Decisão n.o …
- RO Ieșire din ……………supusă restricțiilor sau impo
zitelor prin Regulamentul/ Directiva/Decizia nr …
- SL Iznos iz …………… zavezan omejitvam ali
obveznim
dajatvam na podlagi Uredbe/Direktive/
Odločbe št. …
- SK Výstup z ……………podlieha obmedzeniam alebo
platbám podľa nariadenia/ smernice/rozhodnutia č ….
- FI …………… vientiin sovelletaan asetuksen/direktii
vin/päätöksen N:o … mukaisia rajoituksia tai maksuja
- SV Utförsel från …………… underkastad restriktioner
eller avgifter i enlighet med förordning/direktiv/beslut nr …
- EN Exit from …………… subject to restrictions or
charges under Regulation/Directive/Decision No …
- BG Одобрен изпращач
- CS Schválený odesílatel - DA Godkendt afsender - DE Zugelassener Versender - EE Volitatud kaubasaatja - EL Εγκεκριμένος αποστολέας
- ES Expedidor autorizado - FR Expéditeur agréé - HR Ovlašteni pošiljatelj - IT Speditore autorizzato - LV Atzītais nosūtītājs - LT Įgaliotasis gavėjas - HU Engedélyezett feladó - MT Awtorizzat li jibgħat
- NL Toegelaten afzender - PL Upoważniony nadawca
- PT Expedidor autorizado
- RO Expeditor agreat
Authorised consignor - 99206
Linguistic references
Codes
- SL Pooblaščeni pošiljatelj - SK Schválený odosielateľ
- FI Valtuutettu lähettäjä
- SV Godkänd avsändare
- EN Authorised consignor
- BG Освободен от подпис - CS Podpis se nevyžaduje - DA Fritaget for underskrift - DE Freistellung von der Unterschriftsleistung
- EE Allkirjanõudest loobutud
- EL Δεν απαιτείται υπογραφή
- ES Dispensa de firma - FR Dispense de signature - HR Oslobođeno potpisa - IT Dispensa dalla firma
- LV Derīgs bez paraksta - LT Leista nepasirašyti - HU Aláírás alól mentesítve - MT Firma mhux meħtieġa
- NL Van ondertekening vrijgesteld
- PL Zwolniony ze składania podpisu - PT Dispensada a assinatura - RO Dispensă de semnătură
- SL Opustitev podpisa - SK Upustenie od podpisu - FI Vapautettu allekirjoituksesta
- SV Befrielse från underskrift
- EN Signature waived
- BG ЗАБРАНЕНО ОБЩО ОБЕЗПЕЧЕНИЕ
- CS ZÁKAZ SOUBORNÉ JISTOTY - DA FORBUD MOD SAMLET SIKKERHEDSSTILLELSE
- DE GESAMTBÜRGSCHAFT UNTERSAGT - EE ÜLDTAGATISE KASUTAMINE KEELATUD - EL ΑΠΑΓΟΡΕΥΕΤΑΙ Η ΣΥΝΟΛΙΚΗ ΕΓΓΥΗΣΗ
- ES GARANTÍA GLOBAL PROHIBIDA - FR GARANTIE GLOBALE INTERDITE - HR ZABRANJENO ZAJEDNIČKO JAMSTVO - IT GARANZIA GLOBALE VIETATA - LV VISPĀRĒJS GALVOJUMS AIZLIEGTS
- LT NAUDOTI BENDRĄJĄ GARANTIJĄ UŽDRAUSTA
- HU ÖSSZKEZESSÉG TILOS
- MT MHUX PERMESSA GARANZIJA KOMPRENSIVA
Signature waived - 99207
COMPREHENSIVE GUARANTEE PROHIBITED - 99208
Linguistic references
Codes
- NL DOORLOPENDE ZEKERHEID VERBODEN - PL ZAKAZ KORZYSTANIA Z GWARANCJI
- GENERALNEJ - PT GARANTIA GLOBAL PROIBIDA - RO GARANȚIA GLOBALĂ INTERZISĂ
- SL PREPOVEDANO SKUPNO ZAVAROVANJE - SK ZÁKAZ CELKOVEJ ZÁRUKY - FI YLEISVAKUUDEN KÄYTTÖ KIELLETTY - SV SAMLAD SÄKERHET FÖRBJUDEN
- EN COMPREHENSIVE GUARANTEE PROHIBITED
- BG ИЗПОЛЗВАНЕ БЕЗ ОГРАНИЧЕНИЯ
- CS NEOMEZENÉ POUŽITÍ - DA UBEGRÆNSET ANVENDELSE - DE UNBESCHRÄNKTE VERWENDUNG - EE PIIRAMATU KASUTAMINE - ΕL ΑΠΕΡΙΟΡΙΣΤΗ ΧΡΗΣΗ
- ES UTILIZACIÓN NO LIMITADA - FR UTILISATION NON LIMITÉE - HR NEOGRANIČENA UPORABA - IT UTILIZZAZIONE NON LIMITATA - LV NEIEROBEŽOTS IZMANTOJUMS - LT NEAPRIBOTAS NAUDOJIMAS - HU KORLÁTOZÁS ALÁ NEM ESŐ HASZNÁLAT
- MT UŻU MHUX RISTRETT - NL GEBRUIK ONBEPERKT - PL NIEOGRANICZONE KORZYSTANIE
- PT UTILIZAÇÃO ILIMITADA
- RO UTILIZARE NELIMITATĂ
- SL NEOMEJENA UPORABA - SK NEOBMEDZENÉ POUŽITIE - FI KÄYTTÖÄ EI RAJOITETTU - SV OBEGRÄNSAD ANVÄNDNING
- EN UNRESTRICTED USE
- BG Разни
- CS Různí - DA Diverse - DE Verschiedene - EE Erinevad - EL Διάφορα - ES Varios - FR Divers - HR Razni - IT Vari
- LV Dažādi
UNRESTRICTED USE - 99209
Various - 99211
Linguistic references
Codes
- LT Įvairūs - HU Többféle
- MT Diversi - NL Diverse - PL Różne - PT Diversos - RO Diverși - SL Razno - SK Rôzne - FI Useita
- SV Flera
- EN Various
- BG Насипно
- CS Volně loženo - DA Bulk - DE Lose - EE Pakendamata - EL Χύμα
- ES A granel - FR Vrac - HR Rasuto - IT Alla rinfusa - LV Berams(lejams) - LT Nesupakuota - HU Ömlesztett - MT Bil-kwantità
- NL Los gestort
- PL Luzem - PT A granel - RO Vrac - SL Razsuto - SK Voľne ložené - FI Irtotavaraa - SV Bulk
- EN Bulk
- BG Изпращач
- CS Odesílatel - DA Afsender - DE Versender - EE Saatja - EL Αποστολέας
- ES Expedidor - FR Expéditeur
- HR Pošiljatelj
Bulk - 99212
Consignor - 99213
Linguistic references
Codes
- IT Speditore - LV Nosūtītājs
- LT Siuntėjas
- HU Feladó - MT Min jikkonsenja - NL Afzender - PL Nadawca - PT Expedidor - RO Expeditor - SL Pošiljatelj
- SK Odosielateľ - FI Lähettäjä - SV Avsändare - EN Consignor
## Annex 12-01 Formats And Codes Of The Common Data Requirements For The Registration Of Economic Operators And Other Persons Introductory Notes
1. The formats and the codes included in this Annex are applicable in relation with the data requirements for the
registration of economic operators and other persons.
2. Title I includes the formats of the data elements.
3. Whenever the information for the registration of economic operators and other persons dealt with in Annex 12-01 to
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 takes the form of codes, the code-list provided for in Title II shall be applied.
4. The term 'type/length' in the explanation of an attribute indicates the requirements for the data type and the data
length. The codes for the data types are as follows:
a alphabetic n numeric an alphanumeric The number following the code indicates the admissible data length. The following applies.
The optional two dots before the length indicator mean that the data has no fixed length, but it can have up to a number of digits, as specified by the length indicator. A comma in the data length means that the attribute can hold decimals, the digit before the comma indicates the total length of the attribute, the digit after the comma indicates the maximum number of digits after the decimal point.
Examples of field lengths and formats:
a1
1 alphabetic character, fixed length
n2
2 numeric characters, fixed length
an3
3 alphanumeric characters, fixed length
a..4
up to 4 alphabetic characters
n..5
up to 5 numeric characters
an..6 up to 6 alphanumeric characters
n..7,2 up to 7 numeric characters including maximum 2 decimals, a delimiter being allowed to float.
## Formats Of The Common Data Requirements For The Registration Of Economic Operators And Other Persons
D.E
No
D.E. name
D.E. format
(Type/length)
Code-list in
Title II
(Y/N)
Cardinality
Notes
1
EORI number
an..17
N
1x
The
structure
of
the
EORI
number is defined in Title II
2
Full name of the person
an..512
N
1x
3
Address of establishment/
address of residence
Street and number: an..70 Postcode: an..9
City: an..35
Country Code: a2
N
1x
The country code as defined in
Title II regarding the country
code of D.E. 1 EORI number
shall be used.
n1
Y
1x
4
Establishment in the
customs territory of the
Union
5
VAT identification
number(s)
Country Code: a2 VAT identification
number an..15
N
99x
The format of the VAT identifi
cation number is defined in Article 215 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common
system of value added tax.
6
Legal status
an..50
N
1x
N
9x
7
Contact information
Contact person name:
an..70 Street and number: an..70 Postcode: an..9 City: an..35 telephone number: an..50 fax number: an..50
Email address an..50
8
Third country unique
identification number
an..17
N
99x
n1
Y
1x
9
Consent to disclosure of
personal data listed in
points 1, 2 and 3
10
Short name
an..70
N
1x
11
Date of establishment
n8
N
1x
12
Type of person
n1
Y
1x
13
Principal economic
activity
an4
Y
1x
14
Start date of the EORI
number
n8 (yyyymmdd)
N
1x
15
Expiry date of the EORI
number
n8 (yyyymmdd)
N
1x
## Title Ii Codes In Relation With The Common Data Requirementsfor The Registration Of Economic Operators And Other Persons Codes 1. Introduction
This Title contains the codes to be used for the registration of economic operators and other persons.
## 2. Codes 1 Eori Number
The EORI number is structured as follows:
| Field | Content | Format |
|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|----------|
| | | |
| 1 | | |
| Identifier of the Member State (country code) | a2 | |
| 2 | Unique identifier in a Member State | an..15 |
Country code: the Union's alphabetic codes for countries and territories are based on the current ISO alpha 2 codes
(a2) in so far as they are compatible with the requirements of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1106/2012. The Commission regularly publishes regulations updating the list of country codes.
## 4 Establishment In The Customs Territory Of The Union
0
Not established in the customs territory of the Union
1
Established in the customs territory of the Union
## 9 Consent To Disclosure Of Personal Data Listed In Points 1, 2 And 3
0
Not to be published
1
To be published
## 12 Type Of Person
The following codes shall be used:
1 Natural person
2 Legal person
3 Association of persons which is not a legal person but which is recognised under Union or national law as having
the capacity to perform legal acts.
## 13 Principal Economic Activity
Principal economic activity code at 4 digit level in accordance with the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (NACE; Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006) as listed in the business register of the Member State concerned.
## Binding Origin Information Decisions List Of Surveillance Data Elements Referred To In Article 55(1)
Cardinality
D.E order
No
D.E. name
Format
(as defined in Annex B)
Header level
Item level
1/1
Declaration type
Same as data element order number 1/1
1/2
Additional Declaration type
Same as data element order number 1/2
1/6
Goods item number
Same as data element order number 1/6
1/10
Procedure
Same as data element order number 1/10
1/11
Additional Procedure
Same as data element order number 1/11
Same as data element order number 2/3
2/3
Documents produced, certificates
and authorisations, additional
references
3/2
Exporter identification
Same as data element order number 3/2
3/10
Consignee identification
Same as data element order number 3/10
3/16
Importer identification
Same as data element order number 3/16
3/18
Declarant identification
Same as data element order number 3/18
3/39
Holder of the authorisation
identification
Same as data element order number 3/39
4/3
Calculation of taxes - Tax type
Same as data element order number 4/3
4/4
Calculation of taxes - Tax base
Same as data element order number 4/4
4/5
Calculation of taxes - Tax rate
Same as data element order number 4/5
4/6
Calculation of taxes - Payable tax
amount
Same as data element order number 4/6
4/8
Calculation of taxes - Method of
payment
Same as data element order number 4/8
4/16
Valuation method
Same as data element order number 4/16
4/17
Preference
Same as data element order number 4/17
5/8
Country of destination code
Same as data element order number 5/8
5/14
Country of dispatch/export code
Same as data element order number 5/14
5/15
Country of origin code
Same as data element order number 5/15
5/16
Country of preferential origin code
Same as data element order number 5/16
6/1
Net mass (kg)
Same as data element order number 6/1
Cardinality
D.E order
No
D.E. name
Format
(as defined in Annex B)
Header level
Item level
6/2
Supplementary units
Same as data element order number 6/2
6/5
Gross mass (kg)
Same as data element order number 6/5
6/8
Description of goods
Same as data element order number 6/8
6/10
Number of packages
Same as data element order number 6/10
6/14
Commodity code - Combined
nomenclature code
Same as data element order number 6/14
6/15
Commodity code - TARIC code
Same as data element order number 6/15
6/16
Commodity code - TARIC
additional code(s)
Same as data element order number 6/16
6/17
Commodity code - national
additional code(s)
Same as data element order number 6/17
7/2
Container
Same as data element order number 7/2
7/4
Mode of transport at the border
Same as data element order number 7/4
7/5
Inland mode of transport
Same as data element order number 7/5
7/10
Container identification number
Same as data element order number 7/10
8/1
Quota order number
Same as data element order number 8/1
8/6
Statistical value
Same as data element order number 8/6
- -
Date of acceptance of the declar
ation
In compliance with the format of data element order number 5/4
1×
1×
- -
Declaration number (unique refer
ence)
In compliance with the format of the MRN as defined in data element
order number 2/1
- -
Issuer
In compliance with the format of
data element order number 5/8
1×
## List Of Surveillance Data Elements Referred To In Article 55(6) And Correlation With Box Declaration And/Or Format
D.E order
No
D.E. name
Format
(as defined in Annex B)
Cardinality
Correlation with
box declaration
and/or format
Header level
Item level
1/10
Procedure
Same as data element order number 1/10
37(1) - n 2
4/17
Preference
Same as data element order number 4/17
36 - n 3
5/8
Country
of
destination
code
Same as data element order number 5/8
17a - a 2
5/15
Country of origin code
Same as data element order number 5/15
34a - a 2
6/1
Net mass (kg)
Same as data element order number 6/1
38 - an ..15
6/2
Supplementary units
Same as data element order number 6/2
41 - an ..15
Same as data element order number 6/14
33 - n 8
6/14
Commodity
code
-
Combined
nomenclature
code
6/15
Commodity
code
-
TARIC code
Same as data element order number 6/15
33 - n 2
6/16
Commodity
code
-
TARIC additional code(s)
Same as data element order number 6/16
33 - an 8
8/1
Quota order number
Same as data element order number 8/1
39 - n 6
8/6
Statistical value
Same as data element order number 8/6
46 - an ..18
date
- -
Date of acceptance of the
declaration
In compliance with the format of data element
order number 5/4
1×
an..40
- -
Declaration
number
(unique reference)
In compliance with the
format of the MRN as
defined in data element
order number 2/1
1×
Issuing Member
State - a 2
- -
Issuer
In compliance with the
format of data element
order number 5/8
1×
## Information Certificate Inf 4 And Application For An Information Certificate Inf 4
Printing instructions:
1. The form on which the information certificate INF 4 is issued shall be printed on white paper not containing
mechanical pulp, sized for writing and weighing between 40 and 65 grams per square metre.
2. The form shall measure 210 × 297 mm.
3. Printing of the forms is the responsibility of the Members States; forms shall bear a serial number by which it can be
identified. The form shall be printed in one of the official languages of the European Union.
# Application To Become A Registered Exporter
for the purpose of schemes of generalised tariff preferences of the European Union, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey (1)
(1) The present application form is common to the GSP schemes of four entities: the Union (EU), Norway, Switzerland
and Turkey ('the entities'). Please note, however, that the respective GSP schemes of these entities may differ in terms of country and product coverage. Consequently, a given registration will only be effective for the purpose of exports
under the GSP scheme(s) that consider(s) your country as a beneficiary country.
(2) The indication of EORI number is mandatory for EU exporters and re-consignors. For exporters in beneficiary
countries, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey, the indication of TIN is mandatory.
## Annex 22-07 Statement On Origin
To be made out on any commercial documents showing the name and full address of the exporter and consignee as well as a description of the products and the date of issue (
1
).
French version L'exportateur … (Numéro d'exportateur enregistré (
2
), (
3
), (
4
)) des produits couverts par le présent document déclare que, sauf indication claire du contraire, ces produits ont l'origine préférentielle … (
5
) au sens des règles d'origine du Système des préférences tarifaires généralisées de l'Union européenne et que le critère d'origine satisfait est … … (
6
)
English version The exporter … (Number of Registered Exporter (
2
), (
3
), (
4
)) of the products covered by this document declares that, except where otherwise clearly indicated, these products are of … preferential origin (
5
) according to rules of origin of the Generalised System of Preferences of the European Union and that the origin criterion met is … … (
6
).
Spanish version El exportador … (Número de exportador registrado (
2
), (
3
), (
4
)) de los productos incluidos en el presente documento declara que, salvo indicación en sentido contrario, estos productos gozan de un origen preferencial … (
5
)) en el sentido de las normas de origen del Sistema de preferencias generalizado de la Unión europea y que el criterio de origen satisfecho es … … (
6
).
remplacement' or 'Comunicación de sustitución'. The replacement shall also indicate the date of issue of the initial statement and
all other necessary data according to Article 82(6) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447.
(
2
) Where the statement on origin replaces another statement in accordance with sub-paragraph 1 of Article 101(2) and paragraph (3) of
Article 101, both of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447, the re-consignor of the goods making out such a statement shall
indicate his name and full address followed by his number of registered exporter.
(
3
) Where the statement on origin replaces another statement in accordance with sub-paragraph 2 of Article 101(2) of Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2015/2447, the re-consignor of the goods making out such a statement shall indicate his name and full address followed by the mention (*French version*) 'agissant sur la base de l'attestation d'origine établie par [nom et adresse complète de l'exportateur dans le pays bénéficiaire], enregistré sous le numéro suivant [Numéro d'exportateur enregistré dans le pays bénéficiaire]', (*English version*) 'acting on the basis of the statement on origin made out by [name and complete address of the exporter in the beneficiary country], registered under the following number [Number of Registered Exporter of the exporter in the beneficiary country]', (*Spanish version*) 'actuando sobre la base de la comunicación extendida por [nombre y dirección completa del exportador
en el país beneficiario], registrado con el número siguiente [Número de exportador registrado del exportador en el país beneficiario]'.
(
4
) Where the statement on origin replaces another statement in accordance with Article 101(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU)
2015/2447, the re-consignor of the goods shall indicate the number of registered exporter only if the value of originating products in the initial consignment exceeds EUR 6 000.
(
5
) Country of origin of products to be indicated. When the statement on origin relates, in whole or in part, to products originating in
Ceuta and Melilla within the meaning of Article 112 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447, the exporter must clearly indicate
them in the document on which the statement is made out by means of the symbol 'XC/XL'.
(
6
) Products wholly obtained: enter the letter 'P'; Products sufficiently worked or processed: enter the letter 'W' followed by a heading of
the Harmonised System (example 'W' 9618). Where appropriate, the above mention shall be replaced with one of the following indications: (a) In the case of bilateral cumulation: 'EU cumulation', 'Cumul UE' or 'Acumulación UE'.
(b) In the case of cumulation with Norway, Switzerland or Turkey: 'Norway cumulation', 'Switzerland cumulation', 'Turkey cumu
lation', 'Cumul Norvège', 'Cumul Suisse', 'Cumul Turquie' or 'Acumulación Noruega', 'Acumulación Suiza', or 'Acumulación Turquía'.
(c) In the case of regional cumulation: 'regional cumulation', 'cumul regional' or 'Acumulación regional'. (d) In the case of extended cumulation: 'extended cumulation with country x', 'cumul étendu avec le pays x' or 'Acumulación
ampliada con el país x'.
## Certificate Of Origin Form A
1. Certificates of origin Form A must conform to the specimen shown in this Annex. The use of English or French for
the notes on the reverse of the certificate shall not be obligatory. Certificates shall be made out in English or French. If
completed by hand, entries must be in ink and in capital letters.
2. Each certificate shall measure 210 × 297 mm; a tolerance of up to minus 5 mm or plus 8 mm in the length and in the
width may be allowed. The paper used shall be white writing paper, sized, not containing mechanical pulp and weighing not less than 25 g/m
2
. It shall have a printed green guilloche-pattern background making any falsification by
mechanical or chemical means apparent to the eye.
If the certificates have several copies, only the top copy which is the original shall be printed with a printed green guilloche-pattern background.
3. Each certificate shall bear a serial number, printed or otherwise, by which it can be identified.
4. Certificates bearing older versions of the notes on the back of the form may also be used until existing stocks are
exhausted.
## Invoice Declaration
The invoice declaration, the text of which is given below, must be made out in accordance with the footnotes. However, the footnotes do not have to be reproduced.
## French Version
L'exportateur des produits couverts par le présent document [autorisation douanière no … (
1
)] déclare que, sauf indication claire du contraire, ces produits ont l'origine préférentielle … (
2
) au sens des règles d'origine du Système des préférences tarifaires généralisées de l'Union européenne et … (
3
).
## English Version
The exporter of the products covered by this document (customs authorisation No … (
1
)) declares that, except where otherwise clearly indicated, these products are of … preferential origin (
2
) according to rules of origin of the Generalised System of Preferences of the European Union and … (
3
).
## Spanish Version
El exportador de los productos incluidos en el presente documento (autorización aduanera n o … (
1
)) declara que, salvo indicación en sentido contrario, estos productos gozan de un origen preferencial … (
2
) en el sentido de las normas de origen del Sistema de preferencias generalizado de la Unión europea y … (
3
).
(place and date) (
4
)
(Signature of the exporter; in addition the name of the person signing the declaration has to be indicated in clear script) (
5
)
## Movement Certificate Eur.1 And Relevant Applications
(1) Movement certificate EUR.1 shall be made out on the form of which a specimen appears in this Annex. This form
shall be printed in one of the official languages of the Union. Certificates shall be made out in one of these languages and in accordance with the provisions of the domestic law of the exporting State or territory. If they are handwritten,
they shall be completed in ink and in capital letters.
(2) Each certificate shall measure 210 × 297 mm; a tolerance of up to minus 5 mm or plus 8 mm in the length may be
allowed. The paper used must be white, sized for writing not containing mechanical pulp and weighing not less than 25 g/m
2
. It shall have a printed green guilloche pattern background making any falsification by mechanical or
chemical means apparent to the eye.
(3) The competent authorities of the exporting State or territory may reserve the right to print the certificates themselves
or may have them printed by approved printers. In the latter case each certificate must include a reference to such approval. Each certificate must bear the name and address of the printer or a mark by which the printer can be identified. It shall also bear a serial number, either printed or not, by which it can be identified.
## Annex 22-13 - Ia Invoice Declaration
The invoice declaration, the text of which is given below, must be made out in accordance with the footnotes. However, the footnotes do not have to be reproduced.
Bulgarian version Износителят на продуктите, обхванати от този документ (митническо разрешение № … (
1
)), декларира, че освен където е отбелязано друго, тези продукти са с … преференциален произход (
2
).
Spanish version El exportador de los productos incluidos en el presente documento (autorización aduanera n o … (
1
)) declara que, salvo indicación en sentido contrario, estos productos gozan de un origen preferencial… (
2
).
Czech version Vývozce výrobků uvedených v tomto dokumentu (číslo povolení … (
1
)) prohlašuje, že kromě zřetelně označených mají tyto výrobky preferenční původ v … (
2
).
Danish version Eksportøren af varer, der er omfattet af nærværende dokument, (toldmyndighedernes tilladelse nr. … (
1
)), erklærer, at varerne, medmindre andet tydeligt er angivet, har præferenceoprindelse i … (
2
).
## German Version
Der Ausführer (Ermächtigter Ausführer; Bewilligungs-Nr. … (
1
)) der Waren, auf die sich dieses Handelspapier bezieht, erklärt, dass diese Waren, soweit nicht anders angegeben, präferenzbegünstigte … (
2
) Ursprungswaren sind.
## Estonian Version
Käesoleva dokumendiga hõlmatud toodete eksportija (tolli loa nr. … (
1
)) deklareerib, et need tooted on … (
2
) soodus
päritoluga, välja arvatud juhul, kui on selgelt näidatud teisiti.
## Greek Version
Ο εξαγωγέας των προϊόντων που καλύπτονται από το παρόν έγγραφο [άδεια τελωνείου υπ' αριθ. … (
1
)] δηλώνει ότι, εκτός εάν
δηλώνεται σαφώς άλλως, τα προϊόντα αυτά είναι προτιμησιακής καταγωγής … (
2
).
English version The exporter of the products covered by this document (customs authorisation No … (
1
)) declares that, except where otherwise clearly indicated, these products are of … (
2
) preferential origin.
French version L'exportateur des produits couverts par le présent document [autorisation douanière n o … (
1
)] déclare que, sauf indication claire du contraire, ces produits ont l'origine préférentielle … (
2
).
Croatian version Izvoznik proizvoda obuhvaćenih ovom ispravom (carinsko ovlaštenje br. … (
1
)) izjavljuje da su, osim ako je drukčije izričito navedeno, ovi proizvodi … (
2
) preferencijalnog podrijetla.
## Italian Version
L'esportatore delle merci contemplate nel presente documento [autorizzazione doganale n. … (
1
)] dichiarache, salvo indicazione contraria, le merci sono di origine preferenziale … (
2
).
## Latvian Version
Eksportētājs produktiem, kuri ietverti šajā dokumentā (muitas pilnvara Nr. … (
1
)), deklarē, ka, izņemot tur, kur ir citādi skaidri noteikts, šiem produktiem ir priekšrocību izcelsme no … (
2
).
## Lithuanian Version
Šiame dokumente išvardintų prekių eksportuotojas (muitinės liudijimo Nr … (
1
)) deklaruoja, kad, jeigu kitaip nenurodyta, tai yra … (
2
) preferencinės kilmės prekės.
## Hungarian Version
A jelen okmányban szereplő áruk exportőre (vámfelhatalmazási szám: … (
1
)) kijelentem, hogy eltérő egyértelmű jelzés hianyában az áruk preferenciális … (
2
) származásúak.
## Maltese Version
L-esportatur tal-prodotti koperti b'dan id-dokument (awtorizzazzjoni tad-dwana nru. … (
1
)) jiddikjara li, ħlief fejn indikat b'mod ċar li mhux hekk, dawn il-prodotti huma ta' oriġini preferenzjali … (
2
).
## Dutch Version
De exporteur van de goederen waarop dit document van toepassing is (douanevergunning nr. … (
1
)), verklaart dat, behoudens uitdrukkelijke andersluidende vermelding, deze goederen van preferentiële …oorsprong zijn (
2
).
## Polish Version
Eksporter produktów objętych tym dokumentem (upoważnienie władz celnych nr … (
1
)) deklaruje, że z wyjątkiem gdzie jest to wyraźnie określone, produkty te mają … (
2
) preferencyjne pochodzenie.
## Portuguese Version
O exportador dos produtos cobertos pelo presente documento [autorização aduaneira n.
o … (
1
)], declara que, salvo expressamente indicado em contrário, estes produtos são de origem preferencial … (
2
).
## Romanian Version
Exportatorul produselor ce fac obiectul acestui document [autorizația vamală nr. … (
1
)] declară că, exceptând cazul în care în mod expres este indicat altfel, aceste produse sunt de origine preferențială … (
2
).
## Slovenian Version
Izvoznik blaga, zajetega s tem dokumentom (pooblastilo carinskih organov št. … (
1
)) izjavlja, da, razen če ni drugače jasno navedeno, ima to blago preferencialno … (
2
) poreklo.
## Slovak Version
Vývozca výrobkov uvedených v tomto dokumente [číslo povolenia … (
1
)] vyhlasuje, že okrem zreteľne označených, majú tieto výrobky preferenčný pôvod v … (
2
).
## Finnish Version
Tässä asiakirjassa mainittujen tuotteiden viejä (tullin lupa nro … (
1
)) ilmoittaa, että nämä tuotteet ovat, ellei toisin ole selvästi merkitty, etuuskohteluun oikeutettuja … (
2
) alkuperätuotteita.
## Swedish Version
Exportören av de varor som omfattas av detta dokument (tullmyndighetens tillstånd nr … (
1
)) försäkrar att dessa varor, om inte annat tydligt markerats, har förmånsberättigande … ursprung (
2
).
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (
3
)
(Place and date)
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (
4
)
(Signature of exporter; in addition the name of the person signing the declaration has to be indicated in clear script)
## Certificate Of Origin For Certain Products Subject To Special Non-Preferential Import Arrangements
Introductory notes:
1. The period of validity of the certificate of origin shall be 12 months from the date of issue by the issuing authorities.
2. Certificates of origin shall consist only of a single sheet identified by the word 'original' next to the title of the
document. If additional copies are necessary, they shall bear the designation 'copy' next to the title of the document.
The customs authorities in the Union shall accept as valid only the original of the certificate of origin.
3. Certificates of origin shall measure 210 × 297 mm; a tolerance of up to plus 8 mm or minus 5 mm in the length may
be allowed. The paper used shall be white, not containing mechanical pulp, and shall weigh not less than 40 g/m
2
. The
face of the original shall have a printed yellow guilloche pattern background making any falsification by mechanical or
chemical means apparent.
4. Certificates of origin shall be printed and completed in typescript in one of the official languages of the Union. Entries
must not be erased or overwritten. Any changes shall be made by crossing out the wrong entry and, if necessary, adding the correct particulars. Such changes shall be initialled by the person making them and endorsed by the issuing
authorities.
All the additional particulars required for implementation of the Union legislation governing the special import arrangements shall be entered in box 5 of the certificate of origin.
Unused spaces in boxes 5, 6 and 7 shall be struck through in such a way that nothing can be added at a later stage.
5. Each certificate of origin shall bear a serial number, whether or not printed, by which it can be identified, and shall be
stamped by the issuing authority and signed by the person or persons empowered to do so.
6. Certificates of origin issued retrospectively shall bear in Box 5 the following indication in one of the official languages
of the European Union:
- Expedido *a posteriori*,
- Udstedt efterfølgende,
- Nachträglich ausgestellt,
- Εκδοθέν εκ των υστέρων,
- Issued retrospectively,
- Délivré *a posteriori*,
- Rilasciato *a posteriori*,
- Afgegeven *a posteriori*,
- Emitido *a posteriori*,
- Annettu jälkikäteen/utfärdat i efterhand,
- Utfärdat i efterhand,
- Vystaveno dodatečně,
- Välja antud tagasiulatuvalt,
- Izsniegts retrospektīvi,
- Retrospektyvusis išdavimas,
- Kiadva visszamenőleges hatállyal,
- Maħruġ retrospettivament,
- Wystawione retrospektywnie,
- Vyhotovené dodatočne,
- издаден впоследствие,
- Eliberat ulterior,
- Izdano naknadno.
## Supplier'S Declaration For Products Having Preferential Origin Status
The supplier's declaration, the text of which is given below, must be made out in accordance with the footnotes.
However, the footnotes do not have to be reproduced.
## Long-Term Supplier'S Declaration For Products Having Preferential Origin Status
The supplier's declaration, the text of which is given below, must be made out in accordance with the footnotes.
However, the footnotes do not have to be reproduced.
## Supplier'S Declaration For Products Not Having Preferential Origin Status
The supplier's declaration, the text of which is given below, must be made out in accordance with the footnotes.
However, the footnotes do not have to be reproduced.
## Long-Term Supplier'S Declaration For Products Not Having Preferential Origin Status
The supplier's declaration, the text of which is given below, must be made out in accordance with the footnotes.
However, the footnotes do not have to be reproduced.
## Requirements For Drawing Up Replacement Certificates Of Origin Form A
1. The top right-hand box of the replacement certificate of origin FORM A (replacement certificate) shall indicate the
name of the intermediary country where it is issued.
2. Box 4 of the replacement certificate shall contain the words 'Replacement certificate' or 'Certificat de remplacement', as
well as the date of issue of the initial proof of origin and its serial number.
3. The name of the re-exporter shall be given in box 1 of the replacement certificate.
4. The name of the final consignee may be given in box 2 of the replacement certificate.
5. All particulars of the re-exported products appearing on the initial proof of origin shall be transferred to boxes 3 to 9
of the replacement certificate and references to the re-exporter's invoice may be given in box 10 of the replacement
certificate.
6. The endorsement made by the customs office issuing the replacement certificate shall be placed in box 11 of the
replacement certificate.
7. The particulars in box 12 of the replacement certificate concerning the country of origin shall be identical to those
particulars in the initial proof of origin. This box shall be signed by the re-exporter.
## Requirements For Drawing Up Replacement Statements On Origin
1. Where a statement on origin is replaced, the re-consignor shall indicate the following on the initial statement on
origin:
(a) the particulars of the replacement statement(s);
(b) his name and address;
(c) the consignee or consignees in the Union or, where applicable, in Norway or Switzerland.
2. The initial statement on origin shall be marked 'Replaced', 'Remplacée' or 'Sustituida'.
3. The re-consignor shall indicate the following on the replacement statement on origin:
(a) all particulars of the re-consigned products taken from the initial proof;
(b) the date on which the initial statement on origin was made out;
(c) the particulars of the initial statement on origin as set out in Annex 22-07, including - where appropriate -
information about cumulation applied;
(d) his name and address and, where applicable, his number of registered exporter;
(e) the name and address of the consignee or consignees in the Union or, where applicable, in Norway or Switzerland;
(f) the date and place of the replacement.
4. The replacement statement on origin shall be marked 'Replacement statement', 'Attestation de remplacement' or
'Comunicación de sustitución'.
## Annex 23-01 Air Transport Costs To Be Included In The Customs Value
1. The following table shows:
(a) third countries listed by continents and zones (column 1);
(b) the percentages which represent the part of the air transport costs to be included in the customs value (column 2).
2. When goods are shipped from countries or airports not included in the following table, other than the airports
referred to in paragraph 3, the percentage given for the airport nearest to that of departure shall be taken.
3. As regards the French overseas departments which are part of the customs territory of the Union, the following rules
shall apply:
(a) for goods shipped directly from third countries to these departments, the whole of the air transport costs shall be
included in the customs value;
(b) for goods shipped from third countries to the European part of the Union after being transhipped or unloaded in
one of those departments, only the air transport costs which would be incurred if the goods were destined to
those departments shall be included in the customs value;
(c) for goods shipped from third countries to those departments after being transhipped or unloaded in an airport of
the European part of the Union, the air transport costs to be included in the customs value shall be the result of the application of the percentage given in the following table with reference to the flight from the airport of
departure to the airport of transhipment or unloading.
The transhipment or unloading shall be certified by an appropriate endorsement by the customs authorities on the air waybill or other air transport document. Failing this certification, the provisions of Article 137 apply.
| 1 |
|-----------------------------------------------|
| Country of dispatch |
| Percentage of total air transport costs to be |
| included in the customs value |
| |
## America Zone A
| Canada: | Gander, Halifax, Moncton, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, Toronto |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| 70 | |
| | |
| United States of America: | Akron, Albany, Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, |
| Buffalo, Charleston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Columbus, Detroit, Indianapolis, | |
| Jacksonville, Kansas City, Lexington, Louisville, Memphis, Milwaukee, Minnea | |
| polis, Nashville, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St Louis, | |
| Washington DC. | |
## Greenland Zone B
| Canada: | Edmonton, Vancouver, Winnipeg |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------|
| United States of America: | |
| 78 | |
Albuquerque, Austin, Billings, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Oklahoma, Phoenix, Portland, Puerto Rico, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Seattle Central America: all Countries South America: all Countries
1
2
Country of dispatch
Percentage of total air transport costs to be
included in the customs value
Zone C
United States of America: Anchorage, Fairbanks, Honolulu, Juneau
89
AFRICA
Zone D
Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia
33
Zone E
50
Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Ivory Coast, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,
Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Togo
Zone F
61
Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Kenya, Rwanda, Sao Tomé and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, St. Helena,
Tanzania, Uganda
Zone G
74
Angola, Botswana, Comoros, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Republic of South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia,
Zimbabwe
ASIA
Zone H
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Syria
27
Zone I
43
Bahrain, Muscat and Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates,
Yemen
Zone J
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan
46
Zone K
57
Russia: Novosibirsk, Omsk, Perm, Sverdlovsk
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
Zone L Russia: Irkutsk, Kirensk, Krasnoyarsk
70
Brunei, China, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Kampuchea, Laos, Macao, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan,
Thailand, Vietnam
1
2
Country of dispatch
Percentage of total air transport costs to be
included in the customs value
Zone M
83
Russia: Khabarovsk, Vladivostok
Japan, Korea (North), Korea (South)
AUSTRALIA and OCEANIA
Zone N
Australia and Oceania: all Countries
79
EUROPE
Zone O
30
Russia: Gorky, Samara, Moscow, Orel, Rostov, Volgograd, Voronej
Iceland, Ukraine
Zone P
15
Albania, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Faroe Islands, former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia, Kosovo, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Turkey
Zone Q
Switzerland
5
## List Of Goods Referred To In Article 142(6) Valuation Of Certain Perishable Goods Imported On Consignment In Accordance With Article 74(2)(C) Of The Code
1. The following table shows the list of products and the respective periods for which the Commission will make
available a Unit price to be used as the basis for the determination of the customs value of whole fruit and vegetables, of a single kind, imported on consignment only. In such a case, the customs declaration is definitive,
as far as the determination of the customs value is concerned.
2. For the purpose of determining the customs value of products referred to in the present annex and imported on
consignment, a unit price per 100 kg net is established for each product. Such price is considered representative with
respect to the importation of such products in the Union.
3. The unit prices are used to determine the customs value of the imported goods for periods of 14 days, each period
beginning on a Friday. The reference period for determining the unit prices is the preceding period of 14 days ending on the Thursday preceding the week during which new unit prices are to be established. In particular circumstances, the Commission may decide to extend the period of validity period for further 14 days. Member States will be
promptly informed of such decision.
4. The unit prices which the Member states supply to the Commission shall be calculated on the basis of the gross
proceeds of sales recorded at the first commercial level after importation, and deducting the following elements from
these figures:
- a marketing margin for the marketing centres,
- the costs of transport, insurance and associated costs within the customs territory,
- import duties and other charges which are not to be included in the customs value.
The Unit prices will be notified in Euro. If applicable, the rate of conversion to be used is that specified in Article 146.
5. Member States may fix standard amounts for deduction in respect of transport, insurance and associated costs in
accordance with point 4. Such standard amounts and the methods for calculating them shall be made known to the
Commission.
6. The prices are notified to the Commission (DG TAXUD) not later 12 noon on the Monday during the week in which
the unit prices are made available. If that day is a non-working day, the notification will take place on the working day immediately preceding that day. The communication to the Commission will include also the indication of the
approximate quantities of product on which the unit prices were calculated.
7. Following receipt of the unit prices by the Commission, these figures are reviewed and subsequently disseminated via
TARIC. Unit prices only apply if they are disseminated by the Commission.
8. The Commission may decide not to accept, and consequently not to disseminate, the unit prices for one or more
products where these prices would be significantly different in relation to the previous published prices, taking in particular account factors such as quantity and seasonality. Where necessary, the Commission will make enquiries
with the relevant customs authorities to solve such cases.
9. To assist this process, Member States shall supply annual import statistics, for the products listed in the following
table before 30 September in the current year, with reference to the preceding year. These statistics will concern the total imported quantities of each product, and will also indicate the proportion of products imported on
consignment.
10. Based on such statistics, the Commission will establish which Member States will be in charge of notifying Unit
prices for each product for the following year, informing them by 30 November at the latest.
## List Of Goods Referred To In Article 142 (5)
CN (TARIC) Code
Description of Goods
Period of validity
0701 90 50
New potatoes
1.1 to 30.6
0703 10 19
Onions
1.1 to 31.12
0703 20 00
Garlic
1.1 to 31.12
0708 20 00
Beans
1.1 to 31.12
0709 20 00 10
Asparagus
- green
0709 20 00 90
Asparagus
- other
0709 60 10
Sweet peppers
1.1 to 31.12
0714 20 10
Sweet potatoes, fresh, whole, intended
for human consumption
1.1 to 31.12
0804 30 00 90
Pineapples
- other than dried
0804 40 00 10
Avocados
- fresh
0805 10 20
Sweet oranges, fresh
1.6 to 30.11
0805 20 10 05
Clementines
- fresh
0805 20 30 05
Monreales and satsumas
- fresh
Mandarins and wilkings
0805 20 50 07
- fresh
0805 20 50 37
Tangerines and other
0805 20 70 05
- fresh
0805 20 90 05
0805 20 90 09
0805 40 00 11
Grapefruit and Pomelos, fresh:
0805 40 00 31
- white
0805 40 00 19
Grapefruit and Pomelos, fresh::
0805 40 00 39
- pink
0805 50 90 11
Limes (Citrus aurantifolia, Citrus lati folia)
0805 50 90 19
- *fresh*
1.1 to 31.12
1.1 to 31.12
1.1 to 31.12
1.1 to 31.12 1.3 to 31.10
1.3 to 31.10
1.3 to 31.10
1.3 to 31.10
1.1 to 31.12
1.1 to 31.12
1.1 to 31.12
0806 10 10
Table grapes
21.11 to 20.7
0807 11 00
Watermelons
1.1 to 31.12
0807 19 00 50
Amarillo,
Cuper,
Honey
dew
(including
Cantalene),
Onteniente,
Piel de Sapo (including Verde Liso),
Rochet, Tendral, Futuro
0807 19 00 90
Other melons
1.1 to 31.12
0808 30 90 10
Pears
Nashi *(Pyrus pyrifolia)*,Ya (Pyrus bret
scheideri)
0808 30 90 90
Pears
- Other
0809 10 00
Apricots
1.1 to 31.5
0809 30 10
Nectarines
1.1 to 10.6
0809 30 90
Peaches
1.1 to 10.6
0809 40 05
Plums
1.10 to 10.6
0810 10 00
Strawberries
1.1 to 31.12
0810 20 10
Raspberries
1.1 to 31.12
0810 50 00
Kiwifruit
1.1 to 31.12
1.1 to 31.12
1.5 to 30.6
1.5 to 30.6
1.8 to 31.12
1.10 to 31.12
1.10 to 31.12
## Guarantor'S Undertaking - Individual Guarantee I. *Undertaking By The Guarantor*
1. The undersigned (
1
) .........................................................................................................................................................
............................
Resident at (
2
) ............................................................................................................................................................................................ .
hereby jointly and severally guarantees, at the office of guarantee of ........................................................................................
up to a maximum amount of ................................................................................................................................................................
in favour of the European Union comprising the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Croatia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Iceland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation, the Republic of Turkey (
3
), the Principality of Andorra and the Republic of San Marino (
4
), any amount for which the person providing this guarantee (
5
): ...............................................................
may be or become liable to the above mentioned countries for debt in the form of duty and other charges (
5a
) with respect to the goods described below covered by the following customs operation (
6
): .......................................................
Goods description: .....................................................................................................................................................................................
2. The undersigned undertakes to pay upon the first application in writing by the competent authorities of the countries
referred to in point 1 and without being able to defer payment beyond a period of 30 days from the date of application the sums requested unless he or she or any other person concerned establishes before the expiry of that period, to the satisfaction of the customs authorities, that the special procedure other than the end-use procedure has been discharged, the customs supervision of end-use goods or the temporary storage has ended correctly or, in case of
the operations other than special procedures and temporary storage, that the situation of goods has been regularised.
At the request of the undersigned and for any reasons recognised as valid, the competent authorities may defer beyond a period of 30 days from the date of application for payment the period within which he or she is obliged to pay the requested sums. The expenses incurred as a result of granting this additional period, in particular any interest, must be so calculated that the amount is equivalent to what would be charged under similar circumstances on the money market or financial market in the country concerned.
3. This undertaking shall be valid from the day of its approval by the office of guarantee. The undersigned shall remain
liable for payment of any debt incurred during the customs operation covered by this undertaking and commenced before any revocation or cancellation of the guarantee took effect, even if the demand for payment is made after that
date.
4. For the purpose of this undertaking, the undersigned gives his or her address for service in each of the other countries
referred to in point 1 as (
7
)
Country
Surname and forenames, or name of firm, and full address
The undersigned acknowledges that all correspondence and notices and any formalities or procedures relating to this undertaking addressed to or effected in writing at one of his or her addresses for services shall be accepted as duly delivered to him or her.
The undersigned acknowledges the jurisdiction of the courts of the places where he or she has an address for service.
The undersigned undertakes not to change his or her address for service or, if he or she has to change one or more of those addresses, to inform the office of guarantee in advance.
Done at ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................
on ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(Signature) (
8
)
## Ii. *Approval By The Office Of Guarantee*
Office of guarantee ............................................................
..............................................................................................................................
Guarantor's undertaking approved on ... to cover the customs operation effected under customs declaration/temporary storage declaration No .................................................................................... of .................................................................................... (
9
)
..............................................................................................................................................................
(Stamp and Signature)
(
1
) Surname and forename or name of firm.
(
2
) Full address.
(
3
) Delete the name/names of the State/States on whose territory the guarantee may not be used.
(
4
) The references to the Principality of Andorra and the Republic of San Marino shall apply solely to Union transit operations.
(
5
) Surname and forename, or name of firm and full address of the person providing the guarantee.
(
5a
) Applicable with respect to the other charges due in connection with the import or export of the goods where the guarantee is used
for the placing of goods under the Union/common transit procedure or may be used in more than one Member State.
(
6
) Enter one of the following customs operations:
(a) temporary storage;
(b) Union transit procedure/common transit procedure;
(c) customs warehousing procedure;
(d) temporary admission procedure with total relief from import duty;
(e) inward processing procedure; (f) end-use procedure; (g) release for free circulation under normal customs declaration without deferred payment; (h) release for free circulation under normal customs declaration with deferred payment; (i) release for free circulation under a customs declaration lodged in accordance with Article 166 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code;
(j) release for free circulation under a customs declaration lodged in accordance with Article 182 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code;
(k) temporary admission procedure with partial relief from import duty;
(l) if another - indicate the other kind of operation.
) If, in the law of the country, there is no provision for address for service the guarantor shall appoint, in this country, an agent
authorised to receive any communications addressed to him and the acknowledgement in the second subparagraph and the under taking in the fourth subparagraph of point 4 must be made to correspond. The courts of the places in which the addresses for service
of the guarantor or of his agents are situated shall have jurisdiction in disputes concerning this guarantee.
(
8
) The person signing the document must enter the following by hand before his or her signature: 'Guarantee for the amount of …' (the
amount being written out in letters).
# Guarantor'S Undertaking - Individual Guarantee In The Form Of Vouchers
## Common/Union Transit Procedure
I. *Undertaking by the guarantor*
1. The undersigned (
1
) .........................................................................................................................................................
............................
resident at (
2
) ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
hereby jointly and severally guarantees, at the office of guarantee of ........................................................................................
in favour of the European Union comprising the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Croatia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Iceland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation, the Republic of Turkey, the Principality of Andorra and the Republic of San Marino (
3
), any amount for which the holder of the procedure may be or become liable to the abovementioned countries for debt in the form of duty and other charges due in connection with the import or export of the goods placed under the Union or common transit procedure, in respect of which the undersigned has undertaken to issue individual guarantee vouchers up to a maximum of EUR 10 000 per voucher.
2. The undersigned undertakes to pay upon the first application in writing by the competent authorities of the countries
referred to in point 1 and without being able to defer payment beyond a period of 30 days from the date of application the sums requested, up to EUR 10 000 per individual guarantee voucher, unless he or she or any other person concerned establishes before the expiry of that period, to the satisfaction of the competent authorities, that the
operation has been discharged.
At the request of the undersigned and for any reasons recognised as valid, the competent authorities may defer beyond a period of 30 days from the date of application for payment the period within which he or she is obliged to pay the requested sums. The expenses incurred as a result of granting this additional period, in particular any interest, must be so calculated that the amount is equivalent to what would be charged under similar circumstances on the money market or financial market in the country concerned.
3. This undertaking shall be valid from the day of its approval by the office of guarantee. The undersigned shall remain
liable for payment of any debt incurred during the Union or common transit operation covered by this undertaking and commenced before any revocation or cancellation of the guarantee took effect, even if the demand for payment is
made after that date.
4. For the purpose of this undertaking, the undersigned gives his or her address for service (
4
) in each of the other
countries referred to in point 1 as
Country
Surname and forenames, or name of firm, and full address
The undersigned acknowledges that all correspondence and notices and any formalities or procedures relating to this undertaking addressed to or effected in writing at one of his or her addresses for services shall be accepted as duly delivered to him or her.
The undersigned acknowledges the jurisdiction of the courts of the places where he or she has an address for service.
The undersigned undertakes not to change his or her address for service or, if he or she has to change one or more of those addresses, to inform the office of guarantee in advance.
Done at ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................
on ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(Signature) (
5
)
## Ii. *Approval By The Office Of Guarantee*
| Office of guarantee |
|-------------------------------------|
| |
| Guarantor's undertaking approved on |
| |
| |
(Stamp and Signature)
(
1
) Surname and forename or name of firm.
(
2
) Full address.
(
3
) The references to the Principality of Andorra and the Republic of San Marino shall apply solely to Union transit operations.
(
4
) If, in the law of the country, there is no provision for address for service the guarantor shall appoint, in this country, an agent
authorised to receive any communications addressed to him and the acknowledgement in the second subparagraph and the under taking in the fourth subparagraph of point 4 must be made to correspond. The courts of the places in which the addresses for service
of the guarantor or of his agents are situated shall have jurisdiction in disputes concerning this guarantee.
(
5
) The signature must be preceded by the following in the signatory's own handwriting: 'Valid as guarantee voucher'.
## Guarantor'S Undertaking - Comprehensive Guarantee I. *Undertaking By The Guarantor*
1. The undersigned (
1
) .................................................................................................................................................................................
resident at (
2
) ........................................................................................................................................................................................... .
hereby jointly and severally guarantees, at the office of guarantee of .....................................................................................
up to a maximum amount of ............................................................................................................................................................
in favour of the European Union (comprising the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Croatia, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), and the Republic of Iceland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation, the Republic of Turkey (
3
), the Principality of Andorra and the Republic of San Marino (
4
), any amount for which the person providing this guarantee (
5
): … may be or become liable to the abovementioned countries for debt in the form of duty and other charges (
6
) which may be or have been incurred with respect to the goods covered by the customs operations indicated in point 1a and/or point 1b.
The maximum amount of the guarantee is composed of an amount of:
.......................................................
(a) being 100/50/30 % (
7
) of the part of the reference amount corresponding to an amount of customs debts and other
charges which may be incurred, equivalent to the sum of the amounts listed in point 1a;
and
.......................................................
(b) being 100/30 % (
8
) of the part of the reference amount corresponding to an amount of customs debts and other
charges which have been incurred, equivalent to the sum of the amounts listed in point 1b.
1a. The amounts forming the part of the reference amount corresponding to an amount of customs debts and, where
applicable, other charges which may be incurred are following for each of the purposes listed below (
9
):
(a) temporary storage - ….;
(b) (Union transit procedure/common transit procedure - …;
(c) customs warehousing procedure - …;
(d) temporary admission procedure with total relief from import duty - …;
(e) inward processing procedure - … ;
(f) end-use procedure - … ;
(g) if another - indicate the other kind of operation - … .
1b. The amounts forming the part of the reference amount corresponding to an amount of customs debts and, where
applicable, other charges which have been incurred are following for each of the purposes listed below (
10
):
(a) release for free circulation under normal customs declaration without deferred payment - …;
(b) release for free circulation under normal customs declaration with deferred payment - …;
(c) release for free circulation under a customs declaration lodged in accordance with Article 166 of Regulation (EU)
No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union
Customs Code - …;
(d) release for free circulation under a customs declaration lodged in accordance with Article 182 of Regulation (EU)
No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union
Customs Code - …;
(e) temporary admission procedure with partial relief from import duty - …;
(f) end-use procedure - … (
11
);
(g) if another - indicate the other kind of operation - … .
2. The undersigned undertakes to pay upon the first application in writing by the competent authorities of the countries
referred to in point 1 and without being able to defer payment beyond a period of 30 days from the date of application the sums requested up to the limit of the abovementioned maximum amount, unless he or she or any other person concerned establishes before the expiry of that period, to the satisfaction of the customs authorities, that the special procedure other than the end-use procedure has been discharged, the customs supervision of end-use goods or the temporary storage has ended correctly or, in case of the operations other than special procedures, that
the situation of goods has been regularised.
At the request of the undersigned and for any reasons recognised as valid, the competent authorities may defer beyond a period of 30 days from the date of application for payment the period within which he or she is obliged to pay the requested sums. The expenses incurred as a result of granting this additional period, in particular any interest, must be so calculated that the amount is equivalent to what would be charged under similar circumstances on the money market or financial market in the country concerned.
This amount may not be reduced by any sums already paid under the terms of this undertaking unless the under
signed is called upon to pay a debt incurred during a customs operation commenced before the preceding demand for payment was received or within 30 days thereafter.
3. This undertaking shall be valid from the day of its approval by the office of guarantee. The undersigned shall remain
liable for payment of any debt arising during the customs operation covered by this undertaking and commenced before any revocation or cancellation of the guarantee took effect, even if the demand for payment is made after that
date.
4. For the purpose of this undertaking, the undersigned gives his or her address for service (
12
) in each of the other
countries referred to in point 1 as
Country
Surname and forenames, or name of firm, and full address
The undersigned acknowledges that all correspondence and notices and any formalities or procedures relating to this undertaking addressed to or effected in writing at one of his or her addresses for services shall be accepted as duly delivered to him or her.
The undersigned acknowledges the jurisdiction of the courts of the places where he or she has an address for service.
The undersigned undertakes not to change his or her address for service or, if he or she has to change one or more of those addresses, to inform the office of guarantee in advance.
Done at ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................
on ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(Signature) (
)
## Ii. *Approval By The Office Of Guarantee*
Office of guarantee ............................................................
..............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Guarantor's undertaking accepted on ............................................................
.............................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................................
(
1
) Surname and forename or name of firm.
(
2
) Full address.
(
3
) Delete the name/names of the country/countries on whose territory the guarantee may not be used.
(
4
) The references to the Principality of Andorra and the Republic of San Marino shall apply solely to Union transit operations.
(
5
) Surname and forename or name of the firm, and full address of the person providing the guarantee.
(
6
) Applicable with respect to the other charges due in connection with the import or export of the goods where the guarantee is used
for the placing of goods under the Union/common transit procedure or may be used in more than one Member State or one
Contracting Party.
(
7
) Delete what does not apply.
(
8
) Delete what does not apply.
(
9
) Procedures other than common transit apply solely in the European Union.
(
10
) Procedures other than common transit apply solely in the European Union.
(
11
) For amounts declared in a customs declaration for the end-use procedure.
(
12
) If, in the law of the country, there is no provision for address for service the guarantor shall appoint, in this country, an agent
authorised to receive any communications addressed to him and the acknowledgement in the second subparagraph and the undertaking in the fourth subparagraph of paragraph 4 must be made to correspond. The courts of the place in which the
addresses for service of the guarantor or of his agents are situated shall have jurisdiction in disputes concerning this guarantee.
## Individual Guarantee Voucher
Union/common transit
## Technical Requirements For Voucher.
The voucher shall be printed on paper free of mechanical pulp, dressed for writing purposes and weighing at least
55 g/m
2
. It shall have a printed guilloche pattern background in red so as to reveal any falsification by mechanical or chemical means. The paper shall be white.
The format shall be 148 by 105 millimetres.
The voucher shall show the name and address of the printer, or a mark by which it may be identified, and an identification number.
## Model Of The Information Memo On The Claim For Payment To The Guaranteeing Association Of The Debt In Transit Procedure Under Ata/E-Ata Carnet
Letter heading of the coordination office initiating the dispute Addressee: coordinating office covering the offices of temporary importation, or other coordinating office
## Subject: Ata Carnet - Submission Of Claim
Be informed that a claim for payment of duties and taxes under the ATA Convention/the Istanbul Convention (
1
) was sent on … (
2
) to our guaranteeing association in respect of:
1. ATA carnet No:
2. Issued by the Chamber of Commerce of:
City:
Country:
3. On behalf of:
Holder:
Address:
4. Expiry date of carnet:
5. Date set for re-exportation (
3
):
6. Number of transit/import voucher (
4
):
7. Date of endorsement of voucher:
Signature and stamp of the issuing coordinating office.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Model of discharge indicating that claim proceedings have been initiated with respect to the guaranteeing association in the Member State where the customs debt is incurred in transit procedure under ATA/e-ATA
carnet Letter heading of the coordinating office of the second Member State submitting the claim Addressee: coordinating office of the first Member State submitting the original claim.
## Subject: Ata Carnet - Discharge
Be informed that a claim for payment of duties and taxes under the ATA Convention/Istanbul Convention (
1
) was sent on … (
2
) to our guaranteeing association in respect of:
1. ATA carnet No:
2. Issued by the Chamber of Commerce of:
City:
Country:
3. On behalf of:
Holder:
Address:
4. Expiry date of the carnet:
5. Date set for re-exportation (
3
):
6. Number of transit/import voucher (
4
):
7. Date of endorsement of voucher:
The present note discharges your responsibility in this file.
Signature and stamp of issuing coordinating office.
Request for supplementary information where goods are situated in another Member State
## European Union Repayment Or Remission Of Duty Status Registration Document
Banana weighing certificates - specimen
## Annex 61-03 Banana Weighing Certificate - Procedure
For the purposes of Article 182, the net weight of each consignment of fresh bananas shall be determined by authorised weighers at any place of unloading in accordance with the procedure laid down below.
For the purposes of this Annex and of Article 182, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) 'net weight of fresh bananas' means the weight of the bananas themselves without packing materials and packing
containers of any kind;
(b) 'consignment of fresh bananas' means the consignment comprising the total quantity of fresh bananas loaded on a
single means of transport and shipped by a single exporter to one or more consignees;
(c) 'place of unloading' means any place where a consignment of fresh bananas can be unloaded or removed to under a
customs procedure, or in the case of containerised traffic, where the container is offloaded from the ship, or aircraft,
or other principal means of transport or where the container is unpacked.
1. A sample of units of packed bananas shall be selected for each type of packaging and for each origin. The sample of
units of packed bananas to be weighed shall constitute a representative sample of the consignment of fresh bananas. It shall contain at least the quantities indicated below:
Number of units of packed bananas (by type of
packaging and origin)
Number of units of packed bananas to be inspected
- up to 400
3
- from 401 to 700
4
- from 701 to 1 100
6
- from 1 101 to 2 200
8
- from 2 201 to 4 400
10
- from 4 401 to 6 600
12
- more than 6 600
14
2. The net weight shall be determined as follows:
(a) by weighing each unit of packed bananas to be inspected (gross weight);
(b) by opening at least one unit of packed bananas, then calculating the weight of the packaging;
(c) the weight of that packaging shall be accepted for all packaging of the same type and origin, and shall be
deducted from the weight of all the units of packed bananas weighed;
(d) the average net weight per unit of packed bananas thus established for each type and origin, based on the weight
of the samples checked, shall be accepted as the basis for determining the net weight of the consignment of fresh
bananas.
3. Where the customs authority does not check the banana weighing certificates contemporaneously, the net weight
declared on such certificates shall be acceptable to customs authorities provided that the difference is not more or less
than 1 % between the declared net weight and the average net weight established by customs authorities.
4. The banana weighing certificate shall be presented to the customs office at which the declaration for release for free
circulation is submitted. The customs authorities shall apply the results of the sampling shown on the banana weighing certificate to the whole consignment of fresh bananas to which that certificate relates.
## Annex 62-02 Inf 3 - Returned Goods Information Sheet Note Concerning Information Sheet Inf 3
1. The forms shall be printed on white paper, free of mechanical pulp, dressed for writing purposes and shall weigh at
least 40 g/m
2
.
2. The size of the forms shall be 210 × 297 mm, a maximum tolerance in the length of between - 5 and 8 mm being
allowed; the layout of the forms must be strictly observed, except in respect of the size of boxes 6 and 7.
3. Member States shall be responsible for taking the necessary steps to have the forms printed. Each form shall bear an
individual serial number, which may be pre-printed.
4. The forms shall be printed in one of the official languages of the Union accepted by the competent authorities of the
Member State of export. They shall be completed in the same language as that in which they are printed. Where necessary, the competent authorities of the customs office of re-import in which information sheet INF 3 is required to be produced may request its translation into its official language or one of its official languages.
Colour: black letters on a yellow background Colour: black letters on a yellow background
## Business Continuity Procedure For Union Transit Part I Chapter I General Provisions
1.
This Annex lays down specific provisions for use of the business continuity procedure, under Article 291 of this
Regulation, for the holders of the procedure, including authorised consignors, in the event of a temporary failure
of:
- the electronic transit system,
- the computerised system used by the holders of the procedure for lodging the Union transit declaration by
means of electronic data-processing techniques, or
- the electronic connection between the computerised system used by the holders of the procedure for lodging
the Union transit declaration by means of electronic data-processing techniques and the electronic transit
system.
2.
Transit declarations.
2.1.
The transit declaration used in a business continuity procedure shall be recognisable by all parties involved in the
transit operation in order to avoid problems at the customs office of transit, at the customs office of destination
and upon arrival at the authorised consignee. For this reason the used documents are limited to the following:
- a Single Administrative Document (SAD), or
- a SAD printed out on plain paper by the computerised system of the economic operator, as foreseen in Annex
B-01, or
- a Transit Accompanying Document (TAD)/Transit/security Accompanying Document (TSAD), supplemented, if
necessary by List of items (LoI) or Transit/Security List of items (TSLoI).
2.2.
The transit declaration may be supplemented by one or more continuation sheets using the form set out in Annex
B-01. The forms shall be an integral part of the declaration. Loading lists complying with Part II, Chapter IV of this
Annex and drawn up using the form set out in Part II, Chapter III of this Annex may be used instead of
continuation sheets as the descriptive part of a written transit declaration, of which they shall be an integral part.
2.3.
For the implementation of point 2.1 of this Annex, the transit declaration shall be completed in accordance with
Annexes B to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 and B to this Regulation.
## Chapter Ii Implementing Rules
3.
Unavailability of the electronic transit system.
3.1.
The rules shall be applied as follows:
- the transit declaration shall be completed and submitted to the customs office of departure in copies 1, 4 and 5
of the SAD in accordance with Annex B-01 or in two copies of the TAD/TSAD, supplemented, if necessary, by
LoI or TSLoI, in accordance with Annexes B-02, B-03, B-04 and B-05,
- the transit declaration shall be registered in box C using a system of numbering different from that used in the
electronic transit system,
- the business continuity procedure shall be indicated on the copies of the transit declaration with one of the
stamps using the forms set out in Part II, Chapter I of this Annex, in box A of the SAD or instead of the MRN and the barcode on the TAD/TSAD,
- the authorised consignor shall fulfil all the obligations and conditions regarding the entries to be made in the
declaration and the use of the special stamp referred to in points 22 to 25 of this Annex using respectively
boxes C and D,
- the transit declaration shall be stamped either by the customs office of departure in case of the standard
procedure or by the authorised consignor where Article 233(4)(a) of the Code applies.
3.2.
Where the decision to apply the business continuity procedure is taken, any transit data with LRN or MRN
allocated to the transit operation shall be withdrawn from the electronic transit system on the basis of information
provided by a person who lodged that transit data into the electronic transit system.
3.3.
The customs authority shall monitor the use of the business continuity procedure in order to avoid its misuse.
4.
Unavailability of the computerised system used by the holders of the procedure for lodging the Union transit
declaration data by means of electronic data-processing techniques or of the electronic connection between that
computerised system and the electronic transit system:
- the provisions set out in point 3 of this Annex shall be applied,
- the holder of the procedure shall inform the customs authority when his computerised system or the electronic
connection between that computerised system and the electronic transit system are available again.
5.
Unavailability of the authorised consignor's computerised system or the electronic connection between that
computerised system and the electronic transit system.
Where the authorised consignor's computerised system or the electronic connection between that computerised system and the electronic transit system are unavailable the following procedure shall apply:
- the provisions set out in point 4 of this Annex shall be applied,
- when the authorised consignor makes more than 2 % of his declarations in a year under the business continuity
procedure, the authorisation shall be reviewed in order to assess whether its conditions are still met.
6.
Data-capture by the customs authority.
However, in the cases referred to in points 4 and 5 of this Annex, the customs authority may allow the holder of the procedure to submit the transit declaration in one copy (making use of the SAD or the TAD/TSAD) to the customs office of departure in order to have it processed by the electronic transit system.
## Chapter Iii Operation Of The Procedure
7.
Furnishing of an individual guarantee by a guarantor.
Where the customs office of guarantee is not the customs office of departure for the transit operation, it shall keep a copy of the guarantor's undertaking. The holder of the procedure shall present the original to the customs office of departure, where it shall be retained. If necessary the customs office of departure may request a translation into the official language, or one of the official languages, of the country concerned.
8.
Signing of the transit declaration and undertaking of the holder of the procedure.
By signing the transit declaration the holder of the procedure assumes responsibility for:
- the accuracy of the information given in the declaration,
- the authenticity of the documents presented,
- compliance with all the obligations relating to the entry of the goods under the transit procedure.
9.
Identification measures.
Where Article 300 of this Regulation applies, the customs office of departure shall enter the following phrase against the 'seals affixed' heading in box 'D. Control by office of departure' of the transit declaration:
- Waiver - 99201.
10.
Entries in the transit declaration and release of the goods.
- The customs office of departure shall record the results of the verification on each copy of the transit
declaration.
- Where the findings of the verification are consistent with the declaration the customs office of departure shall
release the goods and record the date on the copies of the transit declaration.
11.
Goods placed under the transit procedure shall be carried under cover of copies 4 and 5 of the SAD or under cover
of one copy of the TAD/TSAD given to the holder of the procedure by the customs office of departure. Copy 1 of
the SAD and the copy of TAD/TSAD shall remain at the customs office of departure.
12.
Customs office of transit.
12.1. The carrier shall present a transit advice note made out on a form set out in Part II, Chapter V of this Annex to
each customs office of transit, which shall retain it. Instead of the transit advice note a photocopy of copy 4 of the
SAD or a photocopy of the copy of the TAD/TSAD may be presented and retained by the customs office of transit.
12.2. Where goods are carried via the customs office of transit other than that declared, the actual customs office of
transit shall inform the customs office of departure.
13.
Presentation at the customs office of destination.
13.1. The customs office of destination shall register the copies of the transit declaration, record on them the date of
arrival and enter the details of controls carried out.
13.2. A transit operation may end at an office other than the customs office declared in the transit declaration. That
office shall then become the actual customs office of destination.
Where the actual customs office of destination comes under the jurisdiction of a Member State other than the one having jurisdiction over the customs office declared, the actual customs office shall enter in box 'I. Control by office of destination' of the transit declaration the following endorsement in addition to the usual observations it is required to make:
- Differences: customs office where goods were presented …… (customs office reference number) —99 203.
13.3. Where the second paragraph of point 13.2 of this Annex applies and where the transit declaration bears the
following statement, the actual customs office of destination shall keep the goods under its control and not allow their removal other than to the Member State having jurisdiction over the customs office of departure, unless
specifically authorised by the latter:
- Exit from the Union subject to restrictions or charges under Regulation/Directive/Decision No ... —99 204.
14.
Receipt.
The receipt may be made out on the back of copy 5 of the SAD, in the space provided or in the form set out in Annex 72-03.
15.
Return of copy 5 of the SAD or the copy of the TAD//TSAD.
The competent customs authority of the Member State of destination shall return copy 5 of the SAD to the customs authority in the Member State of departure without delay and at most within 8 days of the date when the operation ended. Where the TAD/TSAD is used it is the copy of the TAD/TSAD presented which is returned under the same conditions as copy 5.
16.
Informing the holder of the procedure and alternative proof of the end of the procedure.
Where the copies referred to in point 15 of this Annex are not returned to the customs authority of the Member State of departure within 30 days of the time limit for presentation of the goods at the customs office of destination, that authority shall inform the holder of the procedure and ask him to furnish proof that the procedure has ended correctly.
## 17. Enquiry Procedure.
17.1. Where the customs office of departure has not received proof within 60 days of time-limit for presentation of the
goods at the customs office of destination that the procedure was ended correctly, the customs authority of the Member State of departure shall immediately request the information needed to discharge the procedure. Where during the steps of an enquiry procedure it is established that the Union transit procedure cannot be discharged,
the customs authority of the Member State of departure shall establish whether a customs debt has been incurred.
If a customs debt has been incurred, the customs authority of the Member State of departure shall take the following measures:
- identify the debtor,
- determine the customs authorities responsible for notification of the customs debt in accordance with
Article 102(1) of the Code.
17.2. If, before the expiry of those time-limits, the customs authority of the Member State of departure receives
information that the Union transit procedure has not been ended correctly, or suspects that to be the case, it
shall send the request without delay.
17.3. The enquiry procedure shall likewise be initiated when it is discovered subsequently that proof of the end of the
transit procedure has been forged and that the enquiry procedure is necessary to meet the objectives of point 17.1
of this Annex.
## 18. Guarantee - Reference Amount.
18.1. For the application of Article 156 the holder of the procedure shall ensure that the amount at stake does not
exceed the reference amount, taking into account also any operations for which the procedure is not yet ended.
18.2. The holder of the procedure shall inform the customs office of guarantee when the reference amount falls below a
level sufficient to cover his transit operations.
19.
Comprehensive guarantees certificates, guarantee waiver certificates and individual guarantee vouchers.
19.1. The following shall be presented to the customs office of departure:
- comprehensive guarantee certificate, in the form set out in Chapter VI,
- guarantee waiver certificates, in the form set out in Chapter VII,
- individual guarantee voucher, in the form set out in Annex 32-06.
19.2. Particulars of the certificates and the voucher shall be entered on transit declarations.
20.
Special loading lists.
20.1. The customs authority can accept the transit declaration supplemented by loading lists which do not comply with
all the requirements set out in Part II, Chapter III of this Annex.
Such lists can be used only where:
- they are produced by the companies which use an electronic data-processing system to keep their records,
- they are designed and completed in such a way that they can be used without difficulty by the customs
authority,
- they include, for each item, the information required in Part II, Chapter IV of this Annex.
20.2. Descriptive lists drawn up for the purposes of carrying out dispatch/export formalities may also be allowed for use
as loading lists under point 20.1 of this Annex, even where such lists are produced by the companies not using an
electronic data-processing system to keep their records.
20.3. The holder of the procedure which uses an electronic data-processing system to keep his records and already uses
special loading lists, may also use them for Union transit operations involving only one type of goods if this facility
is made necessary by the system of the holder of the procedure.
21.
Use of seals of a special type.
The holder of the procedure shall enter, against the heading 'seals affixed' in box 'D. Control by office of departure'
of the transit declaration, the number and the individual seal identifiers of the seals affixed.
22.
Authorised consignor - Pre-authentication and formalities at departure.
22.1. For the application of points 3 and 5 of this Annex the authorisation shall stipulate that box 'C. Office of
departure' of the transit declaration shall:
- be stamped in advance with the stamp of the customs office of departure and signed by an official of that
office, or
- be stamped by the authorised consignor with a special stamp approved by the competent authority and using
the form set out in Part II, Chapter II of this Annex. The stamp may be pre-printed on the forms where a
printer approved for that purpose is used.
The authorised consignor shall complete the box by entering the date on which the goods are consigned and shall allocate a number to the transit declaration in accordance with the rules laid down in the authorisation.
22.2. The customs authority may prescribe the use of forms bearing a distinctive mark as a means of identification.
23.
Authorised consignor - Security measures for the stamp.
The authorised consignor shall take all necessary measures to ensure the safekeeping of the special stamps or forms bearing the stamp of the customs office of departure or a special stamp.
He shall inform the customs authority of the security measures he is taking to apply in accordance with the first subparagraph.
23.1. In the event of the misuse by any person of forms stamped in advance with the stamp of the customs office of
departure or with a special stamp, the authorised consignor shall be liable, without prejudice to any criminal proceedings, for the payment of duties and other charges payable in a particular country in respect of goods carried under cover of such forms unless he can satisfy the customs authority by whom he was authorised that he took the
measures requested of him under point 23.
24.
Authorised consignor - Information to be entered on declarations.
24.1. Not later than on consignment of the goods, the authorised consignor shall complete the transit declaration and,
where necessary, enter in box 44 the itinerary prescribed in accordance with Article 298 of this Regulation and, in box 'D. Control by office of departure', the period prescribed in accordance with Article 297 of this Regulation within which the goods shall be presented at the customs office of destination, the identification measures applied
and the following endorsement:
- Authorised consignor - 99206
24.2. Where the competent authority of the Member State of departure checks a consignment before its departure, it
shall record the fact on the declaration, in box 'D. Control by office of departure'.
24.3. Following consignment, copy 1 of the SAD or the copy of the TAD/TSAD shall be delivered without delay to the
customs office of departure according to the rules laid down in the authorisation. The other copies shall
accompany the goods in accordance with point 11 of this Annex.
25.
Authorised consignor - Waiver of signature.
25.1. The authorised consignor may be allowed by the customs authority not to sign transit declarations bearing the
special stamp referred to in Chapter II of Part II of this Annex which are made out by the electronic dataprocessing system. This waiver shall be subject to the condition that the authorised consignor has previously given the customs authority a written undertaking acknowledging that he is the holder of the procedure for all
transit operations carried out under cover of transit declarations bearing the special stamp.
25.2. Transit declarations made out in accordance with point 25.1 of this Annex shall contain, in the box reserved for
the signature of the holder of the procedure, the following phrase:
- Signature waived - 99207.
26.
Authorised consignee - Obligations.
26.1. When the goods arrive at a place specified in the authorisation the authorised consignee shall without delay inform
the customs office of destination about such arrival. He shall indicate the date of arrival, the condition of any seals affixed and any irregularity on copies 4 and 5 of the SAD or on the copy of the TAD/TSAD, which accompanied the goods, and deliver them to the customs office of destination according to the rules laid down in the auth
orisation.
26.2. The customs office of destination shall make the entries provided for in point 13 of this Annex on copies 4 and 5
of the SAD or on the copy of the TAD/TSAD.
## Specimens Of Stamps Used For Business Continuity Procedure
1.
Stamp No 1
(dimensions: 26 × 59 mm)
2.
Stamp No 2
(dimensions: 26 × 59 mm)
# Chapter Ii Specimen Of A Special Stamp Used By Authorised Consignor
(dimensions: 55 × 25 mm)
1. Coat of arms or any other signs or letter characterising the country
2. Reference number of the customs office of departure
3. Declaration number
4. Date
5. Authorised consignor
6. Authorisation number
## Loading List Chapter Iv Explanatory Note On The Loading List Section 1 1. Definition
1.1.
The loading list means a document having the characteristics described in this Annex.
1.2.
It can be used with the transit declaration within the framework of the application of point 2.2 of this Annex.
2.
Loading list form
2.1.
Only the front of the form may be used as a loading list.
2.2.
The features of a loading list are:
(a) the heading 'Loading list';
(b) a 70 × 55 mm box divided into an upper part of 70 by 15 mm and a lower part of 70 by 40 mm;
(c) columns with the following headings in the following order:
- serial number,
- marks, numbers, number and kind of packages, goods description,
- country of dispatch/export,
- gross mass (kg),
- reserved for the administration.
Users may adjust the width of the columns to their needs. However, the column headed 'reserved for the administration' must always be at least 30 mm wide. Users may also decide for themselves how to use the spaces other than those referred to in points (a), (b) and (c).
2.3.
A horizontal line must be drawn immediately under the last entry and any spaces not used must be scored through
to prevent later additions.
## Section 2 Particulars To Be Entered In The Different Headings
1.
Box
1.1.
Upper part
Where a loading list accompanies a transit declaration, the holder of the procedure shall enter 'T1', 'T2' or 'T2F' in the upper part of the box.
1.2.
Bottom part
The particulars listed in paragraph 4 of Section III below must be entered in this part of the box.
2.
Columns
2.1.
Serial number
Every item shown on the loading list shall be preceded by a serial number.
2.2.
Marks, numbers, number and kind of packages, goods description
The particulars required shall be given in accordance with Annex B to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.
Where a loading list accompanies a transit declaration, the list must include the information entered in boxes 31
(Packages and description of goods), 40 (Summary declaration/previous document), 44 (Additional information, documents produced, certificates and authorisations) and, where appropriate, 33 (Commodity code) and 38 (Net mass (kg)) of the transit declaration.
2.3.
Country of dispatch/export
Enter the name of the Member State from which the goods are being consigned or exported.
2.4.
Gross mass (kg)
Enter the details entered in box 35 of the SAD (see Annex B to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446).
## Section 3 Use Of Loading Lists
1.
A transit declaration may not have both a loading list and one or more continuation sheets attached to it.
2.
Where a loading list is used, boxes 15 (Country of dispatch/export), 32 (Item number), 33 (Commodity code), 35
(Gross mass (kg)), 38 (Net mass (kg)), 40 (Summary declaration/previous document) and, where appropriate, 44 (Additional information, documents produced, certificates and authorisations) of the transit declaration form shall be struck through and box 31 (Packages and description of goods) may not be used to enter the marks, numbers, number and kind of packages or goods description. A reference to the serial number and the symbol of the
different loading lists shall be entered in box 31 (Packages and goods description) of the transit declaration.
3.
The loading list must be produced in the same number of copies as the copies of a transit declaration to which it
relates.
4.
When a transit declaration is registered the loading list must be given the same registration number as the copies of
the transit declaration to which it relates. This number must be entered by using a stamp which includes the name of the customs office of departure, or by hand. If entered by hand, it shall be endorsed by the official stamp of the
customs office of departure.
It is not obligatory for an official of the customs office of departure to sign the forms.
5.
Where several loading lists are attached to one transit declaration, the lists shall bear a serial number allocated by
the holder of the procedure, and the number of loading lists attached shall be entered in box 4 (Loading lists).
6.
The forms of the loading list shall be printed on paper dressed for writing purposes, weighing at least 40 g/m
2 and
sufficiently strong to prevent easy tearing or creasing in normal use. The colour may be decided by those concerned. The format of the forms shall be 210 by 297 mm, with a maximum tolerance of 5 mm less and 8 mm more on the length.
## Transit Advice Note Guarantee Waiver Certificate Chapter Viii Explanatory Note On Comprehensive Guarantee Certificates And Guarantee Waiver Certificates
1.
Particulars to be entered on the front of a certificate
Once issued, there shall be no amendment, addition or deletion to the remarks in boxes 1 to 8 of the compre
hensive guarantee certificate and boxes 1 to 7 of the guarantee waiver certificate.
1.1.
Currency code
Member States shall enter in box 6 of the comprehensive guarantee certificate and in box 5 of the guarantee waiver certificate the ISO ALPHA3 (ISO 4217) code of the currency used.
1.2.
Endorsements
Where the holder of the procedure has undertaken to lodge all his transit declarations at a specific customs office of departure, the name of the office must be entered in capitals in box 8 of the comprehensive guarantee certificate or box 7 of the guarantee waiver certificate, as appropriate.
1.3.
Endorsement of certificates in the event of their validity being extended
Where the period of validity of a certificate is extended, the customs office of guarantee must endorse box 9 of the comprehensive guarantee certificate or box 8 of the guarantee waiver certificate, as appropriate.
2.
Particulars to be entered on the back of a certificate - persons authorised to sign transit declarations
2.1.
When a certificate is issued, or at any time during its period of validity, the holder of the procedure must enter on
the back the names of the persons he authorises to sign transit declarations. Each of these entries must comprise the surname and first name of the authorised person and a specimen of his signature and each must be counter signed by the holder of the procedure. The holder of the procedure has the option of striking through any boxes he
does not wish to use.
2.2.
The holder of the procedure may revoke such authorisations at any time.
2.3.
Any person whose name has been entered on the back of a certificate of this kind which is presented at the
customs office of departure is the authorised representative of the holder of the procedure.
## 3. Technical Requirements
3.1.
The forms for comprehensive guarantee certificates and guarantee waiver certificates shall be printed on white
paper free of mechanical pulp and weighing at least 100 g/m
2
. Both sides shall have a printed guilloche pattern
background so as to reveal any falsification by mechanical or chemical means. The printing shall be:
- in green for comprehensive guarantee certificates,
- in pale blue for guarantee waiver certificates.
3.2.
The format of the forms shall be 210 by 148 mm.
3.3.
The Member States shall be responsible for printing the forms or having them printed. Each certificate shall bear a
serial identification number.
3.4.
No erasures or alterations shall be made. Amendments shall be made by striking out the incorrect particulars and,
where appropriate, adding those required. Any such amendment shall be signed by the person making the amendment and endorsed by the customs authority. | en |
0276-pdf | 25 May 2018
Jo Kaye Managing Director, System Operator Network Rail Dear Jo
## Orr Investigation And Monitoring Of Current Informed Traveller/**T-12 Problems**
As you know, in response to the informed traveller and T-12 problems in January 2018, ORR committed to investigate a set of linked issues around:
What we do in the very short-term about Network Rail's recovery plan. We wanted assurance that Network Rail had consulted and thought about passenger and customer impacts in developing its plan, that the plan is deliverable and will recover T-12 in a reasonable time;
Passenger information; ensuring the industry is taking all the necessary steps to inform passengers. We have written to train operators about our concerns; and
What are the root causes of, and lessons to learn from, the T-12 issues; whether TOCs and Network Rail are complying with their obligations.
We have been progressing work on these three strands, engaging with Network Rail, industry and funders over the past few months. Thank you for Network Rail's co-operation and engagement to date in this process.
## Recovery Plan
Network Rail advised us in April and again this week that it is confident the recovery plan is on schedule and that it is doing what it said it would do. However, we note the fragility of the plan and its lack of contingency. Its success depends on Network Rail and the industry working together to recover T-12 by January 2019. There are issues with some TOCs achieving their deadlines, so T-6 and T-7 offers were not made in line with the plan for every operator. We would especially like to understand the specific issues relating to GTR and GWR and how you are dealing with them.
We recognise that the ongoing T-12 issues could have an impact on the parallel processes to produce timetables for December 2018 and May 2019. We are pleased to hear that Network Rail is responding to our suggestion to clarify what the key project, franchise, rolling stock and other assumptions are that underpin each timetable, and is setting up a process to assure those assumptions. This should help inform discussions about risks to implementing those timetables and how they can be managed. We have however been concerned by the time taken to put appropriate monitoring and reporting processes in place. We have therefore requested a regular high-level view of progress against the recovery plan milestones, including risks, to be provided to us in addition to the detailed weekly updates. This will be accompanied by 4-weekly joint meetings to better understand these updates. We are setting these up to be the week after each recovery plan milestone is supposed to be reached (i.e. the weeks after T-7, T-8 etc are planned to be achieved). Network Rail has agreed to do this. This should also support better reporting internally in Network Rail and to the industry. We will continue to monitor closely your progress against the recovery plan and your management of the risks to it over the coming months through our agreed monitoring arrangements.
## Root Causes
From our initial review, we have identified particular concerns with: -
Infrastructure Projects (IP) and System Operator (SO) interfaces and their management, both as a potential root cause of the current T-12 problems and as a risk to the recovery plan and future timetables. This includes whether enhancement problems were and are being escalated in a timely way and whether delays impacting the timetable are identified as soon as possible and in sufficient time for the SO to react; -
Whether prioritisation decisions, such as whether to delay an enhancement, are being taken with passengers and a whole system perspective in mind; and -
The management of late notice timetable changes and their impact on services and the availability of passenger information.
We are therefore advising Network Rail that the above issues are now the subject of a formal licence compliance investigation which we will be carrying out in line with our economic enforcement policy procedures. The outcomes of this formal investigation could result in a finding that Network Rail was, and / or is currently, in breach of its licence and if appropriate, we could decide to take formal enforcement action. An investigation terms of reference is attached. As part of this work, we are also considering the implications of existing or planned work streams. For example, our own review of the Network Rail SO Strategic Business Plan for
CP6 and the KMPG review commissioned jointly by Network Rail and DfT into infrastructure enhancements. We also expect there will be lessons to learn in relation to aspects such as communication and resources.
We are grateful for your offer of further help to our investigation and our teams met earlier today to discuss the issues further. We identified additional helpful material, which your team undertook to provide to us. We would welcome any further information Network Rail would like us to consider as part of our formal investigation by midday on Monday 4 June 2018.
Yours sincerely
## John Larkinson Annex: Terms Of Reference For A Further Investigation Into The Issues Affecting Network Rail Timetabling And Its Planning And Delivery Of Infrastructure Projects Purpose
To establish whether Network Rail is doing everything reasonably practicable to meet its licence obligations under its' Network Licence; with particular reference to timetabling and the planning and delivery of infrastructure projects - including assessing whether there are any systemic weaknesses.
## Scope
Based on initial analysis of the evidence gathered so far, ORR is particularly interested in the following areas (although the investigation may be wider depending on the evidence that emerges):
a) Infrastructure projects (IP) and System Operator (SO) interfaces and their
management, both as a potential root cause of the current T-12 problems and as a risk to the recovery plan and future timetables.
Particularly whether enhancement problems were and are being escalated in
a timely way and whether delays impacting the timetable are identified as soon as possible and managed effectively.
Network Rail's timetabling governance process and the impact of and
interface with IP, particularly with regard to major projects such as NWEP phase 4
b) Whether prioritisation decisions, such as whether to delay an enhancement,
were/are being taken with passengers and a whole system perspective in mind.
c) The management of late notice timetable changes.
## Methodology
ORR will use evidence gathered from its current monitoring and informal investigation to date and any further information provided to us in the course of this investigation including by Network Rail, operators, funders and other parties to assess:
Whether there are any mitigating factors which should be considered which have
lead to the current issues;
Whether there are any systemic issues; and The steps, Network Rail has taken or is taking to address the issues and make
improvements and recover;
## Investigation Team
This investigation is led by John Larkinson as director, using the existing project team for Informed Traveller/T-12 issues.
## How The Investigation Will Be Conducted
In carrying out its investigation ORR expects to draw upon information and reviews already carried out internally as part of its usual regulatory roles as well as any new information relevant parties provide to us during the course of this investigation. The review will engage primarily with Network Rail, as well as affected operators and funders. This will be a focused investigation with a view to completion by the end of June 2018. | en |
4029-pdf |
## Mayor'S Transport Strategy: Supporting Evidence Challenges & Opportunities
June 2017
## Introduction This Is The Summary Of The Evidence Base Underpinning The Mayor'S Transport Strategy
The Mayor's Transport Strategy is the statutory document that sets out the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan's, policies and proposals to reshape transport in London over the next 25 years. It is an ambitious strategy that puts people's health and quality of life at the very heart of planning the city's transport. Along with the new London Plan and the Mayor's other strategies for economic development, the environment, housing, health inequalities and culture, it provides the blueprint for making London a city that is not only home to more people, but is a better place for all of those people to live in. TfL has collected evidence to identify the challenges and opportunities facing London's transport network over the next 25 years. This has formed the basis of the strategy development process, and helps us understand why the priorities and policies outlined in the strategy are relevant and necessary for London. The analytical work presented here includes analysis of past trends, current conditions and modelling of possible futures. It looks at the challenges facing London from the perspective of those who live and work in the city, as well as in terms of the operation of the transport network itself. The key conclusion is that for London to grow and thrive, it is essential that London's residents, workers and visitors do more walking and cycling and use public transport more to improve their health and the environment, to make streets work more efficiently & keep London moving.
## Contents
This report presents evidence on how London has changed since 2000 and also describes the key challenges and opportunities facing London today and in future. The report presents analysis and forecasts of the expected future conditions in London without the implementation of the Mayor's Transport Strategy. The report is structured as follows:
| | Section | Page number |
|----|------------------------------------|----------------|
| 1 | How London has changed since 2000 | 4 |
| 2 | A growing city | 9 |
| 3 | The health challenge | 14 |
| 4 | Healthy Streets and healthy people | 17 |
| 5 | A healthy environment | 26 |
| 6 | A good public transport experience | 31 |
| 7 | New homes and jobs | 39 |
| 8 | Conclusion | 46 |
## How London Has Changed Since 2000 London'S Transport Network Has Been Transformed Since 2000, Delivering A Better Experience For Customers
Since TfL was formed in 2000 and the first Mayor of London was elected, London has experienced unprecedented population growth, supported by an expanding and improving transport network. All public transport modes have seen significant increases in capacity and service quality; with innovations on the street network such as congestion charging, cycle hire and superhighways, and technological innovation from Oyster to apps.
In 2015/16 the Underground carried a total of **1.35 billion journeys,** 39% higher than 2000/01. Consistently more than 97%
of scheduled services were operated in 2015/16 against 92% in 2000/01. Buses carried **2.3 billion journeys in 2015/16**, 71% higher than in 2000/01. **Bus service reliability has improved by 46%** over the period, although recently reliability and patronage have suffered in line with a rise in general traffic congestion.
National Rail (by London and South East operators) carried **1.2 billion journeys in 2015/16**, 78% higher than in 2000/01, an average annual growth rate of 4%. General reliability has also improved. The volume of **road traffic in London in 2015 was 10% lower than in 2000**. The reduction was particularly intense in central London, at 21%, but there were also significant falls in both inner and outer London since 2000 (17% and 6% respectively) . Over the same period, **speeds fell by 8%** although consistently between 87% and 90% of journeys on London's major roads were completed within five minutes of the 'expected' time. The number of cycle journeys has **increased by 133% since 2000/01**. The amount of walking has also grown considerably, reflecting the shift from car to public transport.
London has grown rapidly in recent years, leading to increased demand on the transport system. In 2015, London's population stood at 8.7 million - higher than the previous record level of 8.6 million in 1939. An average of 26.7 million trips per day were made in London in 2015 - an 18% increase from 2000.
## Since 2000, There Has Been Substantial Mode Shift Away From The Car, Bucking National Trends For Many Years
Alongside this growth in travel demand, London has achieved an unprecedented 10.4
percentage point shift in mode share away from the private car towards public transport, walking and cycling - reflecting sustained investment in these modes, limits on the capacity of the road network, and wider structural, social and behavioural factors. This shows that change is possible, but the recent rise in car traffic is an urgent reminder that much more needs to be done to deliver mode shift from the car.
The mode share in London is one of the best in the developed world for a major city - and whilst many other world cities have seen increased car use, we have achieved the reverse.
Over this period, London has become one of the most sustainable major cities in terms of mode share. Motorisation, defined as cars per thousand inhabitants, fell in London from 334 in 1995 to 307 in 2012. Of the cities that participate in the UITP comparison study, London is now the least motorised developed city other than Hong Kong and Singapore.
## The Car Mode Share Is Higher In Outer London And During Evenings And Weekends
The volume and share of car travel varies considerably by place and time, with the majority (58%) of car trips made by London residents taking place in outer London.
London residents are more likely to walk and use their cars at the weekend, and more likely to travel by public transport during the week.
## Purpose
Mode shares differ depending on the purpose of the trip, with commute and education trips more likely to be on public transport and other work trips more likely to be driven.
## Time Of Day
The car mode share is highest in the evening and overnight, and lowest in the daytime interpeak.
## Distance
The car mode share is highest for middle distance trips (2-5km), with longer trips more likely to be made by public transport (PT).
Supply: Improvements to public transport capacity and quality whilst keeping fares low increased demand. Highway capacity was eroded and the cost of motoring rose. Demand: Generally, car travel rises with income; and the majority of car travel is in outer London, where incomes haven't increased since 2003.
## Mode Shift From The Car Was Driven By Investment In The Alternatives But Also By Factors Beyond The Transport System
Structure: The population has also changed.
Young people are much less likely to hold a driving licence than in the past. In-migration rose, with migrants being less likely to drive.
In future, travel patterns will be influenced by what we do, but also by factors outside our control. There is emerging evidence that car traffic is increasing, suggesting the balance of factors influencing demand may be changing.
Note: GVA stands for Gross Value Added and is a measure of economic growth A growing city London is bigger than it has ever been and growing rapidly with the population expected to be 10.5m by 2041. This is 28% higher than in 2011 and is equivalent to adding the combined populations of Birmingham and Glasgow during this time.
London is growing rapidly, with the population expected to reach 10.5m by 2041
The composition of London's population is also expected to change, altering the emphasis of future demand pressures on the transport networks. In particular, there will be an increase in the numbers of older people -
particularly focused in outer London - leading to increased demand for accessible services. East London will experience the most growth, with much of the growth taking place within Opportunity and Growth Areas.
The recent 'baby boom' will stabilise, giving net natural change of +80,000 per year.
By 2041, the number of Londoners over 70 will have grown by 85%.
More people will leave London than arrive, with net out-migration of
20,000 per year.
London's employment has grown from 4.6 million jobs in 2000 to 5.7 million in March
2016 and is projected to grow to 6.25 million by 2031 and 6.75 million by 2041.
## Employment Is Expected To Grow By More Than A Million Additional Jobs By 2041, Concentrated In The Central Activities Zone
Agglomeration will see employment growth concentrated in the central area. 1.4 million jobs are expected in the City of London and Westminster alone.
Concentrated growth in the CAZ and Isle of Dogs with new nodes in Stratford and at Old Oak Over the past 15 years manufacturing has been declining and jobs in professional services have been increasing - this is expected to continue. The switch from lower to higher density employment is expected to lead to an increase in commuting by public transport and a fall in commuting by car.
Tower Hamlets - containing Canary Wharf and the Isle of Dogs - will contain 450,000 jobs. Stratford and Old Oak also have the potential to become major hubs. The Opportunity Areas will also play a key role in supporting London's growth, with the potential capacity to support nearly 600,000 jobs. Nevertheless, a third of jobs are in outer London, with a 56% car mode share for commuting. As London grows, we need to ensure more sustainable commuter patterns for travel beyond the centre.
The Reference Case is based upon:
1. GLA population and employment
projections
2. The funded programme of investment
from TfL and other transport providers
## The Reference Case Assesses What Could Happen Based On Growth Forecasts, Trends And The Funded Programme
The MTS relies upon an understanding of what could happen in the future *without* the measures proposed in the draft strategy. A Reference Case has been produced to build on our understanding of current travel and present possible future travel volumes, distribution and mode share. This has formed the basis of analysis identifying the challenges and opportunities facing London and its transport network over the period to 2041.
3. Wider assumptions about policies relating
to aspects such as fares, fuel costs and car parking, including an assumption that ongoing investment will facilitate continued growth in cycle travel.
## Population And Employment Growth Forecasts The Funded Programme Includes The Following Major Schemes:
| Population | Employment |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|
| The opening of the Elizabeth line from 2019 | |
| 2015 | |
| (m) | |
| 2041 | |
| (m) | |
| 2015 | |
| (m) | |
| 2041 | |
| (m) | |
| Central London | 0.2 |
| Northern line extension to Battersea and Nine Elms and | |
| upgrades of the Jubilee, Victoria, Northern | |
| and sub-surface lines | |
| Inner London | 3.2 |
| Outer London | 5.2 |
| Capacity and frequency enhancements, and electrification of | |
| the Gospel Oak to Barking line | |
| Greater London | 8.7 |
| Capacity and frequency enhancements | |
| Population and employment growth 2015 to 2041 | |
| Delivery of the HLOS and Thameslink upgrade schemes | |
## Key Assumptions Determining Future Travel Patterns:
- The economy is expected to grow, so that values of time increase. - The number of cars owned per person is expected to fall, but the
population increase is so high that the total number of cars rises.
- Highway capacity for general traffic is expected to reduce in the early
years due to measures to promote cycling amongst other things.
- The cost of car use is expected to fall over time, as technology
improves vehicle efficiency, but parking costs are expected to increase.
Travel demand is expected to increase to around 32 million trips on an average day in 2041, 5 million more than today.
By 2041, there will be 5
million more trips per
day, an increase of 23%
compared to today
Analysis based upon current trends and the
funded programme (so, without the
interventions proposed in the draft Mayor's
Transport Strategy) suggests that most of the
additional travel demand will be more public
transport, walking and cycling.
Despite a falling car mode share, car kilometres will rise by around 8%. This reflects the distribution of trips, with more car travel in outer London where trips are longer.
This, coupled with a large rise in van traffic of
26%, will lead to an overall rise in traffic on the network if left unchecked.
The health challenge TfL and London's boroughs have a legal duty to consider the impacts of our activities on health and health inequality. Transport has a number of direct and indirect impacts on the health of Londoners:
## Most Londoners Do Not Do Enough Activity To Be Healthy And Travelling Actively Is The Best Way To Achieve This
routine by walking or cycling is one of the best ways to stay active and healthy.
The life expectancy of Londoners has been increasing but adults are living more of their lives in poor health.
Currently, a third of Londoners achieve their recommended level of physical activity from active travel alone.
Adults need at least 150 minutes and children 420 minutes of physical activity a week to stay healthy and reduce their risk of common, preventable diseases.
significantly more physical activity than travelling by car, due to the need to walk to/from the station or stop. Recent research shows that active & public transport commuters had a lower BMI than car commuters.
## Healthy Streets Are Safe, Inclusive And Encourage Activity But London'S Streets Fall Short Of Expectations
Streets that are inclusive and enable people to be active improve health and can help reduce inequalities but also contribute to broader environmental sustainability and economic prosperity - if it works well for people it is likely to attract visitors and be more successful in terms of footfall, shops and services.
Comparison of
experience and
expectation
scores for each
indicator
## Ten Healthy Streets Indicators
Healthy Streets and healthy people Nearly everyone walks. How much people walk is largely determined by how close they are to a range of destinations and whether they own a car.
## Walking Is An Active And Enjoyable Way To Travel And More People Could Walk Rather Than Drive
Inner Londoners walk more than outer Londoners, women walk more than men, and adults aged 17-44 walk the most whilst older people walk the least.
to be 'walkable'
The proportion of trips made on foot has stayed the same for a long time - so change is difficult. But Londoners need to walk more to be active enough for good health.
Improving the appeal of walking, by providing a safer and more pleasant environment, can encourage people to walk. But whilst the car remains a cheap and convenient option, people will continue to drive walkable journeys.
Cycle travel grew by 133% London-wide and 221% in central London between 2000 - 2015.
There is considerable opportunity to deliver growth in cycle travel, with more than nine million journeys currently made by a motorised mode every day that could be cycled instead. 77% of Londoners believe that cycling is enjoyable and people continue to cycle in London because it is fun, quick, convenient, cheap and a good way to keep fit.
## Cycling Is An Efficient And Healthy Way To Get About And There Is Considerable Potential For Growth In Cycle Travel
People that don't currently cycle in London can be concerned about safety and worried that cycling may not be a convenient option for them - to help them start cycling means overcoming the following barriers:
•
Fear and vulnerability
•
The physical effort of cycling
670k journeys were made each day by bike in
•
Lack of infrastructure
•
Access to a bike
•
How cycling compares to the alternatives
•
Whether they identify with cycling and how attractive it is to them
•
Lack of confidence
More high quality, safe and pleasant routes, supported by plentiful and secure parking, will encourage new people to start cycling and existing cyclists to cycle more.
In 2015, 2,092 people were killed or seriously injured (KSIs) on London's streets, 42% below the 2005-09 baseline. The previous target was met six years early and London is on-track to achieve the target established in 2015 of a 50% reduction in KSIs by 2020.
## The Number Of People Killed Or Seriously Injured On London'S Streets Is The Lowest On Record But Is Nearly 2,100 Per Year
Current forecasts show that if progress continued at a similar rate, KSIs would continue to fall to around 1,000 by 2040.
KSIs by road user type
- Pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists are most at risk of being
involved in a collision.
- Londoners from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups suffer a
disproportionately high number of road casualties.
- Pedestrians in the most deprived areas are more than twice as
likely to be injured as those in the least deprived areas.
- Between 2005/09 and 2015, child pedestrian KSI reduced by
52% and child car occupants by 72% showing more needs to be done to increase child pedestrian safety.
Vision Zero for London means our long term vision is to reduce road danger so that no deaths or serious injuries occur on London's streets. Buses and coaches are disproportionately involved in collisions with pedestrians and cyclists and in the last three years there were on average 200 people killed or seriously injured in collisions involving buses or coaches.
The greatest reductions have been amongst car occupants. The proportion of KSIs made up of vulnerable road users has risen as overall KSIs have fallen.
## Improving The Safety And Security Of Transport And Travelling In London Remains A Priority
The safety and security of transport and travelling in London remains a priority for the Mayor. The recent terror attacks in London and Manchester have highlighted the importance of ongoing efforts to reduce the likelihood and impact of these terrible incidents on London's streets and public transport networks and to improve the safety and security of transport and travelling.
Reducing transport crime and further improving confidence to travel will be challenging in the transport network, levels of crime on the system have seen small increases since 2014/15. The rate of crime in 2016/17 was 7
.5 crimes per million passenger journeys, up from 7
.0 in 2014/15 (which was the lowest In terms of crime levels on TfL's public transport network, crime fell by over 50% between 2005/6 and 2016/17 - equivalent to almost 30,000 offences. While over the long term, crime has been falling on the public Concerns about the risk of crime and disorder can act as a barrier to travel. Research commissioned by TfL shows that the majority of Londoners feel safe whilst using public transport.
## In 2016 :
Women, BAME and disabled Londoners are significantly more likely to be generally worried (very or quite) and have experienced a specific incident of worry in the last three months.
context of global insecurity and the growth in hatred, intolerance and extremism, the threat of terrorist attacks on the road and transport system, financial constraints, a growing population and the impact of overcrowding on passenger behaviour, along with the changing risk and nature of crime. These challenges are increasing demands for policing and enforcement resources, as well as other important crime reduction and operational security measures.
rate on record). The increases in crime have largely been driven by an anticipated increase in reported sexual offences and an increase in low-level violence and public order offences.
## Rising Traffic And Falling Road Capacity For Private Vehicles Means That Congestion Will Rise For Essential Traffic
Congestion causes stress and frustration, and limits the amount people can travel because journeys are slow and unpredictable. For businesses, congestion costs money as workers spend time queuing in traffic, it is difficult to make deliveries on time, and an unreliable road network harms the reputation of London. Bus journeys become slower and less reliable.
Despite a falling car mode share, without further action traffic is expected to rise across much of London, with 8.6 million more kilometres travelled by road on average day in 2041 compared to 2015.
Over the same period, the amount of space available for use by general road traffic is expected to reduce by 3 per cent, more in central London.
Most congestion is caused by there being more traffic on a day-to-day basis than the there is space for - traffic management methods can help but ultimately we need to reduce traffic volumes.
90% of all freight is carried by road and freight adds an estimated £7
.5 billion to the GVA of London. London's continued success critically relies on safe, reliable, sustainable and efficient goods delivery and servicing.
## Industry Trends And Economic Growth Will Lead To More Freight Traffic, Especially Vans
Freight vehicles account for around a fifth of motorised vehicle kilometres travelled in London.
In the central London morning peak, freight accounts for around a third of traffic.
## Between 2015 And 2041, Freight Vehicle Kilometres Are Projected To Increase By:
Factors increasing freight traffic: - **E-Commerce** - Deliveries to homes
and personal deliveries to workplaces.
- **Just-in-time delivery** - Roads are
becoming on-the-move warehouses.
- Freight / logistics pushed to
peripheral out-of-town areas
- Freight / logistics pulled to areas
with good highway accessibility
- Globalisation of supply -
lengthening supply chains.
At present, 57% of London households own a car, making 6.8m car trips per day. Car ownership is the strongest determinant of inactivity - 70% of people without a car do some activity compared to 50% with one car.
## For Healthy Streets, We Need To Achieve Population And Jobs Growth Without A Matching Rise In Car Travel
Since its invention, the car has provided welcome connectivity and opened up new opportunities. Even in a densely populated city such as London, some journeys can only Some journeys are essential by car:
Unreasonable to use
alternative, eg: in an
emergency, when ill, if
afraid of alternative
High value to society
of driving eg: some
business trips, if only
way to access work
No alternative mode
available. 26% of car trips
can't be switched due to
the characteristics of the
trip-maker or the time
taken
Can't easily be quantified
reasonably be made by car. But the amount of space that can or should be taken up by private road transport is limited, and the population is growing. As well as prioritising more space-efficient and sustainable modes, research suggests that most people agree that the limited remaining space should be prioritised for 'essential' traffic.
But many are not:
For example, Londoners tell us it is less essential for a trip to be made by car if it is in central London or a well connected area, can be made as quickly and easily by another mode, or if it is for leisure purposes or in some way 'discretionary'.
Private cars, taxis and private hire vehicles take up three quarters of the road space used for personal travel in central London but account for just a fifth of the personal distance travelled.
93% of car journeys under 2km have an alternative available, but just 16% of trips over 8km. Shorter trips are also more likely to have more than one alternative available.
## Three Quarters Of Car Trips Could Be Made By A More Sustainable Mode, But Many People Are Reluctant To Change
It's more difficult to assess if the quarter of car journeys made in London by non- Londoners have an alternative available, but it is reasonable to assume that some do.
Potential for existing car journeys to be made by a sustainable mode
Note: potential is based upon current service provision. If services were enhanced, more journeys could switch from car to public transport.
However, having an alternative available does not mean that people will switch. Delivering mode shift requires changes to people's preferences, and to the relative appeal of travel by car and the alternatives. In reality, this means that car travel would need to be less appealing, and the other modes more appealing, in order to realise the potential that has been identified Some people are more amenable to change than others - the challenge is that the greatest amount of car use happens in places where people are most committed to travelling by car and least willing to change.
## Propensity To Reduce Car Use
A healthy environment Transport is the biggest source of emissions damaging to health in London: around half of emissions (NOx and particulate matter (PM)) in Greater London come from road transport.
London is in breach of legal limits on NO2 and while there is no safe level for particulates, does not meet levels recommended by the World Health Organisation of PM smaller than 2.5 micrograms.
## Poor Air Quality Damages Health And Causes The Equivalent Of Up To 9,400 Deaths Per Year
The communities suffering most from poor air quality are often the most vulnerable. 360+ primary schools are in areas exceeding safe legal pollution levels.
NOx emissions Under the most recent government plans, London will not comply with legal limits for NO2 until 2025, 15 years after the original deadline.
About 25% of London's roads are forecast to be non-compliant with NO2 levels in 2020. Of these, about a third require reductions of between 25% and 50% of road transport NOx emissions, and a tenth require at least a 50% reduction.
## Particulate Matter (Pm) Emissions
Without further action, London is expected to exceed World Health Organisation levels of PM2.5 until well after 2030. 75%
of road transport PM comes from tyre and brake wear. There are limited technological solutions so only a reduction in road traffic can effectively tackle PM in the medium/long term.
Note that forecasts are for future without MTS interventions Climate change is a serious threat to global quality of life. Carbon dioxide concentration is 40% higher than in pre-industrial times and between 1880 and 2012, the earth's surface warmed 0.85O Celsius.
London's transport providers must play their part in delivering reductions in carbon emissions. The Mayor's ultimate ambition is
## Action Must Be Taken To Reduce Carbon Emissions So London Can Play Its Part In Tackling Climate Change
Technological advances will reduce vehicle emissions but this will be made quicker and more feasible if the distance travelled by car is reduced.
London's bus, taxis and private hire fleets are on a pathway to reach zero emission.
London's rail services are primarily electric so CO2 emissions will decline with the decarbonisation of the energy supply. Need the government to electrify all remaining diesel lines. Emissions arise from the taxiing, take off and landing of aircraft at Heathrow and City Airport. Plans to expand Heathrow's third runway are unclear on what this would mean for meeting the UK's climate change targets.
to make London a zero carbon city by 2050.
While transport CO2 emissions are projected to have fallen by more than 2 million tonnes by 2025 from 1990 levels, they will still be 2.35 million tonnes above the target previously set for 2025. Meeting this would require a reduction in emissions equivalent to a 40% reduction in road traffic.
## Mayor'S Manifesto Commitment A Biodiverse Natural Environment Is Good For Nature And Good For People
A biodiverse natural environment provides many physical and mental health benefits and aids access to green space.
Transport land accounts for 14% of land in London and 25% of land in central London. Therefore, how we use transport land has a significant impact on biodiversity in London.
Nationwide, the goal is to conserve biodiversity. This will be challenging given competing demands for land for housing and transport infrastructure.
As London becomes more urban, access to green space will become more important, and transport land can contribute.
## Deficiencies In Access To Nature
Three in ten London residents say they are disturbed by road traffic noise
## Noise From Transport Causes Stress And Damages The Health Of Londoners
The World Health Organisation identifies environmental noise as the second largest environmental risk to public health in Western Europe. Noise affects health directly by causing sleep disturbance, stress/anxiety and damage to mental health, high blood pressure, cognitive impairment in children (and related impacts on school performance) and increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Exposure to noise from transport damages the health of Londoners, particularly those living on busy roads or in the flight path.
More than 1.6 million people in the London are exposed to road traffic noise levels during the day above 55dB, the level defined by the World Health Organisation as causing health problems.
One in five London residents say they are disturbed by aircraft noise.
Heathrow alone exposes 750,000 people to significant aircraft noise (above 55dBLden) - the majority of whom reside in west and southwest London - and which amounts to 28% of all those exposed to noise by airports across Europe. With a third runway, that number could increase to almost a million people.
Flooding will affect stations, roads and tracks and cut power supplies, as in Feb 2014.
Extreme heat will lead to materials failure and the need for ventilation and cooling.
## We Must Ensure The Transport Network Is Resilient To Extreme Weather And The Adverse Effects Of Climate Change
London is already suffering from the adverse effects of climate change - summers are getting warmer and winters are getting wetter. Major flooding has occurred in London in three of the last four years - causing significant disruption to transport and having a detrimental impact on the economy.
Unmitigated climate change would mean that the summer of 2003, where we broke the highest temperature record in the UK (37 °C)
and an estimated 2,000 UK residents died, will be considered an average summer by the 2040s and a cool summer by the 2080s. Extreme weather events are expected to increase as a result of climate change.
## Average Surface Temperature During The Hot Summer Of 2006
The urban heat island effect is clearly visible here - average surface temperatures were six degrees centigrade cooler in Richmond Park than in central London Humidity, drought, storm winds affect signalling, cause ground movement and debris on tracks. Snow and ice will block drains; affect signalling; damage embankments, cuttings and roads.
For London to remain an attractive place to live, work and visit, we must ensure that the transport system is resilient to the extreme weather conditions likely to become more common as a result of a changing climate.
Sustainable Drainage Systems, as pictured here (from a scheme on the TLRN), can reduce the risk of flooding while enhancing the green infrastructure of a local area.
A good public transport
experience
## London Has Become More Unaffordable As Housing And Travel Costs Have Risen Faster Than Incomes
Whilst the economy of London has grown, not all Londoners have shared in the benefits.
London is one of the most expensive places to live in the world and yet more than a fifth of working Londoners do not receive the London Living Wage. In the early years of TfL, average earnings rose faster than fares, particularly bus fares which were frozen or reduced each year between 2005 and 2008.
In 2014 it took an extra hour of work at minimum wage to cover travel costs from outer London compared to 2005
Single Tube and Bus fares increased by around 60% between 2008 and 2015. While this allowed for significant investment in transport networks, those on the minimum wage saw their pay rise just 17%, making travel costs a larger proportion of their spending. Travel costs becoming unaffordable could make it harder for Londoners to make the journeys they need and want to by public transport.
Even in the cheapest areas combined rent and travel costs over £800 pcm on average for a two person household
## A Good Customer Experience Means Consistently Getting The Basics Right And Being Innovative
Customers should be able to trust their transport providers to provide a good experience across the network, but overstretched services may struggle to deliver what customers want. Customers will expect services to respond to emerging technology and reflect cultural change - as expectations rise, it will become increasingly difficult to deliver the basics consistently in a crowded and congested environment.
## What Do Customers Want?
•
Journeys that are reliable, easy to plan, stress-free,
person-friendly and comfortable
Customer experience is not consistent across all providers.
Rail customers in London and the South East are less satisfied than regional and long distance travellers, particularly with punctuality, value for money and room to sit or stand. In Autumn 2016, satisfaction varied by 26 percentage points between the best and worst performing operators.
•
Value for money - so you get what you pay for, with fares, charges and fines considered fair and honest
## Customer Satisfaction By Rail Operator, Autumn 2016 (Nrps)
•
Progress and innovation, with investment in improvements
Over time, what is considered essential changes. As mobile connectivity has soared, demand has risen for real time information they can access on their journey. As technology develops, customer needs and expectations will continue to evolve.
## Open Data Provisions Has Facilitated The Development Of 360 Apps. Thameslink Kent Customers Least Satisfied (62%)
An inclusive, accessible, affordable transport network benefits all Londoners.
## Significant Improvements Have Been Made But 41% Of The Public Transport Network Is Still Not Fully Accessible
Whilst significant improvements have been made, journey times are still considerably longer on the accessible network and a number of barriers to travel remain. Partly as a result of this, disabled people travel less often, making 1.6 trips per person per day What does
Helpful staff, particularly bus drivers, provide a good customer experience an accessible
and inclusive transport service mean?
Street environment is well maintained, without obstructions, overcrowded or narrow pavements, and with places to stop and rest.
compared to 2.4 for those without a disability. Demand for accessible services is rising. By 2041, the number of Londoners over 70 will have grown by 85% and 17% of Londoners (1.8m people) will have some form of disability - 56% more than 2011.
Step-free access to bus stops, buses, stations and trains Everyone can access the information they need to plan their journeys Services are not too crowded
## Buses Are A Spaceefficient And Affordable Mode Of Transport But Falling Speeds Worsen The Experience For Users
The size of the bus network - more than 95% of households live within 400m of a bus stop -
and the affordability of bus services mean that it is the most accessible and most used type of public transport in London, carrying 2.3 billion passengers per year. London's bus network now carries half of all the bus journeys in England. London buses operate on nearly 700 routes, with 100 routes operating through the night.
The flexibility of bus service provision to respond to new and changing demand patterns and to fill gaps in connectivity means that buses are key role in delivering mode shift from the car. Bus services are more viable than rail where demand is widely dispersed. To reduce car dependency, buses will need to offer similar journey speeds and convenience for passengers.
## Increase In Bus Passengers Between 2000/01 And 2015
Bus demand has fallen away somewhat recently, after many years of rises. Bus patronage has declined by 5.6 % across 2015/16 and 2016/17 with ridership for 2016/17 123 million trips per annum lower than in 2014/15. The primary cause is considered to be the deterioration in bus speeds (2.1% year-on-year) . The deterioration varies route by route, and is closely aligned with usage. Bus use has also been affected by the trend for Londoners to travel less, particularly for shopping and leisure. In future, bus journeys will be affected by rising congestion on the network. Analysis has shown that many of those who reduced their bus use, drove more. This shows the risk if London's bus services are not able to offer an appealing option to the car. Maintaining acceptable bus speeds and reliability is a vital part of delivering sustainable growth in future.
Crowding increases journey times, as customers wait for a less crowded train, damaging real-world connectivity.
Crowding within stations leads to closures and delays walking through the station.
the early 2020s add 70% extra capacity to the national rail network and 50% to the LU, DLR and Tram network. However demand will outstrip supply by 2031 with a significant increase in crowding by 2041.
Customers find travelling in crowded conditions stressful and unsatisfying. Some groups are particularly affected, for example, those with mobility impairments for example find it difficult to travel in crowded conditions.
## Despite Tube & Rail Upgrades & The Elizabeth Line, Demand Will Increase Faster Than Supply, Exacerbating Crowding
Funded projects through to
## Crowding In Stations Causes Delays And Frustration And Will Become More Common As London Grows
The same demographic and economic factors that lead to busier trains will result in increased passenger numbers at stations across the network. The most significant challenge will arise in central London, where demand for travel at peak periods will rise substantially, placing pressure on key destination stations and interchanges. Congestion within stations leads to delays as By 2041, planned station control measures may be required at 30 key stations. This includes LU stations serving each of the six major National Rail termini. The closure of an LU station at a terminus - even for a short time - will add significant pressure to the wider network.
The map below shows the top 21 locations in 2016 with the highest levels of passenger disbenefit from gateline closures. Many of the highlighted stations are National Rail interchanges where passengers are interchanging onto LU lines that are already crowded on their approaches to the station.
## London Underground Stations With Greatest Disbenefit From Gateline Closures, 2016
The vicinity of key rail termini and Tube destination stations often offers poor amenity and crowded pavements, failing to provide a Healthy Street environment.
passengers move slowly through the station, are forced to wait to board trains, or are held outside the station as safety concerns force temporary closures.
Those stations in most need of upgrade works, either due to current conditions or because there is likely to be particularly high growth in the vicinity, have been identified.
## Stations Expected To Require Planned Station Control By 2041 Passenger Safety Should Always Be A Top Priority
Londoners rightly expect their public transport services to be operated safely and to be managed and policed to ensure their personal security. After many years of safe operation, there was a major derailment at Sandilands junction in November 2016 in which seven people lost their lives and over 50 people were injured. This tragedy serves as a reminder that safety is paramount.
There has been a consistent trend of improvement in bus or coach passenger injuries over the past decade. In 2015/16, 71 bus or coach occupants were injured with one fatality. On London Underground there were 93 passenger injuries and three fatalities.
People are more likely to be killed or injured by a bus whilst walking or cycling than whilst travelling by bus. In the last three years there were on average 200 people killed or seriously injured in collisions involving buses or coaches.
## New Homes And Jobs London Is Vital To Economic Growth Across The Uk - It Is The Most Productive Region And The Uk'S Only Global Centre
London's position as an internationally competitive centre for global business services brings trade not just to London but to the UK as a whole. In 2014, London accounted for around 23% of UK's economic output, a rise from around 19% in 1997
. 45%
of GVA was generated in just six central Boroughs - making this the most productive part of the UK.
The centre hosts a cluster of globally competitive sectors, and accommodates a third of London's jobs in just 2% of its area. Central London and the Isle of Dogs, will see the most employment growth in future.
Central London has grown more than elsewhere, yet compared to other similar cities there remains scope to increase its density & productivity.
The economic clout of central London has helped London to top many world city rankings - need to maintain that position average where employment density is highest Note: GVA stands for Gross Value Added and is a measure of economic growth R&D stands for Research and Development Ready access to a very large population catchment , supplied by the rail network, is fundamental to London's ability to act as a global employment hub. Agglomeration benefits are dependent on businesses being close together and having access to a large and diverse pool of skilled labour. Eight in ten commuters arrive in central London by rail.
## Jobs In Central London Depend On Rail Capacity; By 2041Demand Will Outstrip Supply, Possibly Limiting Growth
Businesses depend on the system being able Travel time to the Central Activities Zone, 2041 with funded programme Fully funded projects through to the early 2020s add 70% extra capacity to the national rail network (including Elizabeth Line) & 50% to the LU, DLR and Tram network but demand still outstrips supply by
2041, demonstrating the need for further investment in major schemes such as Crossrail 2 to provide necessary capacity to central London.
to deliver people reliably from where they live to where they work at times they are prepared to travel. This means that both the capacity and performance of the transport system are critical. If the central London economy was to be constrained as a result of transport problems, estimates suggest that this could result in an annual loss to national output of approximately £70 billion or 5.4% of GDP.
London contains twelve metropolitan town centres - many similar in size to the centres of major cities across the UK - as well as 35
major centres and 147 district centres. At least four in ten journeys made by London residents start or end in a town centre, primarily for shopping but also to work, access services and for leisure purposes.
## Beyond The Centre, Travel Is More Car Dependent But Town Centres Could Become Sustainable Travel Hubs
As our shopping habits change, the role of destinations, nevertheless, three in ten trips to a town centre is made by car. Non-Londoners also visit London's town centres, often by car, so this is likely to Town centres typically also act as transport hubs, with larger town centres all served by Tube or rail services and multiple bus routes. Whilst London residents are less likely to drive to town centres than other town centres is changing accordingly. Retail is consolidating in larger centres, meaning that smaller centres are becoming less viable over time. In general, we can see that the denser the area in 2011 in terms of retail units, the greater the increase in density since.
Conversely, town centres have an increasing role as leisure destinations and residential locations, resulting in more evening travel.
underestimate the overall car mode share. Research has found that people accessing town centres by active modes and bus spend more per month than car users.
London needs 50,000
new homes a year but is
delivering half that -
transport investment can
unlock development
To accommodate population growth and
tackle the existing housing shortage, 50,000
new homes are needed every year, but only
around half the homes that Londoners
need have actually been delivered in recent
years. Transport improves the viability of
developments and creates new markets.
Homes in the best connected areas
command a price premium - currently 2.5%
for Crossrail 1 above surrounding areas.
Since 2005 half of
residential
development has
been in the best
connected parts of
London
People will pay
a 10% price
premium to
live close to a
station
Need to build a new home every 11 minutes, 24 hours a day for the next 25 years.
Three quarters of London's businesses consider housing a threat to the economy.
The consequences of failing to meet housing needs could be:
- Prices rise;
- Some people who would have lived in London live elsewhere;
- Housing is only delivered in places with the highest land values
and elsewhere, properties are sub-divided;
- People are forced to live further away from where they work
and in areas with poorer transport accessibility;
- Overcrowding rises and the amount of space per person falls.
Completed housing units by transport accessibility of area Opportunity Areas are the largest reservoir of brownfield land and could make entirely new places for Londoners to live and work, but many of the areas with the greatest capacity for development have poor transport connectivity and this has directly limited private sector investment in housing.
Many of the areas with the greatest capacity for development have poor transport connectivity, hampering development
Beyond these growth areas, densification and development is constrained in parts of London with poorer access to the rail network, and in particular in south London where the connectivity offered by the National Rail network is considerably poorer than in other regions. Investing in new public transport capacity, cycling and walking could unlock the delivery of thousands of homes that may not otherwise come forward for development High density living influences travel in a number of ways, such as by increasing the number of activities that can be carried out locally, or through making car use less attractive as a result of increased competition for road space and parking. People are less likely to drive if they have ready access to good alternatives and don't need a car for work.
## London'S Low Density Sprawl Has Contributed To High Car Use, Places Should Make Sustainable Travel Choices Easy
People living in housing with more or better parking are more likely to own and use a car than similar people with poorer parking options. Of households with a car, households with off street parking had 1.8 cars on average compared to 1.4 cars for households with permitted on-street parking.
density will increase, contributing to a fall in the car mode share. But around half of Londoners will still live in lower density regions which typically are reliant on the car. The situation, design and connectivity of new housing will determine the travel patterns of its residents. Simply put, places 'built for the car' generate more car travel than places 'built for sustainable travel'.
## Conclusion
| en |
3197-pdf |
## The Electricity At Work Regulations 1989 Subtitle H6 Guidance On Regulations
This new edition of HSR25 will help dutyholders meet the requirements of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. It will be of interest and practical help to all dutyholders, particularly engineers (including those involved in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of electrical systems), technicians and their managers. It sets out the Regulations and gives technical and legal guidance on them. The purpose of this guidance is to highlight the nature of the precautions in general terms to help dutyholders achieve high standards of electrical safety in compliance with the duties imposed.
## Hsr25 (Third Edition) Published 2015
This third edition removes reference to regulations 17–28 and Schedule 1, which applied only to mines and were revoked in April 2015 by the Mines Regulations 2014, and shows changes made to regulations 3 and 29. This document applies to all electrical systems and there is additional guidance for mines in Electrical safety in mines (HSE publication HSG278). The publication also contains references to HSE guidance and codes of practice from other standards-making bodies and trade associations.
© Crown copyright 2015
First published 1989 Second edition 2007
Third edition 2015 ISBN 978 0 7176 6636 2 You may reuse this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view the licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/, write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Some images and illustrations may not be owned by the Crown so cannot be reproduced without permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be sent to copyright@hse.gsi.gov.uk.
This guidance is issued by the Health and Safety Executive. Following the guidance is not compulsory, unless specifically stated, and you are free to take other action. But if you do follow the guidance you will normally be doing enough to comply with the law. Health and safety inspectors seek to secure compliance with the law and may refer to this guidance.
## Contents Introduction 5
The Regulations 7
| Regulation 1 | Citation and commencement | 7 |
|--------------|---------------------------------------------|-----|
| Regulation 2 | Interpretation | 7 |
| Regulation 3 | Persons on whom duties are imposed by these | |
Regulations 13
| Regulation 4 | Systems, work activities and protective equipment | 15 |
|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------|------|
| Regulation 5 | Strength and capability of electrical equipment | 18 |
| Regulation 6 | Adverse or hazardous environments | 19 |
| Regulation 7 | Insulation, protection and placing of conductors | 22 |
| Regulation 8 | Earthing or other suitable precautions | 25 |
| Regulation 9 | Integrity of referenced conductors | 29 |
Regulation 10 Connections 30 Regulation 11 Means for protecting from excess of current 31 Regulation 12 Means for cutting off the supply and for isolation 33 Regulation 13 Precautions for work on equipment made dead 35 Regulation 14 Work on or near live conductors 37 Regulation 15 Working space, access and lighting 41 Regulation 16 Persons to be competent to prevent danger and injury 42
Regulations 17–28 43
Regulation 29 Defence 43 Regulation 30 Exemption certificates 44 Regulation 31 Extension outside Great Britain 44 Regulation 32 Disapplication of duties 45 Regulation 33 Revocations and modifications 45
## Appendix 1 46 References And Further Reading 48 Further Information 52 Introduction About This Book
1
This book gives guidance on and sets out the Electricity at Work Regulations
1989. The guidance is relevant to all work activities and premises except certain offshore workplaces and certain ships. Additional guidance specific to mines is given in *Electrical safety in mines*.1
2
The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/635) (as amended) (the
Regulations) came into force on 1 April 1990. The purpose of the Regulations is to require precautions to be taken against the risk of death or personal injury from electricity in work activities. The text of the Regulations is available free to download from legislation.gov.uk or to purchase from The Stationery Office.
3
The Regulations are made under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
(the HSW Act).2 The HSW Act applies principally to employers, the self-employed
and to employees, including certain classes of trainees. Duties are imposed on
people (referred to in this guidance as 'dutyholders') in respect of **systems**, electrical equipment and **conductors**, and in respect of work activities on or near
electrical equipment. Words in bold (above and in extracts from the Regulations) are defined in regulation 2. The duties are in addition to those imposed by the HSW Act. The 1989 Regulations pre-date the risk assessment process brought in with the 1992 version of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations. However, the risk assessment process is still required. Further information can be
found in *Managing for health and safety*.3
## What Are The Differences Between This Edition And The Previous Edition?
4
This third edition notes that regulations 17–28 and Schedule 1, which applied only to mines, were revoked in April 2015 by the Mines Regulations 2014. These Regulations also modified regulations 3 and 29.
## Who Should Read This Book?
5
The guidance is primarily for dutyholders (including those involved in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of electrical systems and equipment), engineers, technicians and their managers. It sets out the Regulations and gives technical and legal guidance on them. While it reflects the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) view of the meaning of terms used in the Regulations, only the Courts can provide a binding interpretation. The text of the Regulations is set out in *italics*, the accompanying guidance is in normal type. Coloured borders also indicate each section clearly.
## Scope
6
This guidance applies to all operational voltages.
7
The Regulations apply to all **electrical systems and equipment** (as defined)
whenever manufactured, purchased, installed or taken into use even if its manufacture or installation pre-dates the Regulations. Where electrical equipment pre-dates the Regulations this does not of itself mean that the continued use of the equipment would be in contravention of the Regulations. For example, some of the equipment to which the Regulations apply may have been made to a standard, such as a British Standard, which has since been modified or superseded. Standards such as BS 76714 can provide assistance but, ultimately, compliance
with the Regulations is required. It is likely to be reasonably practicable to replace it
with equipment made to a more recent standard when, but only when, it becomes unsafe or falls due for replacement for other than safety reasons, whichever occurs sooner.
## British Standard Bs 7671 Requirements For Electrical Installations (Also Known As The Iet Wiring Regulations)
8
BS 7671 *Requirements for electrical installations* is also known as the IET
Wiring Regulations. They are non-statutory regulations which 'relate principally to the design, selection, erection, inspection and testing of electrical installations, whether permanent or temporary, in and about buildings generally and to agricultural and horticultural premises, construction sites and caravans and their sites'.
9
BS 7671 is a code of practice which is widely recognised and accepted in the UK and compliance with it is likely to achieve compliance with relevant aspects of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989.
10
There are, however, many types of system, equipment and hazard to which BS 7671 is not applicable; for example, certain installations at mines and quarries, equipment on vehicles, systems for public electricity supply and explosion protection. Furthermore, BS 7671 applies only to installations operating at up to 1000 V ac or 1500 V dc.
11
Installations to which BS 7671 is relevant may have been installed in accordance with an earlier edition, now superseded but then current. That, in itself, would not mean that the installation would fail to comply with the Regulations.
## Electricity Safety, Quality And Continuity Regulations
12
The Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002 (ESQCR)5
impose requirements in respect of the generation, distribution and supply of electricity, including supply networks and electrical equipment. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) leads on ESQCR matters, though HSE performs some functions on DECC's behalf, in particular with regards to public safety and incident notifications. Some ESQCR obligations - such as requirements for connection with earth - overlap with the Regulations, but others provide additional requirements.
## The Regulations Regulation 1 Citation And Commencement
Regulation
1
These Regulations may be cited as the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 and shall come into force on 1st April 1990.
## Regulation 2 Interpretation
(1)
In these Regulations, unless the context otherwise requires –
Regulation
2
"circuit conductor" means any **conductor** in a **system** which is intended to carry electric current in normal conditions, or to be energised in normal conditions, and includes a combined neutral and earth conductor, but does not include a conductor provided solely to perform a protective function by connection to earth or other reference point;
"conductor" means a **conductor** of electrical energy;
"danger" means risk of **injury**;
"electrical equipment" includes anything used, intended to be used or installed for use, to generate, provide, transmit, transform, rectify, convert, conduct, distribute, control, store, measure or use electrical energy;
"injury" means death or personal injury from electric shock, electric burn, electrical explosion or arcing, or from fire or explosion initiated by electrical energy, where any such death or injury is associated with the generation, provision, transmission, transformation, rectification, conversion, conduction, distribution, control, storage, measurement or use of electrical energy; "system" means an electrical system in which all the electrical equipment is, or may be, electrically connected to a common source of electrical energy, and includes such source and such equipment.
13
Words and phrases which are in **bold** type in the text of the regulation
preceding the guidance are those which have been assigned a special meaning by being defined in regulation 2.
## Systems
14
The term 'system' includes all parts of a system, eg conductors and electrical equipment in it, and is not a reference solely to the functional circuit as a whole. It follows that something required of a system is required both of the system as a whole and of the equipment and conductors in it.
15
The definition refers to electrical systems. In the case of each system this will
include all of the electrical equipment connected together and the various electrical energy sources in that system. In the case of transformers, even though there may be galvanic separation between the various windings of the transformers, where the energy is transmitted through these from one part of the electrical system to another, the transformer and all of its windings are part of the same system.
16
The definition of 'system' includes equipment which, although not energised, may be electrically connected to a common source of electrical energy. Equipment which is readily capable of being made live by a system is therefore considered to be part of that system. For example, a lighting circuit which has been disconnected from its source of electrical energy by means of removable links or fuses is still part of that system, as is such a circuit which has been switched off even though the switch might be a double pole switch.
17
Equipment which is in any way connected to a source of electrical energy, eg a test instrument containing a source and the equipment containing or connected to that source, becomes part of a system and the Regulations apply to that system. Electrical equipment which is not connected, and cannot be readily connected, to a source of electrical energy is not part of a system. Protective conductors, if they are connected to a source, are part of that system.
18
The reference in the definition to a common source of electrical energy does not exclude systems fed by several generators or transformers. The word 'common' is included in the definition so that completely independent electrical installations are regarded as separate systems. If, however, they are electrically connected in any way they are part of the same system for the purposes of the Regulations. This may mean that the system may be an extensive electrical network covering large geographical areas over which several or even many people have control of various parts. The Regulations place duties on these people only in respect of those provisions of the Regulations which relate to matters which are within their control (see regulation 3).
19
Self-contained portable systems, such as portable generating sets, are electrical systems for the purpose of the Regulations, as are transportable systems and systems on vehicles etc.
Electrical equipment
20
'Electrical equipment' as defined in the Regulations includes every type of electrical equipment from, for example, a high-voltage transmission overhead line to a battery-powered hand lamp. There are no voltage limits in the Regulations; the criteria are whether danger (as defined) may arise. It is appropriate for the Regulations to apply even at the very lowest end of the voltage or power spectrum because the Regulations are concerned with, for example, explosion risks, which may be caused by very low levels of energy igniting flammable gases even though there may be no risk of electric shock or burn.
21
Electrical equipment (as defined) includes conductors used to distribute electrical energy such as cables, wires and leads and those used in the transmission at high voltage of bulk electrical energy, as in the national grid.
## Conductors
22
Regulation 2 defines a conductor as 'a conductor of electrical energy'. This means any material which is capable of conducting electricity (electricity is synonymous with electrical energy) and therefore includes both metals and all other
conducting materials. The definition is not limited to conductors intended to carry current and so includes, for example, metal structures, salt water, ionised gases and conducting particles. The conductance of most materials varies with parameters such as temperature, eg glass is conducting when molten (and is then a conductor, as defined) whereas in its normal, solid, state it is a good insulator and finds many applications as such. For the purposes of the Regulations, while such materials conduct electricity, they are 'conductors'.
## Guidance 2 Circuit Conductor
23
This definition is used in regulations 8 and 9 only. It distinguishes from all other conductors those conductors whose normal function is to carry load current or to be energised (see Figure 1).
## Danger
24
The Regulations use the two defined terms, 'danger' and 'injury'. 'Danger' is defined as 'risk of *injury'*. 'Injury' is defined in terms of certain classes of potential harm to people.
25
Where the term 'prevent danger' is used it should therefore be read as
'prevent the risk of *injury*'.
26
The Regulations make requirements to 'prevent danger' or 'prevent injury' - or in the case of regulation 16 - 'to prevent danger or, where appropriate, injury'. The purpose of the distinction between 'injury' and 'danger' is to accommodate those circumstances when people must work on or so near live equipment that there is a risk of 'injury', ie where 'danger' is present and cannot be prevented. In these circumstances, under regulation 14, danger may be present but injury must be prevented.
27
The type of injuries with which the Regulations are concerned are detailed in the definition of 'injury' in the regulation (see paragraphs 29 and 30). The scope of the Regulations does not include consequential dangers such as crushing injuries caused by a machine going out of control following an electrical malfunction. Such other dangers are subject to other legal requirements under, for example, the HSW Act, the Factories Act 1961 and the Office, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963.
28
If no danger arises from a particular system, item of electrical equipment or conductor and will not arise, then the Regulations, although applying to it, do not require any precautions to be taken. However, in order for there to be no danger, there would have to be no risk of electric shock, electric burn, fire, arcing or explosion.
## Injury
29
The purpose of the Regulations is to prevent death or personal injury to any person from electrical causes in connection with work activities.
30
'Injury' means death or injury to any person from:
(a)
electric shock;
(b)
electric burn;
(c)
fires of electrical origin;
(d)
electric arcing;
(e)
explosions initiated or caused by electricity.
Electric shock
31
The human body responds in several ways to electrical current flowing through it. The sensation of shock is only one such effect and this can be extremely painful. When a shock is received, the electric current may take multiple paths through the body and its intensity at any one point is difficult or impossible to predict. The passage of electric current may cause muscular contractions, respiratory failure, fibrillation of the heart, cardiac arrest or injury from internal burns. Any of these can be fatal.
32
The nature and severity of injury depends upon the magnitude, duration and
path of the current through the body and, in the case of alternating current (ac), on its frequency. It is not possible to identify precise thresholds for the existence of hazard because a judgement has to be made in each case taking all the circumstances into account, such as body weight, physical condition of the victim and so forth. Nevertheless, a guide to the sort of current magnitudes which mark the occurrence of various dangerous effects is given in the International Electrotechnical Commission's (IEC's) publication Guide to effects of current on human beings and livestock. Special aspects relating to human beings.6 Quite low currents, of the order of only a few milliamps (mA), can cause fatal electric shock.
33
The likely effects of shock current are mainly influenced by:
(a)
voltage;
(b)
frequency;
(c)
duration;
(d)
any impedance in the current path.
34
The effects of electric shock are most acute at around the public electricity supply frequency of 50 hertz. Susceptibility to electric shock is increased if a person is in:
(a)
good electrical contact with earth, such as in damp or wet conditions or in conducting locations such as inside a metal tank;
(b)
hot environments where people may become damp due to perspiration or humidity, thus reducing the insulation protection offered by clothing.
35
The variability of conditions makes it impossible to specify a voltage which is guaranteed to be safe in all situations. In any situation, you should consider the risk of injury from electric shock against published guidance as to the voltages and other factors which have been found by extensive experience to be safe. This includes national and international standards and technical publications. However, these documents should be interpreted carefully and with a view to the limitations of their various scopes and assumptions. You should always consider the conventional public electricity supply voltage of 230 V ac as potentially fatally dangerous. Many fatal electric shock accidents have occurred from contact with conductors live at this voltage and possibly the most dangerous situation is where contact is made with conductors by each hand, current then flowing 'hand to hand' across the heart region.
36
The following documents give some guidance (see References):
(a)
Guide to effects of current on human beings and livestock (IEC TS 60479);
(b)
Requirements for electrical installations (BS 7671);
(c)
Safety of equipment electrically connected to a telecommunications network
(IEC 62151).7
Electric burn
37
Electric burns are different from burns due to fire (see paragraphs 39–40), arcing (see paragraphs 41–42) or explosion (see paragraphs 44–46). They are due to the heating effect caused by the passage of electric current through body tissues. They are most commonly associated with electric shock and often occur in and on the skin layers at the point of contact with the electrical conductors which gave rise to the electric shock. Electrical arcs jump across gaps and can cause burns.
38
At high frequencies, eg radio frequencies (RF), which include microwaves, it
may not even be necessary for contact to be made with live conductors for an electric burn to be received. In the case of RF, the heating is by absorption of the electromagnetic wave energy by a dielectric loss process in the body of the victim. RF burns can thus be extremely deep within the body. RF burning can occur without the sensation of shock, particularly if no contact is made with the RF conductors, and can therefore cause severe injury before the victim is aware of their occurrence. Electric burns are usually painful and very slow to heal. Permanent scarring is common.
Fires of an electrical origin
39
Fires may be started by electricity in a number of ways. The main causes are:
(a)
overheating of cables and electrical equipment due to overloading of conductors;
(b)
leakage currents due to poor or inadequate insulation;
(c)
overheating of flammable materials placed too close to electrical equipment which is otherwise operating normally;
(d)
the ignition of flammable materials by arcing or sparking of electrical equipment, including the scattering of hot particles from electrical equipment.
40
The injuries associated with fire are usually burns but may include other injuries such as smoke inhalation, each with the potential to kill.
Arcing
41
Arcing causes a particular type of burn injury which is distinct from other types. Arcing generates ultraviolet radiation which causes damage similar to severe sunburn. Molten metal particles from the arc itself can penetrate burn and lodge in the flesh. These effects are additional to any radiated heat damage caused by the arc. 42
On its own, ultraviolet radiation can cause damage; sensitive skin and eyes are especially vulnerable to arc flash. ('Arc eye' is commonly encountered with electric arc welding if the proper precautions are not adopted.)
43
Arcing faults can occur if the energy available at a piece of electrical equipment is sufficient to maintain a conductive path through the air or insulation between two conductors which are at different potentials. Under fault flashover conditions, currents many times the nominal rating or setting of a protective device may flow before those devices operate to clear the fault. Much energy is dissipated in the arc and, depending on the electrical protection, may continue long enough to inflict very serious arcing burns or to initiate a fire. These periods can be as short as 0.2 seconds. Arc flashovers caused during work on live circuit conductors are likely to be particularly hazardous because the worker is likely to be very near to or even enveloped by the arc. Such cases often lead to very serious, sometimes fatal, burn injuries.
Explosion
44
This category includes those injuries caused by explosions either of an electrical nature or those ignited by an electrical source.
45
Electrical explosions include the violent and catastrophic rupture of any electrical equipment. Switchgear, motors and power cables are liable to explode if they are subjected to excessive currents, which release violent electromagnetic forces and dissipate heat energy, or if they suffer prolonged internal arcing faults.
46
Explosions caused by ignition from an electrical source include ignition of flammable vapours, gases, liquids and dusts by electrostatic discharge, electric sparks, arcs or the high surface temperature of electrical equipment.
## Guidance 2 Other Words Used In The Regulations
Charged/live (as used in regulations 8, 13 and 14)
47
The terms 'charged' and 'live' have different meanings; they are not defined in the Regulations so they take their ordinary meaning. 'Live' means equipment that is at a voltage by being connected to a source of electricity. 'Charged' means that the item has acquired a charge either because it is live or because it has become charged by other means, such as static or induction charging, or has retained or regained a charge due to capacitance effects even though it may be disconnected from the rest of the system.
Dead (as used in regulations 13 and 14)
48
The term 'dead' is not defined in the Regulations so it takes its ordinary meaning. Thus, in the context of the Regulations, for a conductor to be 'dead' means that it is neither 'live' nor 'charged'.
## Other Words Used In The Guidance
High voltage, low voltage
49
High voltage is a voltage in excess of 1000 V ac or 1500 V dc (direct current). Low voltage is a voltage up to and including 1000 V ac or 1500 V dc.
Live work
50
Live work is work on or near conductors that are accessible and 'live' or 'charged'.
Note that testing of live exposed conductors using a test instrument is live work.
## Regulation 3 Persons On Whom Duties Are Imposed By These Regulations
(1)
Except where otherwise expressly provided in these Regulations, it shall
## Regulation 3
be the duty of every –
(a)
employer and self-employed person to comply with the provisions of these Regulations in so far as they relate to matters which are within his control; and
(b)
[(i) mine operator, in relation to a mine within the meaning of regulation 3 of the Mines Regulations 2014, and]*
(ii) operator, in relation to a quarry within the meaning of regulation 3 of the Quarries Regulations 1999,
to ensure that all requirements or prohibitions imposed by or under these
Regulations are complied with in so far as they relate to the mine of
which he is the [mine operator]* or quarry of which he is the operator and
to matters which are within his control.
(2)
It shall be the duty of every employee while at work –
(a)
to co-operate with his employer so far as is necessary to enable any duty placed on that employer by the provisions of these Regulations to be complied with; and
(b)
to comply with the provisions of these Regulations in so far as they relate to matters which are within his control.
## Guidance 3 Employer
51
For the purposes of the Regulations, an employer is any person or body who:
(a)
employs one or more individuals under a contract of employment or apprenticeship; or
(b)
provides training under the schemes to which the HSW Act applies through the Health and Safety (Training for Employment) Regulations 1990
(SI 1990/1380).
## Self-Employed
52
A self-employed person is an individual who works for gain or reward other than under a contract of employment, whether or not they employ others. They encounter the same risks as employed people.
## Employee
53
Regulation 3(2)(a) reiterates the duty placed on employees by section 7(b) of the HSW Act.
54
Regulation 3(2)(b) places duties on employees equivalent to those placed on employers and self-employed people where these are matters within their control. This will include those trainees who will be considered as employees under the Regulations described in paragraph 51.
55
This arrangement recognises the level of responsibility which many employees in the electrical trades and professions are expected to take on as part of their job. The 'control' which they exercise over the electrical safety in any particular circumstances will determine to what extent they hold responsibilities under the Regulations to ensure that the Regulations are complied with.
56
A person may find themselves responsible for causing danger to arise elsewhere in an electrical system, at a point beyond their own installation. This situation may arise, for example, due to unauthorised or unscheduled back feeding from their installation onto the system, or to raising the fault power level on the system above rated and agreed maximum levels due to connecting extra generation capacity etc. Because such circumstances are within their control, the effect of regulation 3 is to bring responsibilities for compliance with the rest of the Regulations to that person, thus making them a dutyholder.
## Absolute/Reasonably Practicable
57
Duties in some of the Regulations are subject to the qualifying term
'reasonably practicable'. Where qualifying terms are absent the requirement in the regulation is said to be absolute. The meaning of reasonably practicable has been well established in law. The interpretations in paragraphs 59–60 are given only as a guide to dutyholders.
Absolute
58
If the requirement in a regulation is 'absolute', for example if the requirement is not qualified by the words 'so far as is reasonably practicable', the requirement must be met regardless of cost or any other consideration. Regulations making such absolute requirements are subject to the defence provision of regulation 29.
Guidance
3
Reasonably practicable
59
Generally, you should do everything 'reasonably practicable' to protect people from harm. This means balancing the level of risk against the measures needed to control the real risk in terms of money, time or trouble. However, you do not need to take action if it would be grossly disproportionate to the level of risk. 60
In the context of the Regulations, where the risk is very often that of death, eg from electrocution, and where the nature of the precautions which can be taken are so often very simple and cheap, eg insulation, the level of duty to prevent that danger approaches that of an absolute duty.
## Regulation 4 Systems, Work Activities And Protective Equipment
(1)
All **systems** shall at all times be of such construction as to prevent, so
Regulation
4
far as is reasonably practicable, danger.
(2)
As may be necessary to prevent danger, **all systems** shall be maintained so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, such **danger**.
(3)
Every work activity, including operation, use and maintenance of a system and work near a **system**, shall be carried out in such a manner as not to give rise, so far as is reasonably practicable, to danger.
(4)
Any equipment provided under these Regulations for the purpose of protecting persons at work on or near **electrical equipment** shall be suitable for the use for which it is provided, be maintained in a condition suitable for that use, and be properly used.
Guidance
4
61
Regulation 4 covers, in a general way, those aspects of electrical systems and
equipment, and work on or near these, which are fundamental to electrical safety.
## Regulation 4(1)
62
The word 'construction' in the regulation has a wide application. It may be considered to cover the physical condition and arrangement of the components of a system at any time during its life. It will include aspects such as the design of the system and the equipment comprising that system.
63
In assessing the suitability of the construction of electrical systems, consideration should be given to all likely or reasonably foreseeable conditions of actual application or use of the electrical equipment in the system. This will include the testing, commissioning, operation and maintenance of the equipment throughout the life of the system.
64
In particular, you should consider:
(a)
the manufacturer's assigned or other certified rating of the equipment;
(b)
the likely load and fault conditions;
(c)
the need for suitable electrical protective devices;
(d)
the fault level at the point of supply and the ability of the equipment and the protective devices to handle likely fault conditions;
(e)
any contribution to the fault level from the connected loads such as from motors;
Guidance
4
(f)
the environmental conditions which will have a bearing on the mechanical strength and protection required of the equipment;
(g)
the user's requirements of the installation;
(h)
the risks that a system may create to adjacent work activities and the public;
(i)
the manner in which commissioning, testing and subsequent maintenance or other work may need to be carried out.
65
The safety of a system depends upon the proper selection of all the electrical equipment in the system and the proper consideration of the inter-relationship between the individual items of equipment. For example, electrical protection against overloads and earth faults etc may need to be provided in one part of a system to protect another, possibly remote, part of the system. Also, where electrical energy is transformed or converted from one voltage to another, you should take precautions to prevent danger arising from the lower-voltage conductors becoming charged above their normal voltage.
## Regulation 4(2)
66
Regulation 4(2) is concerned with the need for maintenance to be done to ensure safety of the system, rather than with the activity of doing the maintenance in a safe manner (which is required by regulation 4(3)).
67
The obligation to maintain arises only if danger would otherwise result. The maintenance should be sufficient to prevent danger so far as is reasonably practicable.
68
Inspection and, where necessary, testing of equipment is an essential part of any preventive maintenance programme. Practical experience of use may indicate an adjustment to the frequency at which preventive maintenance needs to be carried out. This is a matter for the judgement of the dutyholder, who should seek all the information they need to make this judgement including reference to the equipment manufacturer's guidance.
69
Records can aid demonstration of compliance and allow useful analysis of equipment condition, although keeping records is not a legal requirement. Maintenance records (including test results), preferably kept throughout the working life of an electrical system, will allow the condition of the equipment and the effectiveness of maintenance policies to be monitored. Without effective monitoring, dutyholders cannot be certain that the requirement for maintenance has been complied with.
70
British Standard Codes of Practice offering guidance on maintenance are referred to in Further reading. Advice on inspection and testing of some fixed installations is given in BS 7671.
## Regulation 4(3) 71 Regulation 4(3) Requires That Work Activities Of Any Sort, Whether Directly Or
indirectly associated with an electrical system, must be carried out in a way which, as far as is reasonably practicable, does not give rise to danger. Regulations 12 to 16 provide more specific requirements in connection with work of an electrical nature on or near electrical systems. See Electricity at work: Safe working practices8 for more information
## Guidance 4 Work Activities Associated With Electrical Systems
72
In the case of electrical work, it is preferable that the conductors are made dead before work starts (see regulations 12, 13 and 14). In such cases, it is essential that the equipment is isolated (note that 'isolation' is defined in regulation 12(2), which will include securing by locking off etc; see also paragraph 75) and the conductors proved dead at the point of work before the work starts. Where a test instrument or voltage indicator is used for this purpose, this device should itself be proved immediately before and immediately after testing the conductors.
73
Safe systems of work incorporating safety isolation procedures are important for work on equipment which is to be made dead before work starts. Particular consideration is needed where multiple sources of supply can exist, eg connection of alternative generation. These are also discussed under regulations 12 and 13. Some work, such as fault finding and testing or live jointing by the electricity supply industry, may require electrical equipment to remain energised during the work. In these cases, regulation 14 makes particular requirements and regulation 4(4) is also likely to be relevant in terms of the protective equipment which may need to be provided. *Electricity at work: Safe working practices* gives further guidance.
74
The operation, maintenance and testing of electrical systems and equipment must only be carried out by those people who are competent for that work (see also regulation 16).
## Disused Electrical Equipment And Systems
75
Before electrical equipment or systems are decommissioned they must be disconnected from all sources of supply and isolated. Similarly, electrical equipment or systems which are disused, or no longer required or abandoned for any reason, should be disconnected from all sources of supply and isolated. Isolation (as defined in regulation 12(2)) requires taking effective steps to ensure that it is dead and cannot become inadvertently re-energised or charged by induction or capacitance effects. (Regulations 12, 13 and 14 are also likely to be relevant.)
Suitable labels or notices to bring people's attention to the state of the equipment are likely to be necessary in preventing inadvertent re-energisation.
## Other Work Near Electrical Systems
76
Regulation 4(3) is wide in its application and includes work of a non-electrical nature where there is a risk of electrical injury. A common example is excavation near to live electric power cables and work near live overhead power lines, where the risks can be severe. Advice on these matters is given in HSE publications listed in References and further reading. You must also consider the requirements of regulation 14.
## Regulation 4(4)
77
The defence (regulation 29) is available in any proceedings for an offence under this part of regulation 4.
78
The term 'protective equipment' can be of wide application but typically includes those special tools, protective clothing and insulating screening materials etc necessary to do work safely on live electrical equipment. The requirement for
Guidance
4
suitable precautions to prevent injury may arise under regulation 14. The regulation requires the protective equipment to be:
(a)
suitable for use;
(b)
maintained in that condition;
(c)
properly used.
79
Regulation 4(4) is not qualified by 'so far as is reasonably practicable', nor does the regulation refer either to injury or the risk of injury, ie electrical danger. The impact of the regulation is that, where protective equipment is provided in order to comply with any of the other regulations, the equipment must conform to the requirements of regulation 4(4). Advice on safe working practices is given in HSE guidance. Specifications for certain types of protective equipment such as insulating gloves and floor mats are listed in relevant standards in References and further reading.
## Regulation 5 Strength And Capability Of Electrical Equipment
Regulation
5
No **electrical equipment** shall be put into use where its strength and capability may be exceeded in such a way as may give rise to **danger**.
80
The defence (regulation 29) is available in any proceedings for an offence
Guidance
5
under this regulation.
81
Before equipment is energised, the characteristics of the system to which the equipment is connected must be taken into account. This should include those existing under normal conditions, possible transient conditions and prospective fault conditions, so that the equipment is not subjected to stress which it is not capable of handling without giving rise to danger. The effects to be considered include voltage stress and the heating and electromagnetic effects of current.
## Strength And Capability
82
The term 'strength and capability' of electrical equipment refers to the ability of the equipment to withstand the thermal, electromagnetic, electrochemical or other effects of the electrical currents which might be expected to flow when the equipment is part of a system. These currents include, for example, load currents, transient overloads, fault currents, pulses of current and, for alternating current circuits, currents at various power factors and frequencies. Insulation must be effective to enable the equipment to withstand the applied voltage and any likely transient over-voltages.
83
A knowledge of the electrical specification and the tests, usually based on the requirements of national or international standards, will assist the user in identifying the withstand properties of the equipment so that it may be selected and installed to comply with this regulation. Such tests are normally carried out either by the manufacturer or by an accredited testing organisation.
## Rating
84
The strength and capability of electrical equipment is not necessarily the same as its rating. Usually the rating is that which has been assigned by the manufacturer following a number of agreed tests.
85
Electrical equipment should be used within the manufacturer's rating
Guidance
5
(continuous, intermittent or fault rating as appropriate) and in accordance with any
instructions supplied with the equipment.
## Fault Conditions
86
So that equipment remains safe under prospective fault conditions, you must select equipment that takes account of the fault levels and the characteristics of the electrical protection which has been provided for the purpose of interrupting or reducing fault current (excess current protection is required by regulation 11). Most electrical equipment will be able to withstand short-circuit currents safely for limited periods only. The considerations also extend to conductors and equipment provided solely for protective purposes, eg earthing conductors must be adequately rated to survive beyond fault clearance times to ensure satisfactory protective gear operation and fault clearance.
## Regulation 6 Adverse Or Hazardous Environments Electrical Equipment Which May Reasonably Foreseeably Be Exposed To –
Regulation
6
(a)
mechanical damage;
(b)
the effects of the weather, natural hazards, temperature or pressure;
(c)
the effects of wet, dirty, dusty or corrosive conditions; or
(d)
any flammable or explosive substance, including dusts, vapours or gases,
shall be of such construction or as necessary protected as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, **danger** arising from such exposure.
87
The regulation draws attention to the kinds of adverse conditions where
Guidance
6
danger could arise if equipment is not constructed and protected to withstand such exposure. Electrical equipment must be suitable for the environment and conditions
of use to which it may reasonably foreseeably be exposed so that danger which
may arise from such exposure will be prevented so far as is reasonably practicable. The following paragraphs detail some of the conditions to which electrical equipment may be subjected. Guidance is given in these paragraphs and additional guidance may be found in the documents listed in References and further reading. Particular attention should be paid to the IP rating (Index of Protection) of equipment (see paragraph 108). Guidance is also given under regulation 8 on the use of reduced voltage systems on construction sites and elsewhere where particularly arduous or conducting locations may exist (see paragraphs 142–144).
## Effects
88
The conditions at which the regulation is directed are those occurring naturally as well as those resulting from human activities, including the following:
(a)
mechanical damage including impact, stress, strain, abrasion, wear, vibration and hydraulic and pneumatic pressure;
(b)
effects of the weather, which include both short-term (eg wind, ice and snow, lightning) and long-term (eg temperature cycling) effects;
(c)
natural hazards, which are those resulting from other than man's activities and include animals, trees and plants, tides and solar radiation etc;
(d)
temperature and pressure;
Guidance
6
(e)
liquids which include water and other liquids and their effects, including humidity, condensation, flooding, splashing, or immersion in these, cleaning
with liquids, hosing down and solvent and solvent vapour action (electrically conducting and non-conducting liquids may present different aspects of electrical danger);
(f)
dirty conditions which include all contamination as a result of liquids or solids (electrically conducting and non-conducting dusts may present different aspects of electrical danger);
(g)
corrosive conditions which include all chemical actions and reactions and electrochemical effects;
(h)
flammable substances, including flammable dusts and flammable vapours;
(i)
explosive substances which include both any mixture of solids, liquids or gases which is capable of exploding and substances intended to be explosive
(ie explosives).
89
When determining the suitability of equipment for particular environments or conditions of use, you only need to consider exposure or effects which are reasonably foreseeable.
## Mechanical Damage
90
The mechanical damage to which electrical equipment may be subjected varies considerably from one environment to another. For example, equipment designed for use in an office is unlikely to be suitable, without further protection or careful siting, in a workshop or farm environment.
91
The effects covered by regulation 6(b), (c) and (d) may also impose mechanical stresses on electrical equipment. For example, ice and wind loading, or loss of mechanical strength due to expansion and contraction resulting from temperature changes, can give rise to mechanical damage.
92
This regulation requires the mechanical protection, if necessary, of the insulation which is required under regulation 7(a). For example, to protect against impact damage, steel wire armouring of a cable may be necessary. Further suitable protection in addition to basic insulation may be required to form the physical protection necessary to ensure the continuing integrity of basic insulation, eg conduits or a trunking for single-insulated conductors or the armouring or tough external sheathing of composite or multi-core electric cable.
## Weather, Natural Hazards And Extreme Conditions
93
Precautions taken to protect a site, structure or building from natural hazards and extreme weather conditions may give some protection to the associated electrical installation, but additional protection or precautions may also be necessary.
94
Extremes of temperature, pressure or humidity may result either from climatic
conditions or from adjacent plant or from the use of the electrical equipment itself. Standards frequently quote the range of service conditions for electrical equipment, including temperature limits, and users should consider these when selecting equipment.
95
Guidance on assessing the need for lightning protection of structures and buildings etc, the design and provision of systems and their inspection, testing and maintenance is given in publications listed in References and further reading.
## Guidance 6 Corrosive Effects
96
If substances are present in the environment that accelerate corrosion of metallic enclosures or fittings, special materials or surface treatments may be necessary. In these cases, the electrical equipment must be protected, eg motors, and be of a type which is totally enclosed by an appropriate corrosion-resistant housing, ie not ventilated to the atmosphere.
97
Insulating materials and other materials used in electrical equipment may be affected by chemical agents or solvents. Cubicles housing electrical control equipment in hostile environments may need to be kept purged or pressurised with clean air or, in special cases, inert gas. See Further reading for details of relevant standards.
## Dirt And Dusts
98
Most industrial enclosures for electrical equipment do not resist the entry of fine dusts. Equipment must be constructed to resist the entry of dust and dirt where this may give rise to electrical and mechanical failures. Appropriate regular inspection and cleaning are recommended where dirt and dusts are likely to accumulate, eg portable motor-driven equipment incorporating ventilation slots which can cause the accumulation of potentially hazardous layers of dirt and dust.
## Combustible Dusts
99
In cloud form, some dusts create an explosion hazard, while layers of combustible dust on electrical equipment can give rise to fire hazards. The selection, construction or installation of equipment exposed to combustible dust must guard against the possibility of ignition. The maximum temperature attainable on the surface of any electrical equipment where these dusts may be deposited should always be below the temperature at which any ignition, charring or smoking of dust takes place. However, appropriate dust control measures and general cleanliness which minimise the problem at source are recommended. See References and further reading for details of relevant standards.
## Potentially Explosive Atmospheres
100 If electrical equipment is used where a flammable or explosive atmosphere is likely to occur, the equipment must be constructed so that it is not liable to ignite that atmosphere. Further information is available in the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations.9
101 The selection and installation of equipment for use in potentially explosive atmospheres should be guided by the recommendations contained in the HSE guidance and British Standards on the subject. Existing installations complying with the recommendations of earlier standards should be acceptable for continuing service, subject to proper maintenance.
102 Such electrical equipment must be chosen from that which has been certified as conforming to an appropriate standard.
103 Uncertified electrical equipment must not be used unless it will provide at least an equivalent level of safety to that provided by appropriately certified equipment.
Guidance
6
104 Some manufacturing processes, eg electrostatic paint spraying, make use of
the characteristics of static electricity and the design of electrical equipment should
be such that the ignition of solvents, vapours or particulate substances is prevented. See References and further reading for details of relevant standards.
105 The maintenance and repair of explosion-protected equipment is a specialised field of work and must only be carried out by those who have the necessary training and experience.
## Other Flammable Substances
106 Electrical equipment that generates heat or produces sparks must not be placed where either the heat emitted or sparking could lead to the uncontrolled ignition of any substance.
107 The construction of the equipment should either exclude the substances from any part of the equipment which may be a source of ignition (eg by suitable enclosure) or should ensure that the equipment operates at sufficiently low temperature and energy levels as not to be a source of ignition under likely conditions of use and fault.
## Classification System Of Ingress Protection (Ip Rating)
108 There is an internationally recognised system of classifying the degree of protection provided by enclosures against the ingress of solid objects and moisture, and the protection afforded against contact with any live parts within the enclosure for all types of electrical equipment. The system is commonly known as the IP rating system and is detailed in a number of standards which are listed in Further reading.
## Regulation 7 Insulation, Protection And Placing Of Conductors
All **conductors** in a **system** which may give rise to danger shall either –
Regulation
7
(a)
be suitably covered with insulating material and as necessary protected
so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, **danger**; or
(b)
have such precautions taken in respect of them (including, where appropriate, their being suitably placed) as will prevent, so far as is
reasonably practicable, **danger**.
Guidance
7
109 The danger to be protected against generally arises from differences in
electrical potential (voltage) between circuit conductors or between such conductors and other conductors in a system - usually conductors at earth potential. The conventional approach is either to insulate the conductors or place them so people are unable to receive an electric shock or burn from them.
110 Some form of basic insulation, or physical separation, of conductors in a system is necessary for the system to function. That functional minimum, however, may not be sufficient to comply with the requirements of regulation 7. Factors which must be taken into account are:
(a)
the nature and severity of the probable danger;
(b)
the functions to be performed by the equipment;
(c)
the location of the equipment, its environment and the conditions to which it will be subjected;
(d)
any work which is likely to be done on, with or near the equipment.
## Insulation
111 Regulation 7(a) states that conductors must be insulated. Suitable insulation of the conductors in an electrical system is, in the majority of cases, the primary and necessary safeguard to prevent danger from electric shock, either between live conductors or between a live conductor and earth. It will also prevent danger from fire and explosion arising from contact of conductors either with each other or with earth. Energy from quite low levels of voltage (and levels insufficient to create a shock risk) can ignite a flammable atmosphere. The quality and effectiveness of insulation therefore needs to be commensurate with the voltages applied to the conductors and the conditions of use.
112 BS 7671 gives some advice on these matters for fixed electrical installations up to 1000 V ac or 1500 V dc.
113 The regulation requires that the insulation be protected as necessary, so that danger may be prevented so far as is reasonably practicable. Often, the protection required is to prevent mechanical damage to the insulation but may include any of the effects detailed under regulation 6. Examples of such protection would be the use of steel trunking and conduits or the use of steel armoured cables.
## Other Precautions Including Placing
114 Regulation 7(b) permits the alternative of having such precautions taken in respect of the conductors. These precautions may include the suitable placing of conductors. They may comprise strictly controlled working practices reinforced by measures such as written instructions, training and warning notices etc. The precautions must prevent danger so far as is reasonably practicable. Examples where bare conductors are used in conjunction with suitable precautions are to be found in many applications including overhead electric power lines, down-shop conductors for overhead travelling cranes in factories etc, railway electrification using either separate conductor and running rails or overhead pick-up wires, and certain large electrolytic and electrothermal plants.
115 The placing of overhead electric power lines is specified in ESQCR (see Introduction for more information).
116 Electric railway and tramway operators, in conjunction with the Office of Rail and Road, have developed standards and safety specifications for the construction of those parts of their systems which use bare conductors at overhead and at track level, together with safe systems of work.
117 Safety is ensured in electrochemical plants which use high current by such means as the separation of conductors which are at different potentials, the use of insulating working platforms and unearthed or isolated electrical supplies (see paragraphs 121–123).
118 Suitable placing of the conductors may, on its own, go a considerable way towards preventing danger, for example where the conductors are within a secure enclosure or where they are placed overhead at such a height that contact with
Guidance
7
these conductors is not reasonably foreseeable. Guidance on the security and protection of enclosures and the measure of their accessibility as determined by
standard (finger) tests is given in standards listed in Further reading.
119 However, if the placing of the conductors cannot alone be relied upon to prevent danger, then additional precautions must be taken and rigorously applied. For example, in the case of live railway conductor rails the precautions may include warning notices, barriers and special training for railway staff. Electrolytic and electrothermal processes are further examples and are covered in paragraphs 121–123.
120 Dutyholders should carefully consider the inherent risks that may still exist if bare conductors are placed where they cannot normally be touched, eg maintenance activities around the conductors of an electric overhead crane system. Firstly, the protection of the equipment is required under regulation 6 for a range of reasonably foreseeable effects and, secondly, there may be occasions when people will require access to the area or enclosure where such conductors are located, eg substations and test areas. Where work is to be done with the conductors live, regulation 14 is relevant and the guidance under that regulation also applies.
## Electrolytic And Electrothermal Processes
121 It is often necessary for industrial electrolytic and electrothermal processes, including large secondary battery installations, to adopt a range of precautions. As the work activity is likely to be near the live and uninsulated conductors, the precautions adopted will go towards satisfying both part (b) of regulation 7 and regulation 14.
122 Precautions may include: (a)
segregating the process area and limiting access to those people who are trained and experienced in the process and to people who are supervised so that injuries are prevented;
(b)
ensuring a separation of conductors appropriate to the difference in potentials;
(c)
use of insulating work platforms;
(d)
use of electrical supplies which are isolated from earth together with protective devices to ensure this isolation;
(e)
exclusion of unnecessary conducting materials and implements from the process area;
(f)
use of protective clothing, eg in electric arc welding processes; such clothing offers protection against both the hot welding process and against the electric shock risk.
123 Details of advice on the safe use of electric induction furnaces and electric arc
welding are given in Further reading.
## Regulation 8 Earthing Or Other Suitable Precautions
Regulation
8
Precautions shall be taken, either by earthing or by other suitable means, to prevent
danger arising when any **conductor** (other than a **circuit conductor**) which may reasonably foreseeably become charged as a result of either the use of a **system**, or a fault in a **system**, becomes so charged; and, for the purposes of ensuring compliance with this regulation, a **conductor** shall be regarded as earthed when it
is connected to the general mass of earth by **conductors** of sufficient strength and
current-carrying capability to discharge electrical energy to earth.
Guidance
8
124 The defence (regulation 29) is available in any proceedings for an offence
under this regulation.
125 The regulation applies to any conductor (other than circuit conductors), including the conductive parts of equipment, such as outer metallic casings, which can be touched and, though not live, may become live under fault conditions.
126 Conductors which, although not part of a system, are within electrostatic or electromagnetic fields created by a system may be subject to this regulation. Appropriate precautions are necessary if the induced voltages or currents are large enough to give rise to danger.
## Dangers
127 Dangers which may arise as a result of failure to take the necessary precautions include:
(a)
risk of shock from conductors which are or may be exposed so that they may be touched and which become charged at dangerous voltage relative to earth or to other exposed conductors;
(b)
risk of burns, fire, arcing or explosion due to currents of excessive magnitude and/or duration in such conductors.
128 The requirements of the regulation may be met in several different ways, depending on the circumstances, including:
(a)
ensuring that such conductors do not become charged. This has the effect of excluding the conductors from the scope of this regulation;
(b)
ensuring that if such conductors do become charged the values of voltage and current and the duration are such that danger will not arise;
(c)
ensuring that if such conductors do become charged the environment is such that danger will not arise.
129 Techniques employed for achieving the above include:
(a)
double insulation;
(b)
earthing;
(c)
connection to a common voltage reference point on the system;
(d)
equipotential bonding;
(e)
use of safe voltages;
(f)
earth-free, non-conducting environments;
(g)
current/energy limitation;
(h)
separated or isolated systems.
130 You may employ the above techniques singly or in combination.
Double insulation
131 The principle of 'double insulation' is that the live conductors of the electrical equipment are covered by two discrete layers or components of insulation, each of which would adequately insulate the conductor but which together ensure an improbability of danger arising from insulation failure. This arrangement avoids the need for any external metalwork of the equipment to be connected to a protective conductor or to earth. Double insulation has been found to be particularly suitable for certain types of portable equipment, eg electric motor-driven tools etc. See Further reading for details of relevant standards. However, the integrity of this safety protection depends upon the layers of insulation remaining in sound condition and this in turn requires the equipment to be properly constructed, used and maintained.
Earthing
132 It is the practice in the UK for the public electricity supply system at the usual distribution voltages of 230 V single-phase, 400 V three-phase, to be referenced to earth by a deliberate electrical connection made at the distribution substations or power transformers. It is the existence of this system earthing which enables earth faults on electrical equipment to be detected and the electrical supply to faulty equipment to be cut off automatically.
133 Many 230/400 V power installations are designed so that the automatic interruption of the supply in the event of an earth fault is achieved by the operation of fuses or automatic circuit breakers (MCBs etc). In most cases, these devices will have been selected to provide the additional protective function of interrupting excess current required under regulation 11. In these circumstances the earth fault current must be large enough to rupture the fuse quickly. The magnitude of the fault current under full earth fault conditions is governed mainly by the combined impedance of the fault loop, which will include the impedance of the fault itself, that of the earthing or protective conductors, the circuit conductors and that of the source.
134 Tests must therefore be carried out on new installations and at appropriate intervals thereafter to ascertain that the earth fault (loop) impedances are low enough to ensure the electrical protective devices such as fuses, circuit breakers etc will operate in the event of a breakdown of insulation leading to an 'earth fault'. This includes the temporary electrical system used at a construction site in the process of carrying out construction activities.
135 Acceptable values of earth loop impedance and interruption times etc, for final installations up to 1000 V, can be found in BS 7671. It is rarely sufficient to rely on an earth rod or rods to provide sufficient conductance for return fault currents. Separate protective earth cables or conductors connected to the neutral point of the supply are usually necessary unless other measures, such as the use of sensitive residual current protection equipment, are used to detect earth fault currents.
136 For the duration of the fault, the electrical bonding of exposed conductive parts and their connection to earth serves to limit the shock risk from the transient voltages appearing between metallic enclosures of equipment in the system or between a metallic enclosure and earth. Equipment earthing therefore includes the bonding of metallic enclosures, cable armouring, conduits and trunking etc, so that these conductors are electrically continuous and securely connected to the general mass of earth at one or more points.
137 Earthing and bonding conductors must be suitable for the maximum current which they may carry under fault conditions and be capable of surviving the worst-
case fault (see paragraph 82). Their construction and strength must be adequate to withstand likely wear and tear. Where it might otherwise be difficult to ensure the continued effectiveness of earthing and bonding arrangements, it may be necessary to provide supplementary protection such as protective earth conductor monitoring. 138 Accidents have been caused by the metalwork of portable or transportable equipment becoming live as a result of the combined effects of a fault and highimpedance, protective conductor connections. The danger may be reduced by the use of a residual current device (RCD) designed to operate rapidly at small leakage currents (typically not exceeding 30 mA), although these devices do not eliminate the risk of electric shock. RCDs should not be considered as the sole means of protection but as an additional protective measure. They should be operated regularly using the test trip button. This test trip procedure is important in maintaining the effectiveness of most types of RCD.
139 Electric arc welding brings special problems associated with earthing practices. Stray currents from electrical arc welding can damage the protective earthing conductors of electrical installations. Information on earthing practice is available in a number of publications, some of which are listed in References and further reading.
Connection to a common voltage reference point on the system
140 In UK public electricity supply systems where transformer neutral points are connected to earth, the voltage reference point is the general mass of earth. Other reference points, to which systems may be referenced and to which bonding conductors are connected, may be chosen to suit particular circumstances.
Equipotential bonding
141 Equipotential bonding is the electrical interconnection of all exposed and extraneous conductors, which may become electrically charged, in such a way that dangerous voltages between any of the conductors that may be simultaneously touched are limited.
Use of reduced voltages
142 Reduced voltage systems are particularly appropriate for portable and transportable equipment, and in highly conducting locations such as boilers and tunnels where the risk of mechanical damage to equipment and trailing cables is high, and/or the body may be damp and have large areas of contact with the conducting location and on construction sites.
143 One example is a building or construction site supply system operating at
55-0-55 V ac single-phase, or at 110 V three-phase with a phase-earth voltage of 64 V ac. Another example is an extra-low-voltage system operating at or below
50 V ac or 120 V dc. Supply systems like these are referenced to earth and are therefore a special case of systems operating at reduced voltage for which bonding and earthing of all metallic enclosures are still recommended.
144 Further advice on reduced voltage systems is in Further reading.
Earth-free, non-conducting environments
145 If a system is supplied from a source which is earth-referenced, the path for fault current and the existence of dangerous potentials to earth can be eliminated in a defined area by ensuring that the area is 'earth-free'. This does not necessarily mean that metallic components or fittings need to be prohibited but rather that no part of the defined area is earthed. It is easier to ensure the integrity of an 'earthfree' area by constructing it from non-metallic components, in which case it is more appropriately known as a non-conducting location or area. 'Earth-free' and 'non-
Guidance
8
conducting' areas are specialised applications and are used mainly in certain testing of electrical equipment. Advice is available in the publications on electrical
testing listed in References and further reading.
Current limitation
146 If fault currents which could cause electric shock are inherently limited by appropriate passive devices, eg high-integrity resistors, then protection by earthing or other means may not be required. In a conventional, dry working environment, for example, if the current is limited preferably to 1 mA but certainly to no more than 3 mA, this will not usually present a risk of injury from electric shock to people in good health who may be subjected to it only occasionally and for a short time. However, even this low level of current may give perceptible shock which, although by itself is unlikely to be physiologically dangerous, may give rise to a consequential injury such as from a fall induced by the shock. See paragraphs 29–30 on 'injury' under regulation 2, and especially IEC publication Guide to effects of current on human beings and livestock.
Separated or isolated systems
147 If safety depends on the supply system not being referenced to its immediate environment, whether true earth or surrounding metalwork, no potential should normally exist between live conductors and earth or exposed metallic parts. However, all systems are to some extent referenced to their environment by capacitive or inductive coupling or by leakage. That is why you cannot necessarily rely on the circuit conductors of separated or isolated* systems being at zero potential relative to their environment. Unless the isolated system is a very small and localised one, the leakage current may be large enough to provide a path for a fatal electric shock. Any difference in potential is likely to be greatest on extensive systems but, in all cases when the voltages or currents could be dangerous, precautions are needed. Examples of isolated systems are those supplied from the secondary winding of an isolating transformer or the winding of an alternator where there is no connection between them and any other source of electrical energy.
148 The isolation of a power system from earth may reduce the risks associated with a single fault. However, if this first fault has the effect of referencing the system to earth or other exposed conductor, subsequent faults may lead to very destructive and hazardous short circuits so extra precautions will be necessary to prevent this danger. These may include the bonding of metallic enclosures, earth fault detection, insulation monitoring or the use of an earth-free non-conducting environment. Regular inspection and testing to ensure that system isolation integrity is maintained will also be necessary.
* 'Isolated' in this context means separate from all other systems and does not imply 'isolation' as defined specifically for the purpose of regulation 12.
## Regulation 9 Integrity Of Referenced Conductors
Regulation
9
If a **circuit conductor** is connected to earth or to any other reference point, nothing which might reasonably be expected to give rise to **danger** by breaking
the electrical continuity or introducing high impedance shall be placed in that
conductor unless suitable precautions are taken to prevent that danger.
Guidance
9
149 The defence (regulation 29) is available in any proceedings for an offence
under this regulation.
150 In many circumstances the reference point is earthed because the majority of power distribution installations are so referenced by a deliberate connection to earth at the generators or distribution transformers.
151 The object of the regulation is to prevent referenced circuit conductors which should be at or about the same potential as the reference point from reaching significantly different potentials, thereby giving rise to possible danger.
152 The most common situation in which this regulation is relevant is in systems having a neutral point which is earthed. Such systems can be subdivided:
(a)
systems or parts of systems in which the neutral and protective conductor are combined (eg TN-C and the combined parts of TN-C-S systems);*
(b)
systems or parts of systems in which the neutral and protective conductors are separate (eg TN-S and the separate parts of TN-C-S systems).
## Devices Placed In The Conductor
153 The regulation does not prohibit all electrical devices from being placed in referenced conductors. For example, a proper joint or a bolted link or a bar primary current transformer can be arranged to ensure the integrity of the conductor.
154 The regulation would also permit the inclusion of other devices such as a removable link, or even a manually-operated knife switch, provided that suitable precautions are adopted to ensure that these devices are not removed or operated in such a way as to give rise to danger. However, a number of other devices, such as fuses, thyristors, transistors etc, generally have the potential to give rise to danger by becoming open circuit or introducing high impedance into the conductor. The regulation prohibits such applications.
## Combined Neutral And Protective Conductors
155 Open circuit of, or high impedance in, combined neutral and protective conductors will almost certainly result in the exposed and extraneous conductors connected to the protective conductors, eg metal enclosures of switchgear, being at a significant potential (up to phase-neutral volts) relative to earth. This could lead to a risk of electric shock or burn, so the integrity of the combined neutral and earth conductor is very important.
156 However, where the protective conductor is combined with the neutral
conductor over some part of their length, you should take precautions to prevent people coming into simultaneous contact with the protective conductors and earth (or conductors at earth potential). Equipotential bonding of all metalwork within a building and the connection of this to the protective conductor or neutral is a
Guidance
9
commonly used approach. Generally, however, combined neutral earth (CNE) systems should be confined to the public electricity supply network up to the point
of supply to consumers.
## Separate Neutral And Protective Conductors
157 In deciding whether danger may result where there are separate neutral and protective conductors, consider not only the normal operation of the system but also the situations that may arise when work is being carried out on or near the system. If voltage rises on the neutral conductor could result in danger during the work then observe the above restrictions on devices in the neutral. For example, a fuse should not be placed in a neutral of a fixed power distribution installation
(typically 230 V) as this places people working on the installation at risk of electric shock and burn if that fuse operates or otherwise becomes open circuit. Double pole fusing (fuses in both the phase and neutral) is acceptable, if these are fitted within self-contained electrical equipment which itself is not part of the fixed electrical installation, and is connected to the fixed installation by a plug and socket. This arrangement allows the equipment to be readily isolated from the system before work is done on that equipment.
158 In general, if a neutral conductor is to be switched, a multipole switch or circuit breaker should be used which also switches all of the related phase conductors, the neutral breaking last and making first. Such switching should not interrupt the protective conductor.
## Regulation 10 Connections
Regulation
10
Where necessary to prevent **danger**, every joint and connection in a **system** shall
be mechanically and electrically suitable for use.
Guidance
10
159 The defence (regulation 29) is available in any proceedings for an offence
under this regulation.
## Suitability Of Connections
160 The regulation requires that all connections in circuit and protective conductors, including connections to terminals, plugs and sockets, and any other means of joining or connecting conductors, should be suitable for the purposes for which they are used. This requirement applies equally to temporary and permanent connections. The insulation and conductance of the connections must be suitable, having regard to the conditions of use including likely fault conditions.
161 The mechanical protection and strength must be such as to ensure the integrity of the insulation and conductance under all conditions of use including likely fault conditions, subject to the need for any maintenance which may be required by regulation 4(2).
162 Joints and connections in protective conductors must be made at least as
carefully as those in circuit conductors and they should be of sufficient strength and conductance to allow for the passage of fault currents. Such connections may need to be treated so they prevent corrosion. It is recommended that combinations of metals liable to produce damaging electrolytic action be avoided.
## Guidance 10 Plugs And Sockets
163 Plug and socket connections and their use must be arranged so that accidental contact with conductors live at dangerous voltages is prevented. This should be achieved by selection of appropriate equipment but may involve some degree of operator skill and/or training, depending on the circumstances.
164 In most applications, where a plug and socket type connector conveys a protective conductor as well as the circuit conductors, the protective conductor should be the first to be made and the last to be separated. The use of equipment made to appropriate standards should ensure this principle is adhered to.
165 Where plug and socket connections are not rated for making or breaking the maximum load current, effective arrangements should be made, eg by mechanical interlocking with the switch that controls the power, to ensure that the connections are made or broken only under no-load conditions.
## Portable Equipment
166 Special attention should be given to joints and connections in cables and equipment which will be handled, eg flexible cables for portable equipment. Plugs and sockets for portable equipment must be constructed in accordance with appropriate standards and arranged so that, where necessary, earthing of any metal casing of the equipment is automatically effected by the insertion of the plug. HSE guidance (see Maintaining portable electric equipment in low-risk environments10) and British Standards give further guidance on portable equipment.
## Regulation 11 Means For Protecting From Excess Of Current Regulation 11
Efficient means, suitably located, shall be provided for protecting from excess of
current every part of a **system** as may be necessary to prevent danger.
167 The defence (regulation 29) is available in any proceedings for an offence
under this regulation (see paragraphs 177–179).
168 It is recognised that faults and overloads may occur on electrical systems. The regulation requires that systems and parts of systems be protected against the effects of short circuits and overloads if these would result in currents which would otherwise result in danger.
169 The means of protection is likely to be in the form of fuses or circuit breakers controlled by relays etc, or it may be provided by some other means capable of interrupting the current or reducing it to a safe value.
## The Need To Anticipate Abnormal Conditions
170 The regulation requires the means of preventing danger to be provided in
anticipation of excess current; a fault or overload need not have occurred. Fault currents arise as a result of short circuits between conductors caused either by inherent failure of the electrical equipment or some outside influence, eg mechanical damage to a cable. Overload currents can arise as a result of the inadequacy of a system to supply the load and may be caused by an increased demand created by
Guidance
11
outside influence on the electrical equipment, eg mechanical overloading of an electric motor.
## The Selection Of Excess Current Protection
171 In principle, every main circuit should be protected at its origin, ie at the source end of the circuit. Where the rating of the conductors forming a branch circuit is less than that of the conductors from which it is drawing power, it is conventional for protection to be placed at this point. In practice, however, there are exceptions to this principle and, depending on the nature of the system, a technical judgement must be made as to where the protection should be placed. Guidance on some aspects of this subject is given in BS 7671.
172 When selecting the means of protection, you must consider a number of factors - the more important of these include:
(a)
the nature of the circuits and type of equipment to be protected;
(b)
the short-circuit energy available in the supply (the fault level);
(c)
the nature of the environment;
(d)
whether the system is earthed or not.
The nature of the circuits and type of equipment to be protected
173 The circuits to be dealt with may vary from high-power, high-voltage circuits, eg for the inter-connection of substations or for the supply to large motors, down to the smallest final circuit supplying a few low-power lamps at, say, 6 V. Over this range lies a great diversity of equipment, each item of which will possess characteristics which must be carefully considered in the selection of appropriate devices to protect against excess current.
Fault level
174 The maximum short-circuit current in the protected circuit must be considered. (The ability of circuit breakers and fuses to operate successfully and without dangerous effects, serious arcing or, in the case of oil-filled equipment, the liberation of oil, is implicit in the requirements of regulations 4 and 5.) The design of the protective arrangement must also provide for sufficient current to be available to operate the protective devices correctly in respect of all likely faults.
The nature of the environment
175 The nature of the environment may have a bearing on the choice of protective devices and their settings, eg where the possibility of a fire being started may be considerable. However, in all cases, the protection against excess current must be effective so that short circuits and earth faults are cleared promptly to minimise destructive arcing and heating. Protective devices, whether they are circuit breakers or fuses, should therefore be set or selected for the minimum tripping currents and times consistent with ensuring the reliable operation of the device and with the need to discriminate between successive stages of protection.
Earthed system
176 Where a system is earthed, the nature and efficiency of the earthing system is important in relation to the design and reliability of the protective devices. In earthed systems, operation in the event of an earth fault of the protective device is dependent on sufficient current passing to operate the excess current or earth leakage tripping device or to blow the fuse. In many systems, the device provided to comply with the requirements of this regulation in respect of excess of current (very often a fuse) may also provide protection against earth faults - and thus be in compliance with the requirements of regulation 8.
## Guidance 11 Defence In Criminal Proceedings
177 The defence (regulation 29) is available in any proceedings for an offence under this regulation.
178 In some circumstances it will be technically impossible to achieve total compliance with the absolute requirement to prevent danger. If an excess of current is drawn due to a fault or overload, eg due to an arcing fault, then whatever form of electrical protection is provided, there will be some danger at the point of the fault during the finite time taken for the detection and interruption of the fault current. Nevertheless, electrical protection - whether by means of a simple fuse or another method - must be properly chosen and installed in accordance with good electrical engineering practice. The protection must be efficient and effective.
179 In some circumstances it is undesirable to interrupt the current in a circuit because this may itself lead to a hazard. Examples include the excitation field current of direct current motors, trip coil circuits, lifting electromagnets and the secondary circuits of current transformers. In such cases, however, the circuit should be rated or arranged so as not to give rise to danger from excess of current.
## Regulation 12 Means For Cutting Off The Supply And For Isolation
(1)
Subject to paragraph (3), where necessary to prevent **danger,** suitable
Regulation
12
means (including, where appropriate, methods of identifying circuits) shall be available for –
(a)
cutting off the supply of electrical energy to any **electrical equipment**;
and
(b)
the isolation of any electrical equipment.
(2)
In paragraph (1), "isolation" means the disconnection and separation of the **electrical equipment** from every source of electrical energy in such a way that this disconnection and separation is secure.
(3)
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to **electrical equipment** which is itself a source of electrical energy but, in such a case as is necessary, precautions shall be taken to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger.
Guidance
12
180 The defence (regulation 29) is available in any proceedings for an offence
under this regulation.
## Regulation 12(1)(A)
181 The objective of this part of the regulation is to ensure that, where necessary to prevent danger, suitable means are available to switch off the electricity supply to any piece of equipment. Switching can be, for example, by direct manual operation or by indirect operation via 'stop' buttons in the control circuits of contactors or circuit breakers. There may be a need to switch off electrical equipment for reasons other than preventing electrical danger but these considerations are outside the scope of the Regulations.
## Guidance 12 Regulation 12(1)(B)
182 Whereas regulation 12(1)(a) requires means to be provided whereby the supply of electrical energy can be switched off, 12(1)(b) requires that there will be available suitable means of ensuring that the supply will remain switched off and inadvertent reconnection prevented. This is isolation. This provision, in conjunction with safe working practices, will enable work to be carried out on electrical equipment without risk of it becoming live during the course of that work, eg if the work is to be done under the terms of regulation 13.
183 In some cases, the equipment used to perform the requirement under regulation 12(1)(a) may also serve to perform the requirement under 12(1)(b). The two functions of *switching off* and *isolation* are not the same, even though in some circumstances they are performed by the same action or by the same equipment.
## Regulation 12(3)
184 Regulation 12(3) recognises the impracticability in some cases of switching off or isolating that equipment which is itself an integral part of a source of electrical energy, eg the terminals of batteries, battery cells, photovoltaic systems, large capacitors and the windings of generators. The regulation requires precautions to be taken in these circumstances so that danger is prevented so far as is reasonably practicable. See References and further reading for details of guidance on working practices.
## 'Where Necessary To Prevent Danger'
185 The need for means to cut off the supply and effect isolation depends on factors such as likely danger in normal and abnormal conditions. This assessment may be influenced by environmental conditions and provisions to be made in case of emergencies, such as a fire in premises. It includes consideration of which electrical equipment could be a source of danger if such means were not provided and of the installation, commissioning, operational and maintenance requirements over the life of the equipment.
## Suitable Means For Cutting Off The Supply
186 The suitable means for cutting off the supply (regulation 12(1)(a)) should:
(a)
be capable of cutting off the supply under all likely conditions having regard to the equipment, its normal operation conditions, any abnormal operating or fault conditions, and the characteristics of the source(s) of electrical energy;
(b)
be in a suitable location regarding the nature of the risks, the availability of people to operate the means and the speed at which operation may be necessary. Access to switches etc should be kept clear and unobstructed, free of tripping and slipping hazards etc;
(c)
be clearly marked to show its relationship to the equipment which it controls, unless there could be no doubt that this would be obvious to any person who may need to operate it;
(d)
only be common to several items of electrical equipment where it is appropriate for these to be energised and de-energised as a group.
## Guidance 12 Suitable Means Of Isolation
187 The suitable means of isolation of equipment (regulation 12(1)(b)) should:
(a)
have the capability to positively establish an air gap or other effective dielectric which, together with adequate creepage and clearance distances, will ensure that there is no likely way in which the isolation gap can fail electrically;
(b)
include, where necessary, means directed at preventing unauthorised interference with or improper operation of the equipment, eg means of locking off;
(c)
be located so the accessibility and ease with which it may be employed is appropriate for the application. The time and effort that must be expended to effect isolation should be reasonable, depending on the nature of the
equipment and the circumstances under which isolation may be required. For example, a very remote means of isolation may be acceptable if isolation is only needed infrequently and any additional time taken to effect isolation does not result in danger;
(d)
be clearly marked to show which equipment it relates to, unless there could be no doubt that this would be obvious to any person who may need to operate it;
(e)
only be common to several items of electrical equipment where it is appropriate for these to be isolated as a group.
## Selection Of Isolator Switches
188 Isolator switches (or disconnectors) will often be used as the means of disconnection and securing separation from the supply. When selecting appropriate equipment, consider:
(a)
the isolating distances between contacts or other means of isolation which should meet an appropriate standard or be otherwise equally effective;
(b)
the position of the contacts or other means of isolation, which should either be externally visible or clearly and reliably indicated. An indication of the isolated
position, other than by direct observation of the isolating gap, should occur
when the specified isolating distance has been achieved in each pole;
(c)
provision to enable the prevention of unauthorised, improper or unintentional energisation, eg locking-off facilities.
189 For further information on the selection of isolators/disconnectors, refer to appropriate standards (see Further reading).
## Regulation 13 Precautions For Work On Equipment Made Dead
Regulation
13
Adequate precautions shall be taken to prevent **electrical equipment**, which has been made dead in order to prevent **danger** while work is carried out on or near
that equipment, from becoming electrically charged during that work if **danger** may
thereby arise.
| Guidance |
|------------------------|
| 190 The defence (regulation 29) is available in any proceedings for an offence |
| under this regulation. |
191 The regulation may apply during any work, be it electrical or non-electrical.
The regulation requires adequate precautions to be taken to prevent the electrical
equipment that has been made dead from becoming electrically charged, from whatever source, if this charging would give rise to danger. 'Charged' is discussed under regulation 2. 192 The regulation uses the term 'electrical equipment', which is defined by regulation 2 and explained in paragraphs 20–21.
## The Precautions
193 The precautions must be effective in preventing the electrical equipment from becoming charged in any way which would give rise to danger.
194 In the first place, the procedures for making the equipment dead will probably involve use of the means required by regulation 12(1)(a) for cutting off the supply of electrical energy. Isolation of the electrical equipment will be necessary and the means required by regulation 12(1)(b) will facilitate this. Ideally, a means of locking off an isolator can be used. Where such facilities are not available, the removal of fuses or links and their being held in safe keeping can provide a secure arrangement if proper control procedures are used.
195 These precautions will prevent the equipment from becoming charged by connection to its own or normal sources of electrical energy but may not, alone, be sufficient to prevent charging. The presence of electrical energy as a result of electromagnetic induction, mutual capacitance or stored electrical energy may have to be guarded against, eg by applying earthing connections for the duration of the work (temporary earths). The precautions may need to include means of preventing further accumulation of electrical charge, following initial discharge, because latent energy may be stored in the system, eg in the dielectric of high-voltage cables or capacitors within equipment. For work on high-voltage power distribution circuits, isolation procedures should include the application of circuit main earths (primary earths) at points of isolation and additional earthing around the point of work.
196 Where work is to be done on or near conductors that have been isolated, the conductors must be proved dead at the point of work before the task starts. Where a test instrument or voltage indicator is used for this purpose, this should itself be proved, preferably immediately before and immediately after testing the conductor (see also regulation 4(3)).
197 The regulation does not prevent the application of a test voltage to equipment, provided that this does not give rise to danger.
## Written Procedures
198 The safety isolation procedures should be formalised in written instructions or house rules. Safety documentation, including 'permits-to-work', may form part of the written procedures and their use is considered essential to ensuring a safe system of work where this involves work on the conductors or equipment of highvoltage power distribution systems (typically where the working voltage exceeds 1000 V) or where the system is very complex. Properly formulated and regulated 'permit-to-work' procedures focus the minds of those issuing and of those receiving the permits, both on the manner in which the work is to be done and on how the equipment has been made safe. Further advice on these procedures and precautions is in the guidance listed in References and further reading.
## Guidance 13 Decommissioned Equipment
199 Before electrical equipment is decommissioned, dismantled or abandoned for any reason, it must be disconnected from all sources of supply and effective steps taken to ensure that it is dead and cannot inadvertently become re-energised or dangerously charged. It may be necessary to securely mark or otherwise suitably label equipment, circuits, switches etc to guard against inadvertent re-energisation. (See also the requirement for identifying circuits under regulation 12(1).)
## Regulation 14 Work On Or Near Live Conductors
Regulation
14
No person shall be engaged in any work activity on or so near any live conductor (other than one suitably covered with insulating material so as to prevent **danger**) that **danger** may arise unless –
(a)
it is unreasonable in all the circumstances for it to be dead; and
(b)
it is reasonable in all the circumstances for him to be at work on or near it while it is live; and
(c)
suitable precautions (including where necessary the provision of suitable
protective equipment) are taken to prevent **injury**.
| Guidance |
|------------------------|
| 200 The defence (regulation 29) is available in any proceedings for an offence |
| under this regulation. |
201 Regulation 14 addresses the situation where, either permanently or temporarily, danger from conductors is not prevented by the precautions specified in regulation 7(a).
202 The regulation is concerned only with those situations where people are at work on or near live electrical conductors which may foreseeably give rise to danger. Such work is permitted only if conditions (a), (b) and (c) are satisfied. 'Work' is not confined to electrical work but includes any work activity, eg electrical testing.
## The Need For The Conductor To Be Live
203 If danger may otherwise arise it is always preferable that work on or near electrical equipment should be carried out when that equipment is dead (see regulation 13 and guidance). Regulation 14 recognises that there are circumstances, however, in which it is unreasonable, having regard to all relevant factors, for the equipment to be dead while work proceeds. An example of this might be undertaking maintenance, checks or repairs on a busy section of electric railway track where it would be disproportionately disruptive and costly for the live conductors to be isolated for the period of the work. Other examples are in the electrical supply industry, particularly live cable jointing, and in much of the work done on telephone network connections.
204 When ordering, purchasing and installing plant, consider the manner of operation, maintenance and repair of the electrical equipment which will be necessary during its life.
205 The design of electrical equipment and of the installation should eliminate the need for live work which puts people at risk of injury. This can often be done by careful thought at the design stage of installations, for example by the provision of alternative power infeeds; properly laid out distribution systems to allow parts to be isolated for work to proceed; and by designing equipment housings etc which
Guidance
14
result in segregation of parts to be worked on and protect people from other parts which may be live.
206 Equipment which combines power and control circuitry should be arranged so that the power circuits are physically separate and segregated from logic and control circuits, or so placed, recessed or otherwise arranged that the risk of accidental contact is eliminated. Diagnostic work on the low-power/voltage circuits may then proceed with less risk to personnel. Where regular measurements of, say, voltage, current etc are to be made, consider appropriate test and measuring equipment, eg voltmeters, ammeters etc, or test points being built into the equipment.
207 Live work includes live testing, for example the use of a potential indicator on mains power and control logic circuits (but see paragraph 218).
208 The factors which should be considered in deciding whether it was justifiable for work to proceed with the conductors live should include the following:
(a)
It is not practicable to carry out the work with the conductors dead, eg where for the purposes of testing it is necessary for the conductors to be live.
(b)
To make the conductors dead will create other hazards, such as to other users of the system, or for continuously operating process plants etc.
(c)
The need to comply with other statutory requirements.
(d)
The level of risk involved in working live and the effectiveness of the precautions available set against the economic need to perform that work.
## The Need To Be Near Uninsulated Live Conductors
209 People at work are permitted to be near live conductors only if this is reasonable in all the circumstances. If, for example, it would be reasonable for the work to be carried out at a safe distance from the conductors then it would be prohibited for that work to be done near the conductors.
210 People whose presence near the live conductors is not necessary should not be so near the conductors that they are at risk of injury. However, there may be occasions when people who do not normally need to be in the vicinity of live conductors are required to be present, eg those assisting or recovering a casualty after an incident. Appropriate measures must be put in place to protect them.
## The Need To Take Precautions To Prevent Injury
211 The precautions necessary to comply with regulation 14(c) should be commensurate with the risk.
212 The system of work must:
(a)
allow only people who are competent to do so to work on or near exposed, live conductors (competence for these and other purposes is further dealt with at regulation 16); and
(b)
indicate within what limits the work is to be attempted; and
(c)
indicate what levels of competence apply to each category of such work; and
(d)
incorporate procedures under which the person attempting the work will report back if the limits specified in the system are likely to be exceeded.
213 This usually requires detailed planning before the work is started.
214 Suitable precautions should include, as appropriate: (a)
the use of people who are properly trained and competent to work on live equipment safely (see also regulation 16);
(b)
the provision of adequate information to the person carrying out the work about the live conductors involved, the associated electrical system and the foreseeable risks (NB: when excavation work is ongoing the insulation of a cable is not an effective measure against damage to the cable or penetration of it by a mechanical tool);
(c)
the use of suitable tools, including insulated tools, equipment and protective clothing (see also regulation 4(4));
(d)
the use of suitable insulated barriers or screens (see also regulation 4(4));
(e)
the use of suitable instruments and test probes;
(f)
accompaniment by another person or people if the presence of such person or people could contribute significantly to ensuring that injury is prevented;
(g)
the restriction of routine live test work (eg product testing) to specific areas and the use of special precautions within those areas, such as isolated power supplies, non-conducting locations etc;
(h)
effective control of any area where there is danger from live conductors.
Accompaniment
215 A dutyholder's judgement as to whether someone carrying out work subject to regulation 14 should be accompanied, should be based on considerations of how injury is to be prevented. If an accompanying person can substantially contribute towards the implementation of safe working practice, then they should be present. They should be trained to recognise danger and, if necessary, to render assistance in the event of an emergency.
216 Some examples of electrical work where it is likely that the person carrying out the work should be accompanied are:
(a)
electrical work involving manipulation of live, uninsulated power conductors at,
say, 230 V using insulated tools;
(b)
other work on or near bare live conductors where someone working on their own would not be capable of undertaking the work safely without assistance in, for example, keeping other people from the work area.
Control of the area
217 Where there is danger from live conductors ensure that those who are not competent to prevent the occurrence of injury, and those whose presence is unnecessary, are not permitted into the area. If the person undertaking the work is continuously present while danger exists from the live conductors, and the area is small enough to be under their constant supervision and control, then further precautions to control access may not be necessary. If, however, the area is too large or they are not continuously present, then effective control should be secured by other means, such as the provision of lockable enclosures or barriers and warning notices indicating the presence of live conductors. (The above examples are given without prejudice to the requirements of regulation 14, the criteria of which must be followed in each case before live work is undertaken.)
Testing
218 Regulation 14 will often apply to electrical testing. Testing to establish whether electrical conductors are live or dead should always be done on the assumption that they may be live and, therefore, it should be assumed that this regulation is applicable until such time as the conductors have been proved dead.
Guidance
14
219 When testing for confirmation of a 'dead' circuit, the test instrument or voltage indicator used for this purpose must itself be proved, preferably immediately before and immediately after testing the conductors.
220 Although live testing may be justifiable it does not follow that there will necessarily be justification for subsequent repair work to be carried out live.
Suitable protective equipment
221 Protective equipment suitable for the work activity should only be used as a last resort, ie when all other ways to eliminate or reduce risks have been considered.
222 Examples of equipment that can protect someone from the effects of electricity are:
(a)
suitable clothing, including insulating helmets, goggles and gloves;
(b)
insulating materials used as fixed or temporary screening to prevent: (i)
electric shock;
(ii)
short circuit between live conductors;
(iii)
short circuit between live conductors and earth;
(c)
insulating mats and stands to prevent electric shock current via the feet;
(d)
insulated tools;
(e)
insulated test probes.
223 There must be procedures for the periodic examination and, where necessary, testing and replacement of this protective equipment. See also the requirements of regulation 4(4), and References and further reading for details of guidance on working procedures, standards etc.
Emergency resuscitation and first aid
224 You should consider placing notices or placards giving details of emergency resuscitation procedures in the event of electric shock at those locations where people may be at greater risk of electric shock. Such places might include electrical test areas, substations and laboratories but, for resuscitation techniques to be effective, those required to exercise them must receive proper training and regular practice. The Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 198111 make various requirements for the provision of suitably trained first-aiders at places of work.
Work near underground cables
225 Serious injuries have occurred during excavation and other work near underground power cables. This work comes within the scope of regulation 14 if there is a risk of injury from these cables.
226 Underground power cables present a risk of serious or fatal injury during excavation or similar work, particularly to people using hand tools (eg picks, concrete breakers etc). Precautions should include:
(a)
mapping, recording and marking on site of cable runs;
(b)
use of cable-locating devices;
(c)
safe digging practices.
227 Well-established advice on working near underground cables is given in Avoiding danger from underground services.12
Work near overhead power lines
228 Every year workers are killed or injured while working near to overhead power lines. They may be readily accessible to people working on elevated platforms,
Guidance
14
scaffolding or roofs. People working with tall vehicles such as cranes, tipper lorries or farm machinery, or handling metal ladders, pipes or other long articles may also
be at risk from a flashover or contact with overhead power lines.
229 Well-established advice on work near overhead power lines is given in HSE
guidance notes *Avoiding danger from overhead power lines*13 and Working safely near overhead electricity power lines.14
## Regulation 15 Working Space, Access And Lighting
Regulation
15
For the purposes of enabling **injury** to be prevented, adequate working space, adequate means of access, and adequate lighting shall be provided at all electrical equipment on which or near which work is being done in circumstances which may give rise to **danger**.
Guidance
15
230 The defence (regulation 29) is available in any proceedings for an offence
under this regulation.
231 The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that sufficient space, access and adequate illumination are provided while people are working on, at or near electrical equipment so that they may work safely. The requirement is not restricted to those circumstances where live conductors are exposed, but applies where any work is being done in circumstances which may give rise to danger. The regulation does not require such space, access or illumination to be provided at times other than when work is being done. (But see guidance under regulation 12(1)(a) (paragraph 186(b)) in respect of safe access to means of cutting off the supply.)
## Working Space
232 Where there are dangerous exposed live conductors within reach, the working space dimensions should be adequate:
(a)
to allow people to pull back away from the conductors without hazard;
(b)
to allow people to pass one another with ease and without hazard.
233 Among the legal provisions revoked when these Regulations came into force were the Electricity (Factories Act) Special Regulations 1908 and 1944. Regulation 17 of those Regulations specified minimum width and height dimensions of switchboard passageways where there were bare conductors exposed or arranged to be exposed when live so that they may be touched. That regulation and the relevant definitions used are reproduced in Appendix 1. The dimensions specified were arrived at after much consideration of the circumstances in a Public Inquiry when those Regulations were being drafted. However, those dimensions can still provide guidance for an appropriate level of safety in many circumstances and where the voltages do not significantly exceed 3000 V. This does not condone the use of equipment having normally bare and exposed conductors if a safe alternative can reasonably be adopted.
## Lighting
234 Natural light is preferable to artificial light, but where artificial light is necessary it is preferable that this be from a permanent and properly designed installation - in indoor switchrooms etc. However, there will always be exceptions and special circumstances where these principles cannot be achieved, eg where handlamps or
Guidance
15
torches may be the sole or most important means of lighting. Whatever level of lighting is used, it must be adequate to enable injury to be prevented. HSE
guidance *Lighting at work*15 refers.
## Regulation 16 Persons To Be Competent To Prevent Danger And Injury
Regulation
16
No person shall be engaged in any work activity where technical knowledge or
experience is necessary to prevent **danger** or, where appropriate, **injury**, unless he
possesses such knowledge or experience, or is under such degree of supervision as may be appropriate having regard to the nature of the work.
Guidance
16
235 The defence (regulation 29) is available in any proceedings for an offence
under this regulation.
236 The object of the regulation is to ensure that people are not placed at risk due to their own lack of competence in dealing with electrical equipment, or that of others.
## '... Prevent Danger Or, Where Appropriate, Injury ...'
237 This regulation uses both terms: 'injury' and 'danger'. The regulation therefore applies to all work associated with electrical equipment where danger may arise and whether or not danger (or the risk of injury) is actually present during the work. It will include situations where the elimination of the risk of injury, ie the prevention of danger, for the duration of the work is under the control of someone who must therefore possess sufficient technical knowledge or experience - or be so supervised etc - to be capable of ensuring that danger is prevented. For example, where a person is to isolate some electrical equipment before undertaking work on the equipment, they will require sufficient technical knowledge or experience to prevent danger during the isolation. There will be no danger from the equipment during the work, provided that the isolation has been carried out properly: danger will have been prevented. However, the person doing the work must have sufficient technical knowledge or experience so as to prevent danger during that work, eg by knowing not to work on adjacent 'live' circuits.
238 The regulation also covers those circumstances where danger is present, ie where there is a risk of injury, as for example where work is being done on live or charged equipment using special techniques and under the terms of regulation 14. In these circumstances, people must possess sufficient technical knowledge or experience - or be so supervised etc - to be capable of ensuring that injury is prevented.
## Technical Knowledge Or Experience
239 The scope of 'technical knowledge or experience' should include: (a)
adequate knowledge of electricity;
(b)
adequate experience of the electrical work being carried out;
(c)
adequate understanding of the system to be worked on and practical experience of that class of system;
(d)
understanding of the hazards which may arise during the work and the precautions which need to be taken;
(e)
the ability to recognise at all times whether it is safe for work to continue.
## Allocation Of Responsibilities Guidance 16
240 Employees must be trained and instructed to ensure that they understand the safety procedures which are relevant to their work and must work in accordance with any instructions or rules laid down by their employer and directed at ensuring safety.
## Supervision
241 The regulation recognises that, in many circumstances, people will require some degree of supervision where they do not have sufficient technical knowledge or experience to ensure that they can undertake the work safely. Dutyholders, when allocating to supervisors responsibilities for supervision, should clearly state to the supervisor exactly what their responsibilities are and consider stating these responsibilities in writing. Where the risks involved are low, verbal instructions are likely to be adequate but as the risk or complexity increase there comes a point where the need for written procedures becomes important if instructions are to be understood and supervised more rigorously. In this context, supervision does not necessarily require continual attendance at the work site, but the degree of supervision and the manner in which it is exercised is for the dutyholders to arrange to ensure that danger, or as the case may be, injury, is prevented.
242 You should also refer to appropriate guidance, such as that in national, international, reputable foreign and harmonised or industry standards and codes of practice, or to HSE guidance, or seek expert advice.
## Regulations 17–28
243 Regulations 17 to 28 and Schedule 1 inclusive were revoked by the Mines Regulations 2014.
## Regulation 29 Defence
Regulation
29
In any proceedings for an offence consisting of a contravention of [regulations 4(4), 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 or 16,]* it shall be a defence for any person to prove that he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of that offence.
* Amended by the Mines Regulations 2014, SI 2014/3248.
Guidance
29
244 Regulation 29 applies only in criminal proceedings. It provides a defence for a
dutyholder who can establish that they took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing an offence under regulations 4(4), 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 or 16.
## Regulation 30 Exemption Certificates
| (1) | Subject to paragraph (2), the Health and Safety Executive may, by a |
|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Regulation | 30 |
| certificate in writing, exempt - | |
| (a) | any person; |
(b)
any premises;
(c)
any electrical equipment;
(d)
any electrical system;
(e)
any electrical process;
(f)
any activity,
or any class of the above, from any requirement or prohibition imposed by these Regulations and any such exemption may be granted subject to conditions and to a limit of time and may be revoked by a certificate in writing at any time.
(2)
The Executive shall not grant any such exemption unless, having regard
to the circumstances of the case, and in particular to –
(a)
the conditions, if any, which it proposes to attach to the exemption; and
(b)
any other requirements imposed by or under any enactment which apply to the case,
it is satisfied that the health and safety of persons who are likely to be affected by the exemption will not be prejudiced in consequence of it.
| Guidance |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 245 HSE is given power to issue general or special exemptions and to impose |
| conditions and time limits on them. It is a standard power given to allow the |
| variation of legal duties where, in circumstances unforeseen by those drafting the |
| legislation, they are in practice unnecessary or inappropriate. Exemptions would be |
| granted only in very exceptional circumstances. |
## Regulation 31 Extension Outside Great Britain
These Regulations shall apply –
Regulation
31
(a)
in Great Britain; and
(b)
outside Great Britain as sections 1 to 59 and 80 to 82 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 apply by virtue of the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (Application outside Great Britain) Order 1995.
Guidance
31
246 Regulation 31 was modified by the Offshore Electricity and Noise Regulations
1997. Although the regulation refers to the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (Application outside Great Britain) Order 1995, this order has been revoked. The regulation should be read as referring to the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (Application outside Great Britain) Order 2013 (SI 2013/240).16
247 The Electricity at Work Regulations apply to all work activities on offshore installations, wells, pipelines and pipelines works and to certain connected activities within the territorial waters of Great Britain, or in the designated areas of the UK Continental Shelf. They also apply to certain other activities within territorial waters, including the construction and operation of wind farms.
## Regulation 32 Disapplication Of Duties
The duties imposed by these Regulations shall not extend to –
Regulation
32
(a)
the master or crew of a sea-going ship or to the employer of such persons, in relation to the normal ship-board activities of a ship's crew under the direction of the master; or
(b)
any person, in relation to any aircraft or hovercraft which is moving under its own power.
Guidance
32
## Sea-Going Ships
248 Sea-going ships are subject to other electrical safety legislation which gives protection to people on board. Regulation 32 disapplies the Electricity at Work Regulations from these ships as far as the normal ship-board activities of a ship's crew under the direction of the master is concerned. It does not disapply them in respect of other work activities however, eg where a shore-based electrical contractor goes on board to carry out electrical work on the ship. That person's activities will be subject to the Regulations within the general applicability of the Regulations. The Regulations will apply outside Great Britain only as provided for under regulation 31.
## Aircraft And Hovercraft
249 The Regulations may apply only while an aircraft or hovercraft is not moving under its own power.
## Vehicles
250 The Regulations may apply to electrical equipment on vehicles if this equipment may give rise to danger.
## Regulation 33 Revocations And Modifications
(1)
The instruments specified in column 1 of Part I of Schedule 2 are
Regulation
33
revoked to the extent specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 of that Part.
(2)
The enactments and instruments specified in Part II of Schedule 2 shall be modified to the extent specified in that Part.
(3)
In the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act
1969 and the Mines Management Act 1971, and in regulations made under any of those Acts, or in health and safety regulations, any reference to any of those Acts shall be treated as including a reference to these Regulations.
| Guidance |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
| 251 The Regulations replace or modify a number of statutory provisions in |
| accordance with the intention of the HSW Act section 1(2). |
252 Systems and equipment which were subject to provisions which have been revoked are now subject to these Regulations.
## Appendix 1 Working Space And Access: Historical Comment On Revoked Legislation (See Regulation 15)
Among the legal provisions revoked upon the coming into force of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 were the Electricity (Factories Act) Special Regulations 1908 and 1944. Regulation 17 of those Regulations specified minimum width and height dimensions of 'switchboard passage-ways' if there were 'bare conductors' exposed or arranged to be exposed when 'live' so that they may be touched. These related to what are commonly known as 'open type' switchboards which had much exposed copper work, knife switches etc. That regulation (and the key definitions used at that time) are reproduced below for information. The dimensions which were specified by that regulation were arrived at after much consideration of the circumstances at the time. A compromise was struck between the objective of achieving the safety of those who had to work at and operate these 'open type' switchboards and the need to recognise the constraints imposed by the installations existing and the nature of the technology in 1908. Even though the dimensions were a compromise, it was widely recognised that they were a good minimum standard which had been found necessary following a number of severe and fatal accidents in factories and power stations due to inadequate space or cluttered access in the vicinity of bare live conductors at these 'open type' switchboards. The dimensions chosen allowed workmen to operate or otherwise work upon the switchboard in reasonable safety and allowed, for example, people to pass one another in the switchboard passageway without being placed at unacceptable risk of touching live conductors. Where the need does arise to work on or near live conductors, the principles of providing adequate working space and uncluttered access/egress, which were expressed in regulation 17 of the Electricity (Factories Act) Special Regulations 1908 and 1944, should be given proper consideration.
## Regulation 17 (Of 1908 Regulations)
At the working platform of every switchboard and in every switchboard passageway, if there be *bare conductors* exposed or arranged to be exposed when *live* so that they may be touched, there shall be a clear and unobstructed passage of ample width and height, with a firm and even floor. Adequate means of access, free from danger, shall be provided for every *switchboard passage-way*.
The following provisions shall apply to all such *switchboard* working platforms and passage-ways constructed after January 1, 1909 unless the bare conductors, whether overhead or at the sides of the *passage-ways*, are otherwise adequately protected against *danger* by divisions or screens or other suitable means:
(a)
Those constructed for *low pressure* and *medium pressure switchboards* shall have a clear height of not less than 7 ft and a clear width measured from bare
conductor of not less than 3 ft.
(b)
Those constructed for *high pressure* and *extra high pressure switchboards*,
other than operating desks or panels working solely at *low pressure*, shall have a clear height of not less than 8 ft and a clear width measured from bare conductor of not less than 3 ft 6 in.
(c)
Bare conductors shall not be exposed on both sides of the switchboard
passage-way unless either (i) the clear width of the passage is in the case of low pressure and *medium pressure* not less than 4 ft 6 in and in the case of high pressure and extra *high pressure* not less than 8 ft in each case measured between bare conductors, or (ii) the *conductors* on one side are so guarded that they cannot be accidentally touched.
## Key Definitions Used In The 1908 Regulations
Switchboard means the collection of switches or fuses, *conductors*, and other apparatus in connection therewith, used for the purpose of controlling the current or pressure in any *system* or part of a *system*.
Switchboard passage-way means any passage-way or compartment large enough for a person to enter, and used in connection with a *switchboard* when *live*. Low pressure means a *pressure* in a *system* normally not exceeding 250 volts where the electrical energy is used. Medium pressure means a *pressure* in a *system* normally above 250 volts, but not exceeding 650 volts, where the electrical energy is used. High pressure means a *pressure* in a system normally above 650 volts, but not exceeding 3000 volts, where the electrical energy is used or supplied. Extra-high pressure means a *pressure* in a *system* normally exceeding 3000 volts where the electrical energy is used or supplied.
## References And Further Reading References
1
Electrical safety in mines HSG278 HSE Books 2015
www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsg278.htm
2
The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (c37) The Stationery Office 1974
ISBN 978 0 10 543774 1
3
Managing for health and safety HSG65 (Third edition) HSE Books 2013
www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsg65.htm
4
BS 7671 Requirements for electrical installations. IET Wiring Regulations.
Seventeenth edition British Standards Institution
5
The Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002 (ESQCR)
SI 2002/2665 The Stationery Office www.legislation.gov.uk
6
Guide to effects of current on human beings and livestock. Special aspects
relating to human beings PD 60479-2:1987 IEC www.iec.ch
7
Safety of equipment electrically connected to a telecommunication network
62151:2000 IEC www.iec.ch
8
Electricity at work: Safe working practices HSG85 (Third edition)
HSE Books 2013 www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsg85.htm
9
Dangerous substances and explosive atmospheres: Dangerous Substances
and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002. Approved Code of Practice and
guidance L138 (Second edition) HSE Books 2013
www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/l138.htm
10
Maintaining portable electric equipment in low-risk environments Leaflet
INDG236(rev3) HSE Books 2013 www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg236.htm
11
First aid at work: The Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981.
Guidance on Regulations L74 (Third edition) HSE Books 2013
www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/l74.htm
12
Avoiding danger from underground services HSG47 (Third edition)
HSE Books 2013 www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsg47.htm
13
Avoiding danger from overhead power lines General Guidance Note GS6
(Fourth edition) HSE 2013 www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/gs6.htm
14
Working safely near overhead electricity power lines AIS8(rev3)
HSE Books 2012 www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/ais8.htm
15
Lighting at work HSG38 (Second edition) HSE Books 1998 www.hse.gov.uk/
pubns/books/hsg38.htm
16
The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (Application outside Great Britain)
Order 2013 SI 2013/240 The Stationery Office
## Further Reading
Guidance Electrical safety and you: A brief guide Leaflet INDG231(rev1) HSE Books 2012 www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg231.htm Electrical risks from steam/water pressure cleaners Plant and Machinery Guidance Note PM29 (Second edition) HSE Books 1995 www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/pm29.htm Selection and use of electric handlamps Plant and Machinery Guidance Note PM38 (web only) HSE Books 2007 www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/pm38.htm Electrical test equipment for use by electricians General Guidance Note GS38 (Fourth edition) HSE Books 2015 www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/gs38.htm Electrical safety at places of entertainment General Guidance Note GS50
(Third edition) HSE Books 2014 www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/gs50.htm Keeping electrical switchgear safe HSG230 HSE Books 2015
www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsg230.htm Listed below are standards, codes of practice and other publications which contain guidance relevant to these Regulations and electrical safety - published by bodies other than HSE. Most of these documents are the product of technical committees on which HSE has been represented. This does not mean, however, that the documents are concerned solely with safety and users should bear in mind the scope of the safety content of these documents and the fact that they have largely been arrived at through a process of consensus.
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) publications Guide to effects of current on human beings and livestock. Part 1: General aspects TS 60479-1:2005 IEC www.iec.ch Safety of equipment electrically connected to a telecommunication network
62151:2000 IEC www.iec.ch Extra-low voltage (ELV) - Limit values 61201:ed 2.0 2007–08 IEC www.iec.ch Effects of current on human beings and livestock. General aspects DD IEC/TS 60479-1 www.iec.ch Guide to effects of current on human beings and livestock. Special aspects relating to human beings PD 6519-2:1998 IEC 60479-2 www.iec.ch Safety of equipment electrically connected to a telecommunication network IEC 62151 www.iec.ch Extra-low voltage (ELV) - Limit values IEC 61201 ed 2.0 www.iec.ch British Standards The following British Standards are relevant to different aspects of electrical safety.
The up-to-date version of each standard is available from BSI on http://shop.bsigroup.com (see Further information). BS 4363 Specification for distribution assemblies for reduced low voltage electricity supplies for construction and building sites BS 4444 *Guide to electrical earth monitoring and protective conductor proving* BS 6423 Code of practice for maintenance of low-voltage electrical switchgear and controlgear BS 6626 Maintenance of electrical switchgear and control gear for voltages above
1 kV and up to and including 36 kV. Code of practice BS 6867 Maintenance of electrical switchgear for voltages above 36 kV. Code of practice BS 7375 Distribution of electricity on construction and building sites. Code of practice BS 7430 Code of practice for protective earthing of electrical installations BS 7671 Requirements for Electrical Installations. IET Wiring Regulations. Seventeenth edition BS 7909 Code of practice for temporary electrical systems for entertainment and related purposes BS EN 50050 Electrostatic hand-held spraying equipment. Safety requirements
(50050 series, see Parts 1, 2 & 3)
BS EN 60034 Rotating electrical machines. Degrees of protection provided by the internal design of rotating electrical machines (IP Code). Classification BS EN 60079 Explosive atmospheres (60079 series, see Parts 0, 14, 17, 31) BS EN 60204-1 Safety of machinery. Electrical equipment of machines. General requirements BS EN 60529 Degrees of protection provided by enclosures (IP Code) BS EN 60903 Live working. Gloves of insulating material BS EN 60947 Low-voltage switchgear and controlgear (60947 series, see Parts 1, 2) BS EN 61111 Live working. Electrical insulating matting BS EN 61439-1 Low-voltage switchgear and controlgear assemblies. General rules BS EN 61439-2 High-voltage switchgear and controlgear. Alternating current circuit breakers BS EN 62271 High-voltage switchgear and controlgear (62771 series, see Parts
100, 102)
## Bs En 62305-1 Protection Against Lightning. General Principles
BS EN 81-20 Safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts. Lifts for the transportation of persons and goods. Passenger and goods passenger lifts PD CLC/TR 50404 Electrostatics. Code of practice for the avoidance of hazards due to static electricity
## Useful Web Links Www.Hse.Gov.Uk/Construction/Safetytopics/Electricity.Htm
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) www.iec.ch
## Further Information
For information about health and safety, or to report inconsistencies or inaccuracies in this guidance, visit www.hse.gov.uk/. You can view HSE guidance online and order priced publications from the website. HSE priced publications are also available from bookshops. British Standards can be obtained in PDF or hard copy formats from BSI: http://shop.bsigroup.com or by contacting BSI Customer Services for hard copies only Tel: 0845 086 9001 email: cservices@bsigroup.com. The Stationery Office publications are available from The Stationery Office, PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN Tel: 0870 600 5522 Fax: 0870 600 5533 email: customer.services@tso.co.uk Website: www.tsoshop.co.uk. (They are also available from bookshops.) Statutory Instruments can be viewed free of charge at www.legislation.gov.uk where you can also search for changes to legislation. This publication is available at www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsr25.htm.
| en |
0763-pdf |
## Hunt Denise
From:
Meetham Rob
Sent:
26 September 2018 13:10
To:
Hunt Denise
## Subject: Re: Heyridge Farm - New Barn Revised Landscaping
Hi Denise That look fine - it would be good if some larger tree species (e.g sycamore, field maple) are scattered in amongst the hawthorn / blackthorn - that will maintain sightlines but give a bit of 'height' to the screening. Something like 30% hawthorn, 30% blackthorn, 20% field maple, 20% sycamore would be fine.
Can they indicate where fencing is necessary for tree protection, plus stakes / guards etc. Kind regards Rob From: Hunt Denise Sent: 26 September 2018 11:52 To: Meetham Rob Subject: FW: Heyridge Farm - New barn revised Landscaping Here 'tis, he hasn't omitted the larger planting which will screen the barn but if they want to do that then hey ho From: Pocock, Matthew [mailto:Matthew.Pocock@nationaltrust.org.uk] Sent: 26 September 2018 11:45 To: Hunt Denise Subject: RE: Heyridge Farm - New barn revised Landscaping Denise, Further to our conversation this morning, please see attached suggestion. This accommodates areas of low height planting to add some softening to the edges and contribute some screening whilst still preserving our Tenants need for lines of sight down the Snake Road to check security of fields as well as not introducing falling leafs and branches into the bale storage area. The planting would be relatively low level bushes (hawthorn etc.) planted sporadically on the bank sides and, if required, maintained at a low level so as not to interfere with the farm management. Let me know if you would like to discuss this further and whether your landscape architect is content with this proposal. Kind regards Matthew Matthew Pocock Senior Estate Manager National Trust - Peak District Estates Mobile: 07484 532395 Dark Peak, Longshaw and the White Peak Estates www.nationaltrust.org.uk/days-out/regionmidlands/the-peak-district From: Pocock, Matthew Sent: 20 September 2018 14:48
To: 'Hunt Denise'
Subject: RE: Heyridge Farm Thanks and noted. I have asked our Tenant to let me know their thoughts and will come back to you as soon as I can. You will then have these comments (if any) to talk to the landscape architect about when they return next week.
Matthew Pocock Senior Estate Manager National Trust - Peak District Estates
Mobile: 07484 532395 Dark Peak, Longshaw and the White Peak Estates www.nationaltrust.org.uk/days-out/regionmidlands/the-peak-district From: Hunt Denise [mailto:Denise.Hunt@peakdistrict.gov.uk] Sent: 20 September 2018 14:42 To: Pocock, Matthew Subject: RE: Heyridge Farm Hi Matthew A building of this type is to be expected in a rural landscape so I would not be looking to completely screen it, merely soften the impact, so shrub height would probably be fine. Unfortunately the Landscape Architect who was looking at the application is off now until next Tuesday, would you like me to ask a second opinion or are you okay to wait until then? Regards Denise From: Pocock, Matthew [mailto:Matthew.Pocock@nationaltrust.org.uk] Sent: 20 September 2018 14:35 To: Hunt Denise Subject: RE: Heyridge Farm Thanks Denise. I will check with our farm Tenant to see if the screening to the south will cause any issues. There is an existing field access that we will need to accommodate through the screening and we would not want tall trees to establish, as leafs and branches being blown off could cause issues with the bale storage in this area. I will come back to you as soon as I can. Kind regards Matthew Matthew Pocock Senior Estate Manager National Trust - Peak District Estates Mobile: 07484 532395 Dark Peak, Longshaw and the White Peak Estates www.nationaltrust.org.uk/days-out/regionmidlands/the-peak-district
From: Hunt Denise [mailto:Denise.Hunt@peakdistrict.gov.uk] Sent: 19 September 2018 17:15 To: Pocock, Matthew Subject: Heyridge Farm Hi Matthew I haven't heard anything officially yet from our Landscape Architect on the proposed landscaping but have the report ready for off to the manager otherwise. It's been noted though that the area of landscaping to the south of the bank is a bit far west, in the position shown on drawing number IDS-140-DR-A-05-10-001 it would screen the stone barn by the farmhouse so it might be better if it went eastwards for a bit further, this is shown on the attached plan. The attached also shows more planting to the north and east but I'm not concerned about that as we've agreed to a stone wall rather than fencing to enclose the area. I could reserve a landscape plan for agreement but you might want to adjust it a bit before the application gets finalised instead, there's time as we've agreed the extension of time to the 27th I know you want to get on with it, and I want to get it finished this week if possible for you, so let me know whether you want to amend or leave it as submitted Regards Denise
Denise Hunt
Planning Assistant
01629 816394
Denise.Hunt@peakdistrict.gov.uk
Started by you. Supported by you.
sign up to receive OurPeak keep up to date with campaigns and projects we're working on to look after the
National Park for everyone forever
Donate here
Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, DE45 1AE. Phone:01629 816200
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email message may contain confidential information, may be legally privileged and /or contain personal views or
opinions that are not the Authority's. It is intended only for the use of the addressee or those included on the email
recipients. If you have received this email in error please tell us and delete it immediately. Under Freedom of
Information legislation email content may be disclosed. The Authority may monitor email traffic data and also the
content of email for the purposes of security. Our Privacy Notice tells you about how we will use, and store your
information, in line with the GDPR. Please click here to view the notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
##
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by CensorNet. The service is powered by MailSafe. For more information please visit http://www.censornet.com The National Trust is a registered charity no. 205846. Our registered office is Heelis, Kemble Drive, Swindon, Wiltshire SN2 2NA. The views expressed in this email are personal and may not necessarily reflect those of the National Trust unless explicitly stated otherwise. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you should not copy it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person. Senders and recipients of email should be aware that, under the Data Protection Act 2018, the contents may have to be disclosed. The National Trust has scanned this email for security issues. However the National Trust cannot accept liability for any form of malware that may be in this email and we recommend that you check all emails with an appropriate security tool.
Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, DE45 1AE. Phone:01629 816200 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email message may contain confidential information, may be legally privileged and /or contain personal views or opinions that are not the Authority's. It is intended only for the use of the addressee or those included on the email recipients. If you have received this email in error please tell us and delete it immediately. Under Freedom of Information legislation email content may be disclosed. The Authority may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security. Our Privacy Notice tells you about how we will use, and store your information, in line with the GDPR. Please click here to view the notice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by CensorNet. The service is powered by MailSafe. For more information please visit http://www.censornet.com The National Trust is a registered charity no. 205846. Our registered office is Heelis, Kemble Drive, Swindon, Wiltshire SN2 2NA. The views expressed in this email are personal and may not necessarily reflect those of the National Trust unless explicitly stated otherwise. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you should not copy it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person. Senders and recipients of email should be aware that, under the Data Protection Act 2018, the contents may have to be disclosed. The National Trust has scanned this email for security issues. However the National Trust cannot accept liability for any form of malware that may be in this email and we recommend that you check all emails with an appropriate security tool. | en |
2813-pdf |
## Freedom Of Information
Information on what a freedom of information request is and how to make a request. Under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs) 2004, you can request any recorded information held by a public body. This includes information held on computers, in emails, datasets, printed or handwritten documents, images, videos and sound recordings. The FOI Act and EIRs provide the general right of access to information held by public authorities. Almost all of the requests received by the FSA are FOI rather than EIR requests. For this reason, this guidance focuses on submitting FOI requests.
## The Freedom Of Information Act
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires us to:
provide information about the FSA through our publication scheme provide a guide to this information, and
respond appropriately to requests for information within 20 working days.
## Who Can Make A Request
Anyone can make a freedom of information request. You do not have to be a UK citizen, or resident in the UK to submit a request. Freedom of information requests can also be made by organisations, such as newspapers, campaign groups, or companies.
## Before You Make An Foi Request
Before you make an FOI request, you should check our website to see if the information you require is already available. We are committed to the transparent and open publication of information explaining what we do and how we ensure that food is safe. Our guidance on what we publish outlines the range of information available online. The publication scheme details:
information available by class, such as our priorities, policies and procedures whether information is published on the internet or as a hard copy whether the material is available free of charge or on payment of a fee.
You can check previous published FOI requests via our datasets. Some sensitive information is not available to the public. If this is the case, we will tell you why we cannot provide some, or all, of the requested information. This will be through using one or more of the exemptions of the Freedom of Information Act.
## Making An Foi Request
You can make a freedom of information request by email to fct@food.gov.uk. You can also write to us by post to:
## Foi, Complaints And Transparency Team Food Standards Agency
Clive House, 70 Petty France Westminster London
## Sw1H 9Ex
When making a request, you must provide:
your name an address where you would like the information sent to (this can be an email or postal address) a clear description of the information you want. You should be as specific as possible in your request and avoid general questions.
If you need help forming your request you can visit the Information Commissioner's Office for useful tips.
Once we receive your request, we will write to you to provide an acknowledgement. We will provide our response to your request within the legal deadline of 20 working days. Our response will let you know whether we hold the information. If we do, we will either supply a copy of the requested information, or set out the reasons why we believe an exemption applies.
Requests for personal data and subject access request should be sent to the Knowledge, Information Management Team (KIMS) at informationmanagement@food.gov.uk
## Exemptions
The FOI Act contains a number of exemptions which may apply to information held by the FSA.
We are required to consider whether an exemption is absolute or **qualified**. An **absolute exemption** is where we are not required to consider the public interest in disclosing or withholding the information. Examples of absolute exemptions include:
information accessible to the applicant by other means information that is personal and would breach the Data Protection Act 1998 and GDPR Act 2018 information provided in confidence.
A **qualified exemption** is where we are required to consider the public interest in disclosing or withholding the information. Examples of qualified exemptions include:
information intended for future publication information that is pre-published research data information that impacts the health and safety of an individual information covered by Legal Professional Privilege (LLP) information that impacts the commercial interests of any organisation.
Once a qualified exemption is used, the FSA is legally able to extend the statutory deadline. This is only applicable if we require more time to consider the public interest arguments. This is the only time when the 20-working day statutory deadline can be extended without the response being treated as a late reply. If we need to extend the deadline, we will write to you before the original response date to inform you of this.
## Appealing An Foi Response
If you are not satisfied with the way the FSA has handled your freedom of information request, you can request an internal review within two calendar months of the response letter. You should write to the FOI, Complaints and Transparency Team (FCT). They will arrange for the Complaints Coordinator to conduct the review.
The Complaints Coordinator can be contacted by email at fct@food.gov.uk or by post at:
## Fsa Complaints Coordinator Food Standards Agency Foi, Complaints And Transparency Team Clive House, 70 Petty France London Sw1H 9Ex
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you may then apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. The ICO will investigate the case and decide whether your request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the FOI Act. Generally, the ICO will not investigate a case unless you have exhausted the internal review procedure provided by the FSA. The Information Commissioner can be contacted online at www.ico.gov.uk or by post at:
## Information Commissioner'S Office Wycliffe House Water Lane How We Use Your Personal Information
The FCT team will use your personal information to log, consider and answer your FOI request to the FSA. We will liaise with colleagues internally (including those collating the information requested, and any other FSA offices with a valid interest in the response) as well as, on occasion, external third parties who may need to be consulted on any potential disclosure. We will not disclose personal details during any third-party consultations. If you refer your request to the ICO, and thereafter the relevant tribunal system, we will share your information as necessary in answering regulatory enquiries and making submissions.
For more information about how we handle your personal information, and your rights under data protection legislation, please see our privacy notice.
## Publishing Responses
Our datasets list some of our responses to requests made under both the FOI Act and EIRs. We will publish information in this way where we consider that there is a wider public interest.
This decision to publish is guided by the following criteria:
if there is a substantial public, rather than private, interest in the information if a number of requests have been made on the same or similar subject if publication would demonstrate how we spend money if publication would demonstrate how we exercise our regulatory functions and makes decisions if publication would inform public debate.
When publishing responses, we will remove all references to personal information where necessary to comply with the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). | en |
4114-pdf |
## National Food Crime Unit
The National Food Crime Unit (NFCU) is a law enforcement capability within the FSA. Consumers should have confidence that their food is safe and what it says it is. The National Food Crime Unit (NFCU) is a dedicated law enforcement function of the Food Standards Agency (FSA). The unit provides leadership on food crime across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The unit works closely with the Scottish Food Crime and Incidents Unit within Food Standards Scotland. The NFCU was established in 2015 following a review of the 2013 horse meat incident. The NFCU is tasked with protecting consumers and the food industry from food crime within food supply chains. We define food crime as serious fraud and related criminality in food supply chains. This definition also includes activity impacting on drink and animal feed. The NFCU response is determined by assessing the gravity of the fraud. This will include considerations of the degree of planning and co-ordination in committing it, the impact of the fraud across geographical regions and boundaries, and the financial loss and other harm to the public and industry.
Examples of food crime include the use of stolen food in the supply chain, unlawful slaughter, diversion of unsafe food, adulteration, substitution or misrepresentation of food, and document fraud.
## National Food Crime Unit Objectives
The strategic objectives of the NFCU are to:
Prevent food being rendered unsafe or inauthentic through dishonesty Disrupt offending and bring offenders to justice Build global and domestic counter food crime capability The NFCU plays an important role in multi-sector engagement at national and international levels. It works closely with the food industry to ensure that businesses are well-informed and prepared to counter food crime. The Unit aims to create a hostile environment for those engaging in food crime by investigating suspected offenders or otherwise supporting partners in their lawful efforts to similarly disrupt those criminals.
## National Food Crime Unit Responses
The development and analysis of intelligence and information from a range of sources enables the Unit to prepare detailed strategic assessments that will identify threats, risks and vulnerabilities. The unit works with industry to raise their awareness and test their response systems to food crime develops their resilience to the benefit of the food business and the public.
## Control Strategy 2020-21
The NFCU Control Strategy 2020-21 outlines the Unit's current food crime priorities, and the actions we are taking to prevent food crime, deter and disrupt food criminals and bring offenders to justice. We also highlight areas where we are developing our understanding in order to improve our approach to tackling food crime. View NFCU Control Strategy 2020-21 as PDF (698.59 KB)
## Reporting Food Crime
Members of the public and those working in the food and drink sector can speak up about food crime through Food Crime Confidential.
Anyone with suspicions of food crime can report it safely and confidentially to the NFCU. You can report a food crime online or by phone on **0207 276 8787**. | en |
3440-pdf | Country:
UK
Date: 15 May 2014
Name of Official responsible for reply:
Sheila Ward Official Address (in full): Forestry Commission, 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh EH12 7AT, UK
## Eu Jq1 Ob
Telephone:+ 44 300 067 5236
Fax: + 44 131 316 4344
## Forest Sector Questionnaire
E-mail:
sheila.ward@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
## Removals
Product
Product
2012
2013
Unit
Code
Quantity
Quantity
ROUNDWOOD REMOVALS OVERBARK
3
11,345
12,084
1
ROUNDWOOD
1000 m
3
10,812
11,555
1.C
Coniferous
1000 m
3
532
529
1.NC
Non-Coniferous
1000 m
3
1,500
1,775
1.1
WOOD FUEL, INCLUDING WOOD FOR CHARCOAL
1000 m
3
1,100
1,375
1.1.C
Coniferous
1000 m
3
400
400
1.1.NC
Non-Coniferous
1000 m
3
9,845
10,310
1.2
INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD (WOOD IN THE ROUGH)
1000 m
3
9,712
10,180
1.2.C
Coniferous
1000 m
3
132
129
1.2.NC
Non-Coniferous
1000 m
3
6,898
7,368
1.2.1
SAWLOGS AND VENEER LOGS
1000 m
3
6,822
7,294
1.2.1.C
Coniferous
1000 m
3
75
74
1.2.1.NC
Non-Coniferous
1000 m
3
2,351
2,318
1.2.2
PULPWOOD (ROUND & SPLIT)
1000 m
3
2,349
2,318
1.2.2.C
Coniferous
1000 m
3
2
0
1.2.2.NC
Non-Coniferous
1000 m
3
597
624
1.2.3
OTHER INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD
1000 m
3
541
569
1.2.3.C
Coniferous
1000 m
3
55
55
1.2.3.NC
Non-Coniferous
1000 m
Sheila Ward
## Jq1 Forest Sector Questionnaire Removals And Production
Product
Product
2012
2013
Code
Quantity
Quantity
ROUNDWOOD REMOVALS (under bark)
1
ROUNDWOOD
1000 m3
10,120
10,780
1.C
Coniferous
1000 m3
9,654
10,317
1.NC
Non-Coniferous
1000 m3
466
463
1.1
WOOD FUEL, INCLUDING WOOD FOR CHARCOAL
1000 m3
1,332
1,578
1.1.C
Coniferous
1000 m3
982
1,228
1.1.NC
Non-Coniferous
1000 m3
350
350
1.2
INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD (WOOD IN THE ROUGH)
1000 m3
8,788
9,203
1.2.C
Coniferous
1000 m3
8,672
9,089
1.2.NC
Non-Coniferous
1000 m3
116
113
1.2.1
SAWLOGS AND VENEER LOGS
1000 m3
6,157
6,577
1.2.1.C
Coniferous
1000 m3
6,091
6,512
1.2.1.NC
Non-Coniferous
1000 m3
66
65
1.2.2
PULPWOOD (ROUND & SPLIT)
1000 m3
2,099
2,069
1.2.2.C
Coniferous
1000 m3
2,097
2,069
1.2.2.NC
Non-Coniferous
1000 m3
2
0
1.2.3
OTHER INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD
1000 m3
532
556
1.2.3.C
Coniferous
1000 m3
483
508
1.2.3.NC
Non-Coniferous
1000 m3
48
48
PRODUCTION
2
WOOD CHARCOAL
1000 mt
5
5
3
CO-PRODUCTS / CHIPS, PARTICLES, RESIDUES
1000 m3
3,226
3,090
3.1
Chips and particles
1000 m3
2,419
2,318
3.2
Residues including wood for agglomerates
1000 m3
806
773
4
WOOD PELLETS AND OTHER AGGLOMERATES
1000 mt
278
301
4.1
Wood pellets
1000 mt
278
301
4.2
Other agglomerates
1000 mt
0
0
5
SAWNWOOD
1000 m3
3,409
3,571
5.C
Coniferous
1000 m3
3,361
3,525
5.NC
Non-Coniferous
1000 m3
48
46
5.NC.T
of which:Tropical
1000 m3
0
0
6
WOOD-BASED PANELS
1000 m3
3,003
3,032
6.1
VENEER SHEETS
1000 m3
0
0
6.1.C
Coniferous
1000 m3
0
0
6.1.NC
Non-Coniferous
1000 m3
0
0
6.1.NC.T
of which:Tropical
1000 m3
0
0
6.2
PLYWOOD
1000 m3
0
0
6.2.C
Coniferous
1000 m3
0
0
6.2.NC
Non-Coniferous
1000 m3
0
0
6.2.NC.T
of which:Tropical
1000 m3
0
0
6.3
PARTICLE BOARD, OSB and OTHERS
1000 m3
2,215
2,276
6.3.1
of which:OSB
1000 m3
+ + +
+ + +
6.4
FIBREBOARD
1000 m3
788
756
6.4.1
HARDBOARD
1000 m3
0
0
6.4.2
MDF (MEDIUM DENSITY)
1000 m3
788
756
6.4.3
OTHER FIBREBOARD
1000 m3
0
0
7
WOOD PULP
1000 mt
+ + +
+ + +
7.1
MECHANICAL
1000 mt
+ + +
+ + +
7.2
SEMI-CHEMICAL
1000 mt
0
0
7.3
CHEMICAL
1000 mt
+ + +
+ + +
7.3.1
SULPHATE UNBLEACHED
1000 mt
0
+ + +
7.3.2
SULPHATE BLEACHED
1000 mt
0
+ + +
7.3.3
SULPHITE UNBLEACHED
1000 mt
0
+ + +
7.3.4
SULPHITE BLEACHED
1000 mt
0
+ + +
7.4
DISSOLVING GRADES
1000 mt
0
+ + +
8
OTHER PULP
1000 mt
3,202
3,235
8.1
PULP FROM FIBRES OTHER THAN WOOD
1000 mt
0
0
8.2
RECOVERED FIBRE PULP
1000 mt
3,202
3,235
9
RECOVERED PAPER
1000 mt
8,099
7,869
10
PAPER AND PAPERBOARD
1000 mt
4,480
4,561
10.1
GRAPHIC PAPERS
1000 mt
1,616
1,636
10.1.1
NEWSPRINT
1000 mt
1,184
1,233
10.1.2
UNCOATED MECHANICAL
1000 mt
+ + +
+ + +
10.1.3
UNCOATED WOODFREE
1000 mt
+ + +
+ + +
10.1.4
COATED PAPERS
1000 mt
+ + +
+ + +
10.2
SANITARY AND HOUSEHOLD PAPERS
1000 mt
795
802
10.3
PACKAGING MATERIALS
1000 mt
1,798
1,851
10.3.1
CASE MATERIALS
1000 mt
+ + +
+ + +
10.3.2
CARTONBOARD
1000 mt
+ + +
+ + +
10.3.3
WRAPPING PAPERS
1000 mt
+ + +
+ + +
10.3.4
OTHER PAPERS MAINLY FOR PACKAGING
1000 mt
+ + +
+ + +
10.4
OTHER PAPER AND PAPERBOARD N.E.S.
1000 mt
271
272
+ + + denotes data not available.
Country:
UK
Date: 15 May 2014 (Revised
25 August 2016)
Name of Official responsible for reply: Official Address (in full): Forestry Commission,
231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh EH12 7AT, UK
Telephone:+ 44 300 067 5236
Fax: + 44 131 316 4344 E-mail:
sheila.w ard@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
Unit
UK
Country:
Date: 15 May 2014
Name of Official responsible for reply:
Sheila Ward
##
FOREST SECTOR QUESTIONNAIRE
Official Address (in full): Forestry Commission, 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh EH12 7AT, UK
Trade
Telephone:
+ 44 300 067 5236
Fax: + 44 131 316 4344
E-mail:
sheila.ward@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
1000 UK £ (Sterling)
| I M P O R T | E X P O R T |
|------------------------------------------|---------------|
| Product | |
| | |
| Unit of | |
| 2013 | 2012 |
| code | Product |
| quantity | |
| | |
| | |
| Quantity | Value |
| 1 | |
| ROUNDWOOD | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 290 | 40,242 |
| 1.1 | |
| WOOD FUEL, INCLUDING WOOD FOR CHARCOAL | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 12 | 2,525 |
| 1.2 | |
| INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD (WOOD IN THE ROUGH) | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 278 | 37,717 |
| 1.2.C | |
| Coniferous | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 220 | 19,487 |
| 1.2.NC | |
| Non-Coniferous | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 58 | 18,230 |
| 1.2.NC.T | |
| of which: Tropical | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 10 | 4,914 |
| 2 | |
| WOOD CHARCOAL | |
| 1000 mt | 88 |
| 3 | |
| CO-PRODUCTS / CHIPS, PARTICLES, RESIDUES | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 139 | 4,907 |
| 3.1 | |
| Chips and particles | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 137 | 4,053 |
| 3.2 | |
| Residues including wood for agglomerates | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 2 | 854 |
| 4 | |
| WOOD PELLETS AND OTHER AGGLOMERATES | |
| 1000 mt | 1,494 |
| 4.1 | |
| Wood pellets | |
| 1000 mt | 1,487 |
| 4.2 | |
| Other agglomerates | |
| 1000 mt | 8 |
| 5 | |
| SAWNWOOD | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 5,179 | 1,084,201 |
| 5.C | |
| Coniferous | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 4,756 | 849,326 |
| 5.NC | |
| Non-Coniferous | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 423 | 234,876 |
| 5.NC.T | |
| of which: Tropical | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 132 | 80,443 |
| 6 | |
| WOOD-BASED PANELS | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 2,650 | 790,977 |
| 6.1 | |
| VENEER SHEETS | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 20 | 33,601 |
| 6.1.C | |
| Coniferous | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 3 | 2,397 |
| 6.1.NC | |
| Non-Coniferous | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 17 | 31,204 |
| 6.1.NC.T | |
| of which: Tropical | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | 7,590 |
| 6.2 | |
| PLYWOOD | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 1,285 | 394,936 |
| 6.2.C | |
| Coniferous | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 390 | 103,030 |
| 6.2.NC | |
| Non-Coniferous | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 895 | 291,905 |
| 6.2.NC.T | |
| of which: Tropical | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 91 | 37,540 |
| 6.3 | |
| PARTICLE BOARD, OSB and OTHERS | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 610 | 122,644 |
| 6.3.1 | |
| of which: OSB | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 194 | 33,350 |
| 6.4 | |
| FIBREBOARD | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 735 | 239,797 |
| 6.4.1 | |
| HARDBOARD | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 122 | 67,558 |
| 6.4.2 | |
| MDF (MEDIUM DENSITY) | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 558 | 159,594 |
| 6.4.3 | |
| OTHER FIBREBOARD | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 54 | 12,645 |
| 7 | |
| WOOD PULP | |
| 1000 mt | 999 |
| 7.1 | |
| MECHANICAL | |
| 1000 mt | 11 |
| 7.2 | |
| SEMI-CHEMICAL | |
| 1000 mt | 57 |
| 7.3 | |
| CHEMICAL | |
| 1000 mt | 860 |
| 7.3.1 | |
| SULPHATE UNBLEACHED | |
| 1000 mt | 11 |
| 7.3.2 | |
| SULPHATE BLEACHED | |
| 1000 mt | 835 |
| 7.3.3 | |
| SULPHITE UNBLEACHED | |
| 1000 mt | 1 |
| 7.3.4 | |
| SULPHITE BLEACHED | |
| 1000 mt | 13 |
| 7.4 | |
| DISSOLVING GRADES | |
| 1000 mt | 71 |
| 8 | |
| OTHER PULP | |
| 1000 mt | 22 |
| 8.1 | |
| PULP FROM FIBRES OTHER THAN WOOD | |
| 1000 mt | 22 |
| 8.2 | |
| RECOVERED FIBRE PULP | |
| 1000 mt | 0 |
| 9 | |
| RECOVERED PAPER | |
| 1000 mt | 160 |
| 10 | |
| PAPER AND PAPERBOARD | |
| 1000 mt | 6,119 |
| 10.1 | |
| GRAPHIC PAPERS | |
| 1000 mt | 3,626 |
| 10.1.1 | |
| NEWSPRINT | |
| 1000 mt | 652 |
| 10.1.2 | |
| UNCOATED MECHANICAL | |
| 1000 mt | 560 |
| 10.1.3 | |
| UNCOATED WOODFREE | |
| 1000 mt | 1,005 |
| 10.1.4 | |
| COATED PAPERS | |
| 1000 mt | 1,409 |
| 10.2 | |
| SANITARY AND HOUSEHOLD PAPERS | |
| 1000 mt | 356 |
| 10.3 | |
| PACKAGING MATERIALS | |
| 1000 mt | 2,017 |
| 10.3.1 | |
| CASE MATERIALS | |
| 1000 mt | 989 |
| 10.3.2 | |
| CARTONBOARD | |
| 1000 mt | 727 |
| 10.3.3 | |
| WRAPPING PAPERS | |
| 1000 mt | 187 |
| 10.3.4 | |
| OTHER PAPERS MAINLY FOR PACKAGING | |
| 1000 mt | 114 |
| 10.4 | |
| OTHER PAPER AND PAPERBOARD N.E.S. | |
| 1000 mt | 120 |
Country:
UK
Date: 15 May 2014
Name of Official responsible for reply:
Sheila Ward Official Address (in full): Forestry Commission, 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh EH12 7AT, UK
JQ3
Telephone/Fax:
+ 44 300 067 5236
+ 44 131 316 4344
## Forest Sector Questionnaire
E-mail:
sheila.ward@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
## Secondary Processed Wood And Paper Products
## Trade
1000 UK £ (Sterling)
I M P O R T V A L U E
E X P O R T V A L U E
Product
Product
code
2012
2013
2012
2013
11
Secondary wood products
11.1
Further processed sawnwood
141,756
155,499
14,318
14,489
11.1.C
Coniferous
30,269
34,437
7,374
7,326
11.1.NC
Non-coniferous
111,487
121,062
6,944
7,163
11.1.NC.T
of which: Tropical
55,743
60,531
3,472
3,582
11.2
Wooden wrapping and packing equipment
94,074
113,189
35,793
38,943
11.3
Wood products for domestic/decorative use (excl. furniture)
116,818
129,066
16,099
20,346
11.4
Other manufactured wood products
188,119
187,742
29,960
30,760
11.5
Builder's joinery and carpentry of wood
491,167
511,296
40,430
40,701
11.6
Wooden furniture
2,347,707
2,393,498
291,825
307,949
11.7
Prefabricated buildings
103,181
117,976
108,902
93,142
11.7.1
of which: made of wood
30,817
38,847
10,185
2,801
12
Secondary paper products
12.1
Composite paper and paperboard
50,561
46,357
8,871
11,894
12.2
Special coated paper
289,506
326,930
236,403
227,505
12.3
Carbon paper and copying paper, ready for use
10,096
14,615
2,511
3,554
12.4
Household and sanitary paper, ready for use
281,321
280,693
176,146
178,727
12.5
Packaging cartons, boxes, etc.
613,787
630,794
269,658
297,421
12.6
Other articles of paper or paperboard
608,316
637,063
517,513
538,672
12.6.1
of which: printing & writing paper, ready for use
9,048
12,865
3,320
4,143
12.6.2
of which: articles, moulded or pressed from pulp
18,941
18,099
9,314
9,677
12.6.3
of which: filter paper & paperboard, ready for use
14,733
19,732
106,341
117,057
Flow
Product
Year
Total Export
Total Import
Extra-EU Export
Extra-EU Import
Production 1000 mt
1000 mt
1000 NAC 1000 mt
1000 NAC 1000 mt
1000 NAC 1000 mt
1000 NAC
2012
0
3
2,829
20
22,409
1
890
6
8,524
Glulam
2013
0
2
2,676
23
26,602
0
514
7
10,214
2012
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
X-lam
2013
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
Definitions: Glulam: Builders' carpentry also includes glue-laminated timber (glulam), which is a structural timber product obtained by gluing together a number of wood laminations having their grain essentially parallel. Laminations of curved members are arranged so that the plane of each lamination is at 90 degrees to the plane of the applied load; thus, laminations of a straight gluman beam are laid flat. [from HS 4418, Builders' joinery and carpentry of wood, including cellular wood panels, assembled flooring panels, shingles and shakes] X-lam: Panels consisting of laths of roughly sawn wood, assembled with glue in order to facilitate transport or later working. [from HS4421, Other articles of wood]
+ + + denotes data not available.
Country:
Date: 15 May 2014
Sheila Ward
## Ece/Eu Species Trade Forest Sector Questionnaire Trade In Roundwood And Sawnwood By Species
1000 UK £ (Sterling)
Product
Classification Classification
Unit of
Code
HS2007
CN2007
Product
Quantity
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
3
220
19,487
390
31,741
526
22,406
628
32,582
1.2.C
44.03.20
Industrial Roundwood (wood in the rough), Coniferous
1000 m
3
36
5,801
58
7,633
15
2,510
100
6,386
ex 44.03.20
Fir/Spruce (Abies spp., Picea spp.)
1000 m
3
23
3,660
43
5,815
13
2,312
99
6,352
44.03.20.11
sawlogs and veneer logs (Abies alba, Picea abies)
1000 m
3
13
2,140
15
1,818
2
198
1
34
44.03.20.19
pulpwood and other industrial roundwood (Abies alba, Picea abies) 1000 m
3
34
5,804
111
15,148
295
9,341
256
8,998
ex 44.03.20
Pine (Pinus spp.)
1000 m
3
3
426
5
544
11
442
0
4
44.03.20.31
sawlogs and veneer logs (Pinus sylvestris)
1000 m
3
31
5,378
106
14,604
284
8,899
256
8,994
44.03.20.39
pulpwood and other industrial roundwood (Pinus sylvestris)
1000 m
3
150
7,882
221
8,960
216
10,555
272
17,198
ex 44.03.20
Other / Non-specified
1000 m
3
138
5,862
220
8,780
36
1,802
32
1,346
44.03.20.91
sawlogs and veneer logs
1000 m
3
12
2,020
0
180
179
8,753
240
15,851
44.03.20.99
pulpwood and other industrial roundwood
1000 m
3
58
18,230
26
6,952
0
606
0
198
1.2.NC
44.03.40/90
Industrial Roundwood (wood in the rough), Non-Coniferous
1000 m
3
19
6,136
24
4,684
0
85
0
75
44.03.91
of which: Oak (Quercus spp.)
1000 m
3
12
2,063
18
2,891
0
15
0
0
44.03.91.10
sawlogs and veneer logs
1000 m
3
8
4,073
6
1,793
0
70
0
75
44.03.91.90
pulpwood and other industrial roundwood
1000 m
3
2
348
2
454
0
21
0
2
44.03.92
of which: Beech (Fagus spp.)
1000 m
3
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
44.03.92.10
sawlogs and veneer logs
1000 m
3
2
348
2
454
0
15
0
2
44.03.92.90
pulpwood and other industrial roundwood
1000 m
3
0
41
0
61
0
0
0
22
ex 44.03.99
of which: Birch (Betula spp.)
1000 m
3
0
41
0
41
0
0
0
22
44.03.99.51
sawlogs and veneer logs
1000 m
3
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
44.03.99.59
pulpwood and other industrial roundwood
1000 m
3
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
11
44.03.99.10
of which: Poplar (Populus spp.)
1000 m
3
3
727
1
137
0
0
0
42
44.03.99.30
of which: Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.)
1000 m
3
4,756
849,326
5,094
937,293
116
20,094
148
24,847
5.C
44.07.10
Sawnwood, Coniferous
1000 m
3
2,267
389,933
2,400
432,159
17
3,671
25
4,448
ex 44.07.10
of which: Fir/Spruce (Abies spp., Picea spp.)
1000 m
3
1,294
245,931
1,477
288,003
1
314
2
327
ex 44.07.10
of which: Pine (Pinus spp.)
1000 m
3
423
234,876
406
243,940
25
13,984
19
11,496
5.NC
44.07.20/90
Sawnwood, Non-coniferous
1000 m
3
139
89,258
117
102,336
5
3,277
4
2,846
44.07.91
of which: Oak (Quercus spp.)
1000 m
3
23
7,662
25
9,017
0
67
0
12
44.07.92
of which: Beech (Fagus spp.)
1000 m
3
3
2,109
4
2,364
0
41
0
77
44.07.93
of which: Maple (Acer spp.)
1000 m
3
1
927
1
723
0
20
0
33
44.07.94
of which: Cherry (Prunus spp.)
1000 m
3
16
7,991
18
10,615
0
320
0
284
44.07.95
of which: Ash (Fraxinus spp.)
1000 m
3
19
6,450
19
7,361
0
196
1
276
ex 44.07.99
of which: Poplar (Populus spp.)
1000 m
3
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
ex 44.07.99
of which: Birch (Betula spp.)
1000 m
Light blue cells are requested only for EU members using the Combined Nomenclature to fill in - other countries are welcome to do so if their trade classification nomenclature permits "ex" codes indicate that only part of that trade classication code is used
+ + + denotes data not available.
UK
Name of Official responsible for reply: Official Address (in full): Forestry Commission, 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh EH12 7AT, UK
+ 44 300 067 5236
+ 44 131 316 4344
Telephone:
Fax:
E-mail:
sheila.ward@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
| | | I M P O R T | E X P O R T |
|------|------|---------------|---------------|
| 2012 | 2013 | 2012 | 2013 |
UK
Country:
Date: 15 May 2014
Name of Official responsible for reply:
Sheila Ward
## Eu1
FOREST SECTOR QUESTIONNAIRE
Official Address (in full): Forestry Commission, 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh EH12 7AT, UK
Trade with countries outside EU
Telephone:
+ 44 300 067 5236
Fax:
+ 44 131 316 4344
E-mail:
sheila.ward@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
1000 UK £ (Sterling)
| I M P O R T | E X P O R T |
|------------------------------------------|---------------|
| Product | |
| | |
| Unit of | |
| 2012 | 2012 |
| code | Product |
| quantity | |
| | |
| | |
| Quantity | Value |
| 1 | |
| ROUNDWOOD | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 25 | 9,999 |
| 1.1 | |
| WOOD FUEL, INCLUDING WOOD FOR CHARCOAL | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 2 | 510 |
| 1.2 | |
| INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD (WOOD IN THE ROUGH) | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 23 | 9,489 |
| 1.2.C | |
| Coniferous | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | 417 |
| 1.2.NC | |
| Non-Coniferous | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 19 | 9,072 |
| 1.2.NC.T | |
| of which: Tropical | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 7 | 3,843 |
| 2 | |
| WOOD CHARCOAL | |
| 1000 mt | 62 |
| 3 | |
| CO-PRODUCTS / CHIPS, PARTICLES, RESIDUES | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 1 | 550 |
| 3.1 | |
| Chips and particles | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 0 | 165 |
| 3.2 | |
| Residues including wood for agglomerates | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 1 | 385 |
| 4 | |
| WOOD PELLETS AND OTHER AGGLOMERATES | |
| 1000 mt | 1,365 |
| 4.1 | |
| Wood pellets | |
| 1000 mt | 1,364 |
| 4.2 | |
| Other agglomerates | |
| 1000 mt | 1 |
| 5 | |
| SAWNWOOD | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 596 | 205,770 |
| 5.C | |
| Coniferous | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 372 | 75,731 |
| 5.NC | |
| Non-Coniferous | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 224 | 130,039 |
| 5.NC.T | |
| of which: Tropical | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 97 | 56,962 |
| 6 | |
| WOOD-BASED PANELS | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 1,054 | 303,008 |
| 6.1 | |
| VENEER SHEETS | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | 8,362 |
| 6.1.C | |
| Coniferous | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 1 | 1,145 |
| 6.1.NC | |
| Non-Coniferous | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 3 | 7,218 |
| 6.1.NC.T | |
| of which: Tropical | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 1 | 2,672 |
| 6.2 | |
| PLYWOOD | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 1,012 | 281,038 |
| 6.2.C | |
| Coniferous | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 287 | 69,881 |
| 6.2.NC | |
| Non-Coniferous | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 725 | 211,157 |
| 6.2.NC.T | |
| of which: Tropical | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 63 | 23,693 |
| 6.3 | |
| PARTICLE BOARD, OSB and OTHERS | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 2 | 724 |
| 6.3.1 | |
| of which: OSB | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 0 | 52 |
| 6.4 | |
| FIBREBOARD | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 36 | 12,884 |
| 6.4.1 | |
| HARDBOARD | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 7 | 3,926 |
| 6.4.2 | |
| MDF (MEDIUM DENSITY) | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 18 | 5,672 |
| 6.4.3 | |
| OTHER FIBREBOARD | |
| 1000 m | |
| 3 | |
| 10 | 3,285 |
| 7 | |
| WOOD PULP | |
| 1000 mt | 616 |
| 7.1 | |
| MECHANICAL | |
| 1000 mt | 9 |
| 7.2 | |
| SEMI-CHEMICAL | |
| 1000 mt | 0 |
| 7.3 | |
| CHEMICAL | |
| 1000 mt | 540 |
| 7.3.1 | |
| SULPHATE UNBLEACHED | |
| 1000 mt | 9 |
| 7.3.2 | |
| SULPHATE BLEACHED | |
| 1000 mt | 530 |
| 7.3.3 | |
| SULPHITE UNBLEACHED | |
| 1000 mt | 1 |
| 7.3.4 | |
| SULPHITE BLEACHED | |
| 1000 mt | 0 |
| 7.4 | |
| DISSOLVING GRADES | |
| 1000 mt | 67 |
| 8 | |
| OTHER PULP | |
| 1000 mt | 13 |
| 8.1 | |
| PULP FROM FIBRES OTHER THAN WOOD | |
| 1000 mt | 13 |
| 8.2 | |
| RECOVERED FIBRE PULP | |
| 1000 mt | 0 |
| 9 | |
| RECOVERED PAPER | |
| 1000 mt | 4 |
| 10 | |
| PAPER AND PAPERBOARD | |
| 1000 mt | 1,113 |
| 10.1 | |
| GRAPHIC PAPERS | |
| 1000 mt | 677 |
| 10.1.1 | |
| NEWSPRINT | |
| 1000 mt | 400 |
| 10.1.2 | |
| UNCOATED MECHANICAL | |
| 1000 mt | 63 |
| 10.1.3 | |
| UNCOATED WOODFREE | |
| 1000 mt | 183 |
| 10.1.4 | |
| COATED PAPERS | |
| 1000 mt | 31 |
| 10.2 | |
| SANITARY AND HOUSEHOLD PAPERS | |
| 1000 mt | 88 |
| 10.3 | |
| PACKAGING MATERIALS | |
| 1000 mt | 339 |
| 10.3.1 | |
| CASE MATERIALS | |
| 1000 mt | 93 |
| 10.3.2 | |
| CARTONBOARD | |
| 1000 mt | 160 |
| 10.3.3 | |
| WRAPPING PAPERS | |
| 1000 mt | 83 |
| 10.3.4 | |
| OTHER PAPERS MAINLY FOR PACKAGING | |
| 1000 mt | 3 |
| 10.4 | |
| OTHER PAPER AND PAPERBOARD N.E.S. | |
| 1000 mt | 9 |
Country:
UK
Date: 15 May 2014
Name of Official responsible for reply:
Sheila Ward Official Address (in full): Forestry Commission,
231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh EH12 7AT, UK Phone/Fax:
+ 44 300 067 5236
+ 44 131 316 4344
E-mail:
sheila.ward@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
## Eu2 Forest Sector Questionnaire Removals By Type Of Ownership
Product
Unit
2012
2013
Ownership
code
Quantity
Quantity
ROUNDWOOD REMOVALS (under bark)
3
10,120
10,780
1
ROUNDWOOD
1000 m
3
9,654
10,317
1.C
Coniferous
1000 m
3
466
463
1.NC
Non-coniferous
1000 m
3
4,797
5,061
State forests
1000 m
3
4,749
4,992
Coniferous
1000 m
3
48
69
Non-coniferous
1000 m
3
+ + +
+ + +
Other publicly owned forests
1000 m
3
+ + +
+ + +
Coniferous
1000 m
3
+ + +
+ + +
Non-coniferous
1000 m
3
5,322
5,719
Private forest
1000 m
3
4,905
5,325
Coniferous
1000 m
3
418
394
Non-coniferous
1000 m
## Note:
- Ownership categories correspond to those of the TBFRA.
State forests: Forests owned by national, state and regional governments, or government-owned corporations; Crown forests. Other publicly owned forests: Forests belonging to cities, municipalities, villages and communes. Private forests: Forests owned by individuals, co-operatives, enterprises and industries and other private institutions.
- The unit should be solid cubic metres, under bark.
+ + + denotes data not available.
## The Following Factors Have Been Used To Convert Between Cubic Metres (M3) And Metric Tonnes:
Product
m3 /
tonne
Fuelwood, including wood for charcoal
1.38
Wood chips, sawdust, etc
1.48
Industrial roundwood (wood in the rough) - softwood
1.43
Industrial roundwood (wood in the rough) - hardwood
1.25
Sawnwood - softwood
1.82
Sawnwood - hardwood
1.43
Veneer sheets
1.33
Plywood, particleboard
1.54
Hardboard
1.053
MDF (medium density fibreboard)
1.667
Insulating board - density 0.35-0.5 g/cm3
1.667
Insulating board - other
4
Codes for the JQ2 and EU1, EU and EFTA countries
## Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire
CROSS REFERENCE between the HS (bold print) and the CN (normal print)
The first six digits of the HS and CN codes are identical. The 8-digit CN codes are listed when they provide greater detail.
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s
Product
Product
Code
CN 2012
CN 2013
CN 2011
HS2012
HS2007
1
ROUNDWOOD
44.01.10 44.03.20/40/90
1.1
WOOD FUEL, INCLUDING WOOD FOR CHARCOAL
44.01.10
1.2
INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD (WOOD IN THE ROUGH)
44.03.20/40/90
1.2.C
Coniferous
44.03.20
1.2.NC
Non-Coniferous
(Eurostat to attribute all of 440399.95 to 1.2.NC)
44.03.40/90
1.2.NC.T
of which:Tropical
ex440399.95
44.03.41/49
44.03.40 ex440399
2
WOOD CHARCOAL
44.02.90
440120 440139.10
440120 ex440130
44.01.20 ex44.01.39
44.01.20 ex44.01.30
3
CO-PRODUCTS / CHIPS, PARTICLES, RESIDUES
440120 440139.30 440139.80
3.1
Chips and particles
440121/22
440121/22
44.01.21/22
3.2
Residues including wood for agglomerates
440139.30 440139.80
440139.10
ex440130
ex44.01.39
ex44.01.39
4
WOOD PELLETS AND OTHER AGGLOMERATES
440131.00 440139.20
440131.00 ex440139.90
440130.20 ex440130.80
44.01.31 ex44.01.39
4.1
Wood pellets
440131.00
440130.20
44.01.31
44.01.30
4.2
Other agglomerates
440139.20
ex440139.90
ex440130.80
ex44.01.39
5
SAWNWOOD
44.07
5.C
Coniferous
44.07.10
5.NC
Non-Coniferous
44.07.20/90
5.NC.T
of which:Tropical
440799.96
44.07.20 ex44.07.99
6
WOOD-BASED PANELS
44.08 44.10 44.11 44.12.30/90
6.1
VENEER SHEETS
44.08
6.1.C
Coniferous
44.08.10
6.1.NC
Non-Coniferous
(Eurostat to attribute all of 440890 to 6.1.NC)
44.08.30/90
6.1.NC.T
of which:Tropical
ex440890
44.08.30 ex44.08.90
6.2
PLYWOOD
44.12.30/90 44.12.39 ex44.12.90
6.2.C
Coniferous
441239.00; 441294.90; 441299.85
44.12.31/32 ex44.12.90
6.2.NC
Non-Coniferous
441231.10 and 441231.90; 441232.10; 441232.90; 441294.10; 441299.30; 441299.40; 441299.50
44.12.31 ex44.12.32 ex44.12.90
6.2.NC.T
of which:Tropical
441231.10 and 441231.90; 441232.90; 441299.50
6.3
PARTICLE BOARD, OSB and OTHERS
44.10
6.3.1
of which: OSB
44.10.12
6.4
FIBREBOARD
44.11
6.4.1
HARDBOARD
44.11.92
6.4.2
MDF (Medium Density)
44.11.10
6.4.3
OTHER FIBREBOARD
44.11.93/94
7
WOOD PULP
47.01 47.02 47.03 47.04 47.05
7.1
MECHANICAL
47.01
7.2
SEMI-CHEMICAL
47.05
7.3
CHEMICAL
47.03 47.04
7.3.1
SULPHATE UNBLEACHED
47.03.10
7.3.2
SULPHATE BLEACHED
47.03.20
7.3.3
SULPHITE UNBLEACHED
47.04.10
7.3.4
SULPHITE BLEACHED
47.04.20
7.4
DISSOLVING GRADES
47.02
8
OTHER PULP
47.06
8.1
PULP FROM FIBRES OTHER THAN WOOD
47.06.10/30/90
8.2
RECOVERED FIBRE PULP
47.06.20
9
RECOVERED PAPER
47.07
10
PAPER AND PAPERBOARD
48.01/02/03/04/05/06/08/09/10 48.11.50 48.12/13
10.1
GRAPHIC PAPERS
48.01 48.02.10/20/50/60 48.09 48.10.10/20
10.1.1
NEWSPRINT
48.01
10.1.2
UNCOATED MECHANICAL
48.02.60
10.1.3
UNCOATED WOODFREE
48.02.10/20/50
10.1.4
COATED PAPERS
48.09 48.10.10/20
10.2
SANITARY AND HOUSEHOLD PAPERS
48.03
10.3
PACKAGING MATERIALS
48.04.10/20/30/42/49/50 48.05.10/20/30/90 48.06.10/20/40 48.08 48.10.30/90 48.11.50
10.3.1
CASE MATERIALS
48.04.10 48.05.10/20/91
10.3.2
CARTONBOARD
48.04.42/49/50 48.05.92 48.10.32/39/92 48.11.50
10.3.3
WRAPPING PAPERS
48.04.20/30 48.05.30 48.06.10/20/40 48.08 48.10.31/99
10.3.4
OTHER PAPERS MAINLY FOR PACKAGING
48.05.93
10.4
OTHER PAPER AND PAPERBOARD N.E.S
480441.98
48.02.40 48.04.41 48.05.40/50 48.06.30 48.12/13
HS: The Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding Systems, a multipurpose international product nomenclature developed by the World Customs Organization (WCO), comprises up to six digits and is updated every 4 - 6 years.
CN: The Combined Nomenclature of the EU is identical to the HS on the first six digits and comprises two extra digits, making it more detailed than the HS. It is updated and published every year. How to interpret the notation: The dots are used for readability and have no meaning. A code ending in " 0" means that all subcodes are to be included, e.g. 47.03.10 includes subcodes 47.03.11 and 47.03.19. If only 4 digits are indicated, all subcodes are included, e.g.
47.06 includes 47.06.10, 47.06.20, 47.06.30, and 47.06.90. Code numbers separated by " /" mean that all the following codes ending in the digits indicated (and their subcodes) are to be included. The term " ex" means that only part of the data available under a code is usable because the code encompasses a wider product range. For instance, " ex44.07.99" under " Sawnwood - of which tropical" means that only part of the data under HS-code 44.07.99 is usable, because insufficient detail is available. However, the table shows that CN code 440799.96 is sufficiently detailed to identify " Sawnwood - of which tropical" . In case even the CN is not detailed enough, bold print is used in the CN column. Many tropical timber products contain " ex" codes in the above list, since the HS explicitly recognises less than 100 tropical timber species. Species not explicitly recognised as tropical are grouped in " other" categories with non-tropical, non-coniferous timbers that are likewise not explicitly recognised by the HS (e.g. 44.07.99). Estimates of tropical timber trade totals therefore require that these " other" categories be analysed to ascertain how much of the total was sourced from tropical countries. This can only be done at country level; Eurostat produces
## Codes For The Jq3, Eu And Efta Countries
JOINT FOREST SECTOR QUESTIONNAIRE
Trade in Secondary Processed Wood and Paper Products
CROSS REFERENCE between the HS (bold print) and the CN (normal print)
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s
Code
HS2007
CN 2012
HS2012
CN 2011
11
Secondary wood products
11.1
Further processed sawnwood
44.09.10 44.09.29
11.1.C
Coniferous
44.09.10
11.1.NC
Non-coniferous
(Eurostat to attribute all of 440929 to 11.1.NC)
44.09.29
11.1.NC.T
of which: Tropical
ex440929
ex44.09.29
11.2
Wooden wrapping and packing equipment
44.15 44.16
11.3
Wood products for domestic/decorative use (excl. furniture)
44.14 44.19 44.20
11.4
Other manufactured wood products
44.17 44.21
11.5
Builder's joinery and carpentry of wood
44.18 94.01.60 ex 94.01.90 94.03.30/40/50/60 ex94.03.90
11.6
Wooden furniture
940190.30 (parts, of seats, of wood) 940390.30 (furniture, parts, of wood)
11.7
Prefabricated buildings
94.06
11.7.1
of which made of wood
940600.20
ex94.06
12
Secondary paper products
12.1
Composite paper and paperboard
48.07
12.2
Special coated paper
48.11.10/40/60/90
12.3
Carbon paper and copying paper, ready for use
48.16
12.4
Household and sanitary paper, ready for use
48.18
12.5
Packaging cartons, boxes, etc.
48.19
12.6
Other articles of paper or paperboard
48.14/15/17/20/21/22/23
12.6.1
of which printing & writing paper, ready for use
482390.40
ex48.23.90
12.6.2
of which articles, moulded or pressed from pulp
48.23.70
12.6.3
of which filter paper & paperboard, ready for use
48.23.20
HS: The Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding Systems, a multipurpose international product nomenclature developed by the World Customs Organization (WCO), comprises up to six digits and is updated every 4 - 6 years.
CN: The Combined Nomenclature of the EU is identical to the HS on the first six digits and comprises two extra digits, making it more detailed than the HS. It is updated and published every How to interpret the notation: The dots are used for readability and have no meaning. A code ending in "0" means that all subcodes are to be included, e.g. 49.00 includes all codes from
49.01 to 49.11. If only 4 digits are indicated, all subcodes are included, e.g. 48.18 includes 48.18.10, 48.18.20, 48.18.30, 48.18.40, 48.18.50 and 48.18.90. Code numbers separated by "/" mean that all the follow ing codes ending in the digits indicated (and their subcodes) are to be included. The term "ex" means that only part of the data available under a code is usable because the code encompasses a wider product range. For instance, "ex94.06" under "Prefabricated buildings - of w hich made of w ood" means that only part of the data under HS-code 94.06 is usable, since mobile homes and prefabricated buildings of wood, iron or steel are all lumped together under that code. How ever, the table show s that the CN classification covers sufficient detail to identify "Prefabricated buildings of wood". In case even the CN is not detailed enough, bold print is used in the CN column. Many tropical timber products contain "ex" codes in the above list, since the HS explicitly recognises less than 100 tropical timber species. Species not explicitly recognised as tropical are grouped in "other" categories with non-tropical, non-coniferous timbers that are likewise not explicitly recognised by the HS. Estimates of tropical timber trade totals therefore require that these "other" categories be analysed to ascertain how much of the total was sourced from tropical countries. This can only be done at country level; Eurostat produces foreign trade data for all countries. | en |
2936-pdf |
## Appendix 1 Traffic Count Factors Introduction
The GMTU Traffic Counts System (COUNTS) incorporates factors which are applied
to single day counts to produce estimates of annual average flows. Three types of
factor are involved. These are:
(i)
Split-shift to 12-hour factors which are used to estimate single day 12-hour
vehicle-specific flows from shorter period counts. These factors are calculated from all available 12-hour continuous counts held on the COUNTS system; (ii)
Factors to estimate average 12, 16, 18 and 24-hour flows from 12-hour
counts. These are based on all available data from continuous Automatic
Traffic Counting (ATC) sites throughout the county; (iii)
Year to year factors. A new year to year factor is added each year and factors (i) and (ii) have been updated periodically as new data has become available. This appendix presents factors that have been produced from 2007 (split shift) and 2008 (12-hour to longer period) data. These are applied to counts in 2009. Factors currently applied to earlier counts are available on request.
Traffic Count Factors A.
Split Shift to 12-Hour The factors and their associated standard deviations were derived from 12 hour manual classified counts undertaken at 32 motorway, 125 A road and 181 B, C or U road sites throughout the county during 2007. All sites were 2-way.
12-Hour Flow = AM Peak 2-Hour Count
x
A1
Estimate
+ Off-Peak 2-Hour Count
x
A2 or A3
+
PM Peak 2-Hour Count
x
A4 Factors to estimate 12-hour motor vehicle counts to average 12, 16, 18 and 24-hour
motor vehicle flows and the standard deviations of the estimates were derived from
2008 Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) data at 27 two-way motorway and 55-two way
non-motorway sites throughout the county. B.
12-Hour to 12-Hour Annual Average Weekday (AAWT)
12-Hour Annual Average
12-Hour Flow
Weekday Estimate
= weekday (W)
x
B (W,M)
month (M) C.
12-Hour to 16-Hour Annual Average Weekday (AAWT)
16-Hour Annual Average
12-Hour Flow
Weekday Estimate
= weekday (W)
x
C (W,M)
month (M) D.
12-Hour to 18-Hour Annual Average Weekday (AAWT)
18-Hour Annual Average
12-Hour Flow
Weekday Estimate
= weekday (W)
x
D (W,M)
month (M) E.
12-Hour to 24-Hour Annual Average Weekday Traffic (AAWT)
24-Hour Annual Average
12-Hour Flow
Weekday Estimate
= weekday (W)
x
E (W,M)
month (M) F.
12-Hour to 24-Hour Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
24-Hour Annual Average
12-Hour Flow
Day Estimate
= weekday (W)
x
F (W,M)
month (M) G.
Year to Year Factors
Indices of motor vehicle traffic growth since 1979 are provided to allow counts to be factored to a common base.
| A | Split Shift to 12-Hour Factors |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------|
| | |
| | |
| 1. | Factors |
| | |
| Road | |
| Class | |
| | Time Period |
| Motor | |
| Cycle | |
| Pedal | |
| Cycle | |
| All Motor | |
| Vehicles | |
| A1 | 07:30-09:30 |
| A2 | 10:00-12:00 |
| Motorways | |
| A3 | 12:00-14:00 |
| A4 | 16:00-18:00 |
| A1 | 07:30-09:30 |
| A2 | 10:00-12:00 |
| A Roads | |
| A3 | 12:00-14:00 |
| A4 | 16:00-18:00 |
| A1 | 07:30-09:30 |
| A2 | 10:00-12:00 |
| B C U | |
| Roads | |
| A3 | 12:00-14:00 |
| A4 | 16:00-18:00 |
| | |
| | |
| 2. | Standard Deviations Associated with Factors |
| | |
| | |
| Road | |
| Class | |
| | Time Period |
| Motor | |
| Cycle | |
| Pedal | |
| Cycle | |
| All Motor | |
| Vehicles | |
| A1 | 07:30-09:30 |
| A2 | 10:00-12:00 |
| Motorways | |
| A3 | 12:00-14:00 |
| A4 | 16:00-18:00 |
| A1 | 07:30-09:30 |
| A2 | 10:00-12:00 |
| A Roads | |
| A3 | 12:00-14:00 |
| A4 | 16:00-18:00 |
| A1 | 07:30-09:30 |
| A2 | 10:00-12:00 |
| B C U | |
| Roads | |
| A3 | 12:00-14:00 |
| A4 | 16:00-18:00 |
| Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday | Friday | Saturday Sunday |
|-------------------------------------|-----------|--------------------|
| Average | | |
| Weekday | | |
| Factor | | |
| January | | |
| 1.062 | 1.031 | 1.022 |
| February | | |
| 1.024 | 1.006 | 0.994 |
| March | | |
| 1.021 | 1.002 | 0.997 |
| April | | |
| 1.006 | 0.995 | 0.982 |
| May | | |
| 1.005 | 1.001 | 0.986 |
| June | | |
| 1.023 | 1.008 | 0.998 |
| July | | |
| 1.025 | 1.009 | 0.998 |
| August | | |
| 1.064 | 1.039 | 1.007 |
| September | | |
| 1.024 | 1.017 | 0.999 |
| October | | |
| 1.019 | 1.017 | 1.001 |
| November | | |
| 1.036 | 1.016 | 1.011 |
| December | | |
| 1.032 | 1.037 | 1.017 |
| Average | | |
| Factor | | |
| 1.025 | 1.011 | 0.998 |
## 2. Standard Deviations Associated With Factors
| Monday | Tuesday Wednesday | Thursday | Friday | Saturday | Sunday |
|-----------|---------------------|------------|-----------|-------------|-----------|
| January | | | | | |
| 0.022 | 0.023 | 0.024 | 0.026 | 0.026 | 0.121 |
| February | | | | | |
| 0.018 | 0.019 | 0.017 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.123 |
| March | | | | | |
| 0.014 | 0.016 | 0.02 | 0.018 | 0.021 | 0.118 |
| April | | | | | |
| 0.019 | 0.015 | 0.018 | 0.014 | 0.018 | 0.11 |
| May | | | | | |
| 0.018 | 0.017 | 0.016 | 0.018 | 0.028 | 0.12 |
| June | | | | | |
| 0.017 | 0.017 | 0.017 | 0.018 | 0.024 | 0.125 |
| July | | | | | |
| 0.019 | 0.016 | 0.013 | 0.017 | 0.028 | 0.126 |
| August | | | | | |
| 0.035 | 0.02 | 0.023 | 0.027 | 0.041 | 0.136 |
| September | | | | | |
| 0.017 | 0.018 | 0.016 | 0.015 | 0.026 | 0.126 |
| October | | | | | |
| 0.016 | 0.021 | 0.019 | 0.013 | 0.023 | 0.118 |
| November | | | | | |
| 0.026 | 0.024 | 0.028 | 0.024 | 0.024 | 0.107 |
| December | | | | | |
| 0.028 | 0.037 | 0.032 | 0.038 | 0.02 | 0.109 |
| Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday | Friday | Saturday Sunday |
|-------------------------------------|-----------|--------------------|
| Average | | |
| Weekday | | |
| Factor | | |
| January | | |
| 1.032 | 1.013 | 1.008 |
| February | | |
| 1.016 | 0.998 | 0.987 |
| March | | |
| 1.012 | 0.99 | 0.989 |
| April | | |
| 1.008 | 0.992 | 0.983 |
| May | | |
| 1.011 | 0.991 | 0.986 |
| June | | |
| 1.037 | 1.017 | 1.008 |
| July | | |
| 1.045 | 1.022 | 1.018 |
| August | | |
| 1.104 | 1.07 | 1.06 |
| September | | |
| 1.040 | 1.021 | 1.015 |
| October | | |
| 1.020 | 1.006 | 0.996 |
| November | | |
| 1.016 | 1.002 | 0.995 |
| December | | |
| 1.004 | 0.988 | 0.978 |
| Average | | |
| Factor | | |
| 1.023 | 1.005 | 0.997 |
## 2. Standard Deviations Associated With Factors
| Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday | Thursday | Friday | Saturday | Sunday |
|-----------|------------|-------------|------------|-----------|-------------|-----------|
| January | | | | | | |
| 0.027 | 0.031 | 0.027 | 0.029 | 0.034 | 0.326 | 0.489 |
| February | | | | | | |
| 0.024 | 0.023 | 0.026 | 0.025 | 0.046 | 0.327 | 0.503 |
| March | | | | | | |
| 0.028 | 0.031 | 0.035 | 0.036 | 0.045 | 0.293 | 0.496 |
| April | | | | | | |
| 0.024 | 0.029 | 0.025 | 0.021 | 0.045 | 0.311 | 0.436 |
| May | | | | | | |
| 0.025 | 0.022 | 0.034 | 0.021 | 0.043 | 0.35 | 0.512 |
| June | | | | | | |
| 0.025 | 0.026 | 0.029 | 0.023 | 0.046 | 0.338 | 0.522 |
| July | | | | | | |
| 0.027 | 0.023 | 0.026 | 0.023 | 0.046 | 0.32 | 0.556 |
| August | | | | | | |
| 0.096 | 0.078 | 0.077 | 0.067 | 0.062 | 0.294 | 0.393 |
| September | | | | | | |
| 0.033 | 0.027 | 0.03 | 0.031 | 0.044 | 0.364 | 0.436 |
| October | | | | | | |
| 0.031 | 0.029 | 0.031 | 0.028 | 0.043 | 0.3 | 0.423 |
| November | | | | | | |
| 0.032 | 0.035 | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.042 | 0.312 | 0.396 |
| December | | | | | | |
| 0.034 | 0.035 | 0.037 | 0.036 | 0.046 | 0.311 | 0.475 |
| | | | | | | |
| Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday | Friday | Saturday Sunday |
|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------------|
| Average | | |
| Weekday | | |
| Factor | | |
| January | 1.254 | 1.216 |
| February | 1.211 | 1.189 |
| March | 1.206 | 1.184 |
| April | 1.187 | 1.175 |
| May | 1.186 | 1.182 |
| June | 1.207 | 1.190 |
| July | 1.210 | 1.191 |
| August | 1.255 | 1.227 |
| September | 1.209 | 1.201 |
| October | 1.203 | 1.201 |
| November | 1.224 | 1.200 |
| December | 1.220 | 1.226 |
| Average | | |
| Factor | | |
| 1.211 | 1.194 | 1.178 |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2. | Standard Deviations Associated with Factors | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday |
| January | 0.033 | 0.034 |
| February | 0.025 | 0.028 |
| March | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| April | 0.028 | 0.022 |
| May | 0.026 | 0.026 |
| June | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| July | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| August | 0.039 | 0.029 |
| September | 0.023 | 0.027 |
| October | 0.023 | 0.030 |
| November | 0.039 | 0.038 |
| December | 0.041 | 0.050 |
| Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday | Friday | Saturday Sunday |
|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------------|
| Average | | |
| Weekday | | |
| Factor | | |
| January | 1.209 | 1.188 |
| February | 1.191 | 1.170 |
| March | 1.186 | 1.161 |
| April | 1.182 | 1.163 |
| May | 1.186 | 1.163 |
| June | 1.216 | 1.193 |
| July | 1.225 | 1.200 |
| August | 1.295 | 1.257 |
| September | 1.220 | 1.199 |
| October | 1.196 | 1.179 |
| November | 1.192 | 1.175 |
| December | 1.179 | 1.160 |
| Average | | |
| Factor | | |
| 1.200 | 1.179 | 1.170 |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2. | Standard Deviations Associated with Factors | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday |
| January | 0.044 | 0.049 |
| February | 0.041 | 0.039 |
| March | 0.042 | 0.047 |
| April | 0.038 | 0.045 |
| May | 0.039 | 0.036 |
| June | 0.033 | 0.035 |
| July | 0.032 | 0.032 |
| August | 0.118 | 0.098 |
| September | 0.050 | 0.043 |
| October | 0.049 | 0.049 |
| November | 0.050 | 0.054 |
| December | 0.051 | 0.053 |
| | | |
| | | |
| Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday | Friday | Saturday Sunday |
|-------------------------------------|-----------|--------------------|
| Average | | |
| Weekday | | |
| Factor | | |
| January | | |
| 1.294 | 1.255 | 1.245 |
| February | | |
| 1.250 | 1.228 | 1.213 |
| March | | |
| 1.245 | 1.222 | 1.216 |
| April | | |
| 1.226 | 1.214 | 1.198 |
| May | | |
| 1.225 | 1.221 | 1.202 |
| June | | |
| 1.247 | 1.229 | 1.216 |
| July | | |
| 1.250 | 1.229 | 1.217 |
| August | | |
| 1.296 | 1.267 | 1.226 |
| September | | |
| 1.248 | 1.24 | 1.218 |
| October | | |
| 1.243 | 1.24 | 1.221 |
| November | | |
| 1.264 | 1.239 | 1.232 |
| December | | |
| 1.261 | 1.266 | 1.24 |
| Average | | |
| Factor | | |
| 1.250 | 1.233 | 1.216 |
## 2. Standard Deviations Associated With Factors
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
January
0.035
0.035
0.037
0.035
0.034
0.141
0.163
February
0.028
0.030
0.029
0.026
0.026
0.137
0.180
March
0.028
0.029
0.036
0.031
0.036
0.133
0.184
April
0.031
0.026
0.032
0.029
0.030
0.122
0.180
May
0.029
0.031
0.032
0.028
0.041
0.134
0.203
June
0.027
0.027
0.030
0.030
0.035
0.140
0.209
July
0.025
0.023
0.021
0.024
0.038
0.142
0.232
August
0.041
0.035
0.031
0.037
0.051
0.154
0.219
September
0.028
0.031
0.029
0.026
0.037
0.141
0.216
October
0.028
0.036
0.035
0.028
0.035
0.135
0.185
November
0.044
0.043
0.047
0.043
0.041
0.119
0.159
December
0.047
0.058
0.052
0.055
0.035
0.125
0.144
| Monday Tuesday Wednesday | Thursday | Friday Saturday Sunday |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------|
| Average | | |
| Weekday | | |
| Factor | | |
| January | 1.251 | 1.230 |
| February | 1.233 | 1.212 |
| March | 1.228 | 1.202 |
| April | 1.224 | 1.204 |
| May | 1.228 | 1.204 |
| June | 1.259 | 1.236 |
| July | 1.269 | 1.242 |
| August | 1.341 | 1.301 |
| September | 1.264 | 1.241 |
| October | 1.238 | 1.220 |
| November | 1.234 | 1.216 |
| December | 1.222 | 1.201 |
| Average | | |
| Factor | | |
| 1.243 | 1.221 | 1.212 |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2. | Standard Deviations Associated with Factors | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday |
| January | 0.052 | 0.056 |
| February | 0.049 | 0.047 |
| March | 0.048 | 0.053 |
| April | 0.045 | 0.050 |
| May | 0.045 | 0.042 |
| June | 0.040 | 0.042 |
| July | 0.039 | 0.040 |
| August | 0.124 | 0.104 |
| September | 0.058 | 0.050 |
| October | 0.056 | 0.056 |
| November | 0.056 | 0.061 |
| December | 0.057 | 0.060 |
| | | |
| Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday | Friday | Saturday Sunday |
|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------------|
| Average | | |
| Weekday | | |
| Factor | | |
| January | | |
| 1.350 | 1.308 | 1.298 |
| February | | |
| 1.304 | 1.280 | 1.264 |
| March | | |
| 1.297 | 1.274 | 1.267 |
| April | | |
| 1.278 | 1.265 | 1.248 |
| May | | |
| 1.276 | 1.272 | 1.252 |
| June | | |
| 1.299 | 1.280 | 1.267 |
| July | | |
| 1.302 | 1.281 | 1.268 |
| August | | |
| 1.350 | 1.320 | 1.277 |
| September | | |
| 1.300 | 1.292 | 1.269 |
| October | | |
| 1.295 | 1.292 | 1.272 |
| November | | |
| 1.317 | 1.291 | 1.284 |
| December | | |
| 1.314 | 1.319 | 1.293 |
| Average | | |
| Factor | | |
| 1.302 | 1.285 | 1.267 |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2. | Standard Deviations Associated with Factors | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday |
| January | | |
| 0.043 | 0.044 | 0.047 |
| February | | |
| 0.035 | 0.036 | 0.035 |
| March | | |
| 0.034 | 0.033 | 0.042 |
| April | | |
| 0.037 | 0.032 | 0.038 |
| May | | |
| 0.034 | 0.035 | 0.037 |
| June | | |
| 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.035 |
| July | | |
| 0.026 | 0.025 | 0.025 |
| August | | |
| 0.043 | 0.038 | 0.031 |
| September | | |
| 0.031 | 0.035 | 0.032 |
| October | | |
| 0.032 | 0.041 | 0.039 |
| November | | |
| 0.052 | 0.050 | 0.055 |
| December | | |
| 0.055 | 0.064 | 0.061 |
| Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday | Friday | Saturday Sunday |
|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------------|
| Average | | |
| Weekday | | |
| Factor | | |
| January | | |
| 1.283 | 1.261 | 1.254 |
| February | | |
| 1.266 | 1.243 | 1.230 |
| March | | |
| 1.260 | 1.233 | 1.231 |
| April | | |
| 1.256 | 1.235 | 1.225 |
| May | | |
| 1.260 | 1.235 | 1.228 |
| June | | |
| 1.293 | 1.268 | 1.257 |
| July | | |
| 1.301 | 1.275 | 1.270 |
| August | | |
| 1.376 | 1.336 | 1.322 |
| September | | |
| 1.297 | 1.274 | 1.266 |
| October | | |
| 1.269 | 1.251 | 1.239 |
| November | | |
| 1.265 | 1.247 | 1.241 |
| December | | |
| 1.254 | 1.233 | 1.222 |
| Average | | |
| Factor | | |
| 1.276 | 1.254 | 1.244 |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2. | Standard Deviations Associated with Factors | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday |
| January | | |
| 0.054 | 0.058 | 0.053 |
| February | | |
| 0.052 | 0.050 | 0.054 |
| March | | |
| 0.050 | 0.055 | 0.060 |
| April | | |
| 0.048 | 0.053 | 0.050 |
| May | | |
| 0.048 | 0.046 | 0.054 |
| June | | |
| 0.044 | 0.045 | 0.049 |
| July | | |
| 0.043 | 0.046 | 0.049 |
| August | | |
| 0.126 | 0.107 | 0.109 |
| September | | |
| 0.061 | 0.054 | 0.056 |
| October | | |
| 0.059 | 0.059 | 0.060 |
| November | | |
| 0.060 | 0.064 | 0.064 |
| December | | |
| 0.063 | 0.065 | 0.067 |
| | | |
| Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday | Friday | Saturday Sunday |
|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------------|
| Average | | |
| Weekday | | |
| Factor | | |
| January | | |
| 1.230 | 1.190 | 1.183 |
| February | | |
| 1.190 | 1.168 | 1.154 |
| March | | |
| 1.182 | 1.161 | 1.155 |
| April | | |
| 1.165 | 1.153 | 1.138 |
| May | | |
| 1.163 | 1.159 | 1.142 |
| June | | |
| 1.184 | 1.167 | 1.155 |
| July | | |
| 1.187 | 1.167 | 1.155 |
| August | | |
| 1.231 | 1.203 | 1.164 |
| September | | |
| 1.185 | 1.178 | 1.157 |
| October | | |
| 1.180 | 1.177 | 1.159 |
| November | | |
| 1.200 | 1.177 | 1.170 |
| December | | |
| 1.200 | 1.205 | 1.180 |
| Average | | |
| Factor | | |
| 1.187 | 1.171 | 1.155 |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2. | Standard Deviations Associated with Factors | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday Thursday |
| January | | |
| 0.053 | 0.054 | 0.055 |
| February | | |
| 0.048 | 0.048 | 0.047 |
| March | | |
| 0.046 | 0.045 | 0.053 |
| April | | |
| 0.049 | 0.045 | 0.050 |
| May | | |
| 0.047 | 0.046 | 0.048 |
| June | | |
| 0.043 | 0.044 | 0.047 |
| July | | |
| 0.035 | 0.038 | 0.036 |
| August | | |
| 0.047 | 0.047 | 0.038 |
| September | | |
| 0.043 | 0.048 | 0.045 |
| October | | |
| 0.044 | 0.051 | 0.051 |
| November | | |
| 0.064 | 0.063 | 0.067 |
| December | | |
| 0.064 | 0.072 | 0.070 |
| | | |
| | | |
| Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday | Friday | Saturday Sunday |
|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------------|
| Average | | |
| Weekday | | |
| Factor | | |
| January | | |
| 1.182 | 1.162 | 1.155 |
| February | | |
| 1.166 | 1.145 | 1.134 |
| March | | |
| 1.160 | 1.136 | 1.134 |
| April | | |
| 1.156 | 1.136 | 1.128 |
| May | | |
| 1.159 | 1.137 | 1.130 |
| June | | |
| 1.189 | 1.167 | 1.157 |
| July | | |
| 1.198 | 1.174 | 1.169 |
| August | | |
| 1.267 | 1.230 | 1.218 |
| September | | |
| 1.195 | 1.174 | 1.167 |
| October | | |
| 1.169 | 1.152 | 1.140 |
| November | | |
| 1.167 | 1.148 | 1.143 |
| December | | |
| 1.158 | 1.136 | 1.126 |
| Average | | |
| Factor | | |
| 1.175 | 1.155 | 1.146 |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2. | Standard Deviations Associated with Factors | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday |
| January | | |
| 0.078 | 0.080 | 0.074 |
| February | | |
| 0.074 | 0.073 | 0.077 |
| March | | |
| 0.073 | 0.076 | 0.081 |
| April | | |
| 0.070 | 0.071 | 0.070 |
| May | | |
| 0.069 | 0.067 | 0.072 |
| June | | |
| 0.064 | 0.064 | 0.067 |
| July | | |
| 0.063 | 0.067 | 0.069 |
| August | | |
| 0.132 | 0.115 | 0.118 |
| September | | |
| 0.078 | 0.073 | 0.073 |
| October | | |
| 0.078 | 0.082 | 0.081 |
| November | | |
| 0.075 | 0.082 | 0.083 |
| December | | |
| 0.080 | 0.083 | 0.086 |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| A1.13 | | |
## G Year To Year Factors Indices Of Traffic Flows By Vehicle Type Since 1979
Motorways
Year
Cars
LGV
OGV
Buses &
Coaches
Motor
Cycles
All
Motors
1979
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1980
1.06
1.01
1.01
1.05
1.19
1.03
1981
1.10
1.03
1.03
1.08
1.32
1.02
1982
1.15
1.05
1.05
1.13
1.38
1.09
1983
1.20
1.09
1.09
1.21
1.29
1.13
1984
1.26
1.16
1.14
1.35
1.21
1.17
1985
1.30
1.26
1.17
1.47
1.18
1.22
1986
1.36
1.40
1.19
1.62
1.14
1.28
1987
1.46
1.57
1.24
1.98
1.17
1.37
1988
1.57
1.75
1.31
2.31
1.15
1.48
1989
1.67
1.92
1.37
2.63
1.19
1.57
1990
1.75
2.00
1.40
2.77
1.22
1.63
1991
1.78
1.98
1.45
2.84
1.18
1.65
1992
1.87
2.13
1.41
2.98
1.19
1.73
1993
1.89
2.10
1.38
2.97
1.15
1.73
1994
1.87
2.12
1.52
3.21
1.04
1.73
1995
1.94
2.23
1.52
2.86
1.06
1.80
1996
2.04
2.38
1.50
3.15
1.15
1.88
1997
2.14
2.46
1.51
3.29
1.09
1.96
1998
2.16
2.51
1.50
3.32
1.23
1.98
1999
2.25
2.56
1.52
4.32
1.45
2.04
2000
2.25
2.64
1.50
3.93
1.51
2.04
2001
2.34
2.67
1.49
4.01
1.59
2.10
2002
2.43
2.80
1.50
3.73
1.65
2.18
2003
2.50
2.83
1.49
3.88
1.70
2.22
2004
2.60
3.02
1.56
4.35
1.56
2.31
2005
2.63
2.93
1.45
3.70
1.73
2.29
2006
2.60
3.11
1.42
3.48
1.78
2.29
2007
2.63
3.20
1.41
2.51
1.57
2.31
2008
2.60
3.23
1.42
2.54
1.88
2.29
## Other Roads
| Year | Cars | LGV | OGV |
|---------|---------|--------|--------|
| Buses & | | | |
| Coaches | | | |
| Motor | | | |
| Cycles | | | |
| All | | | |
| Motors | | | |
| Pedal | | | |
| Cycles | | | |
| 1979 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 1980 | 1.02 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
| 1981 | 1.03 | 0.98 | 0.98 |
| 1982 | 1.05 | 0.98 | 0.98 |
| 1983 | 1.08 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
| 1984 | 1.12 | 1.02 | 1.01 |
| 1985 | 1.16 | 1.06 | 1.02 |
| 1986 | 1.21 | 1.16 | 1.06 |
| 1987 | 1.26 | 1.23 | 1.08 |
| 1988 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.1 |
| 1989 | 1.34 | 1.33 | 1.1 |
| 1990 | 1.37 | 1.39 | 1.09 |
| 1991 | 1.41 | 1.37 | 1.05 |
| 1992 | 1.39 | 1.37 | 0.95 |
| 1993 | 1.4 | 1.34 | 0.99 |
| 1994 | 1.42 | 1.38 | 1.01 |
| 1995 | 1.43 | 1.37 | 0.97 |
| 1996 | 1.44 | 1.36 | 0.95 |
| 1997 | 1.45 | 1.37 | 0.96 |
| 1998 | 1.45 | 1.37 | 0.93 |
| 1999 | 1.46 | 1.37 | 0.85 |
| 2000 | 1.45 | 1.4 | 0.85 |
| 2001 | 1.45 | 1.34 | 0.8 |
| 2002 | 1.45 | 1.34 | 0.74 |
| 2003 | 1.46 | 1.35 | 0.73 |
| 2004 | 1.46 | 1.39 | 0.76 |
| 2005 | 1.45 | 1.39 | 0.7 |
| 2006 | 1.45 | 1.42 | 0.67 |
| 2007 | 1.45 | 1.45 | 0.63 |
| 2008 | 1.44 | 1.42 | 0.62 |
# Appendix 2 Some Recent Gmtu Publications
REPORTS
No Title
Author(s)
Date
1125 Analysis of GMATS Data to Assess the Potential for
P&R from South Manchester
P Bearon
Apr 2006
1134 Analysis of GMATS Data to Assess the Potential for
P&R from East Manchester
P Bearon
Apr 2006
1136 Analysis of GMATS Data to Assess the Potential for
P&R in the Oldham/Rochdale Corridor
P Bearon
May 2006
1137 Road Casualty Statistics Greater Manchester 2005
D Chiu
Jun 2006
1138 Transport Statistics Greater Manchester 2005
E Ellis et al
Jun 2006
1139 Transport Statistics Bolton 2005
E Ellis et al
Jul 2006
1140 Transport Statistics Bury 2005
E Ellis et al
Jul 2006
1141 Transport Statistics Manchester 2005
E Ellis et al
Jul 2006
1142 Transport Statistics Oldham 2005
E Ellis et al
Jul 2006
1143 Transport Statistics Rochdale 2005
E Ellis et al
Jul 2006
1144 Transport Statistics Salford 2005
E Ellis et al
Jul 2006
1145 Transport Statistics Stockport 2005
E Ellis et al
Jul 2006
1146 Transport Statistics Tameside 2005
E Ellis et al
Jul 2006
1147 Transport Statistics Trafford 2005
E Ellis et al
Jul 2006
1148 Transport Statistics Wigan 2005
E Ellis et al
Jul 2006
1153 Analysis of GMATS Data to Assess the Potential for
P&R in the Leigh/Wigan Corridor
P Bearon
Jul 2006
1158 Chorlton QBC After Monitoring - Report of Surveys P Howarth
Aug 2006
1183 Bus Lane Enforcement Monitoring - Report of
Before Study
J C Mayoh
Aug 2006
1192 Wigan Congestion Study
P Bearon
R Boncinelli
Sep 2006
1205 Bolton Casualty Research Project - Road Accident
Casualty Trends Since 1994
D Chiu
Oct 2006
1214 Analysis of Travel Survey Data to Assess the
Potential for Park and Ride along the Bolton Corridor
P Bearon
Mar 2007
1236 A62 Huddersfield Road QBC Scheme "Comparison
of Before and After Data"
R Boncinelli
Dec 2006
1238 School Travel Survey - Report of Survey
Autumn 2006 (Hands Up Survey)
M White
Jan 2007
1255 Results of Consultation on the Greater Manchester
Cycling Strategy
A Castle
Jan 2007
D Chiu
Jan 2007
1257 A Before and After Analysis of Accidents at
Puffin Crossings and at Signalised Junctions with Nearside Indicators
P Bearon
Mar 2007
1258 Analysis of Travel Survey Data to Assess the
Potential for Park and Ride along the Altrincham Corridor
1288 Road Casualty Statistics Greater Manchester 2006
D Chiu
Jul 2007
1289 Transport Statistics Greater Manchester 2006
E Ellis et al
Jul 2007
1290 Transport Statistics Bolton 2006
E Ellis et al
Aug 2007
| No Title | Author(s) | Date |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|----------|
| 1291 Transport Statistics Bury 2006 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2007 |
| 1292 Transport Statistics Manchester 2006 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2007 |
| 1293 Transport Statistics Oldham 2006 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2007 |
| 1294 Transport Statistics Rochdale 2006 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2007 |
| 1295 Transport Statistics Salford 2006 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2007 |
| 1296 Transport Statistics Stockport 2006 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2007 |
| 1297 Transport Statistics Tameside 2006 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2007 |
| 1298 Transport Statistics Trafford 2006 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2007 |
| 1299 Transport Statistics Wigan 2006 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2007 |
| 1304 Person Delay Surveys - Technical Review | | |
| Document | | |
| D Holt | Apr 2007 | |
| 1310 Manchester Bus Lane Enforcement Monitoring After | | |
| Study | | |
| P Howarth | May 2007 | |
| Jul 2007 | | |
| 1331 The Greater Manchester Emissions Inventory 2005 | | |
| Update | | |
| I Hull | | |
| T Morris | | |
| K Fraser | | |
| 1333 Greater Manchester TIF Bid - SATURN Model | | |
| Forecasting Report | | |
| John Wharf | Mar 2008 | |
| 1337 The Greater Manchester Emissions Inventory 2004 | | |
| Update | | |
| I Hull | Sep 2007 | |
| 1342 Cycle Monitoring Greater Manchester Jan-July 2007 D Weston | Oct 2007 | |
| 1365 SEMMMS QBC Corridor H M60 Junction 1 | | |
| Before/After Report | | |
| P.Howarth | Dec 2007 | |
| 1366 Greater Manchester Cycling Progress Report | E Ellis | Dec 2007 |
| 1368 The Greater Manchester Emissions Inventory 2010 | | |
| Forecast | | |
| I Hull | Dec 2007 | |
| 1387 Transport Statistics Greater Manchester 2007 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2008 |
| 1388 Transport Statistics Bolton 2007 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2008 |
| 1389 Transport Statistics Bury 2007 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2008 |
| 1390 Transport Statistics Manchester 2007 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2008 |
| 1391 Transport Statistics Oldham 2007 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2008 |
| 1392 Transport Statistics Rochdale 2007 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2008 |
| 1393 Transport Statistics Salford 2007 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2008 |
| 1394 Transport Statistics Stockport 2007 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2008 |
| 1395 Transport Statistics Tameside 2007 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2008 |
| 1396 Transport Statistics Trafford 2007 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2008 |
| 1397 Transport Statistics Wigan 2007 | E Ellis et al | Aug 2008 |
| 1408 Casualty Statistics Greater Manchester 2007 (Main | | |
| Report) | | |
| D Chiu et al | Jul 2008 | |
| 1409 Casualty Statistics Greater Manchester 2007 - | | |
| Countywide Tabulations | | |
| D Chiu | Jul 2008 | |
| 1410 Casualty Statistics Greater Manchester 2007- | D.Chiu | Aug 2008 |
| No Title | Author(s) | Date |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|----------|
| District Tabulations and Comparisons | | |
| 1411 Additional analysis on freight and car movements | | |
| across the Trafford Park key centre cordon | | |
| P Bearon | | |
| D Nixon | | |
| Mar 2008 | | |
| 1412 Monthly Cycle Monitoring Greater Manchester 2007 D Weston | Mar 2008 | |
| 1414 SEMMMS Local Centre Activity Surveys | | |
| Comparison of 2005/06 and 2008-2009 Results | | |
| R Boncinelli | Mar 2008 | |
| 1416 Trends in Car Journey Times on the 15 Target | | |
| Congestion Routes 2003 to 2007 | | |
| A Castle | | |
| E Ellis | | |
| May 2008 | | |
| 1418 Summary of Congestion Monitoring Findings | P Howarth | |
| J Wharf | | |
| Apr 2008 | | |
| Jan 2009 | 1468 Local Signing for Freight in Manchester | |
| R Boncinelli / | | |
| R Davies / L | | |
| Vicary/D | | |
| Nixon | | |
| 1476 Transport Statistics Greater Manchester 2008 | E Ellis et al | Sep 2009 |
| 1477 Transport Statistics Bolton 2008 | E Ellis et al | Sep 2009 |
| 1478 Transport Statistics Bury 2008 | E Ellis et al | Sep 2009 |
| 1479 Transport Statistics Manchester 2008 | E Ellis et al | Sep 2009 |
| 1480 Transport Statistics Oldham 2008 | E Ellis et al | Sep 2009 |
| 1481 Transport Statistics Rochdale 2008 | E Ellis et al | Sep 2009 |
| 1482 Transport Statistics Salford 2008 | E Ellis et al | Sep 2009 |
| 1483 Transport Statistics Stockport 2008 | E Ellis et al | Sep 2009 |
| 1484 Transport Statistics Tameside 2008 | E Ellis et al | Sep 2009 |
| 1485 Transport Statistics Trafford 2008 | E Ellis et al | Sep 2009 |
| 1486 Transport Statistics Wigan 2008 | E Ellis et al | Sep 2009 |
| 1501 Further analysis of the school census data and its | | |
| implications for the LTP4 school indicator | | |
| D. Atkin | | |
| Feb2009 | | |
| 1517 Casualty Statistics Greater Manchester 2008 (Main | | |
| Report) | | |
| D Chiu et al | Aug 2009 | |
| 1518 Casualty Statistics Greater Manchester 2008 - | | |
| Countywide Tabulations | | |
| D Chiu | Jul 2009 | |
| 1519 Casualty Statistics Greater Manchester 2008- | | |
| District Tabulations and Comparisons | | |
| D.Chiu | Jun 2009 | |
| 1520 Congestion Route Report | D Atkin | May 2009 |
| | | |
| en |
4665-pdf |
Page Table
Title
Base Description
Base
1
1
Q.1A In the last few years have you visited forests or
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation
6
2
Q.1B Did you visit woodlands in the countryside or woodlands
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks,
1260
in and around towns or both?
picnics or other recreation in the last few years
11
3
Q.2A How frequently did you visit forests and woodlands last
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks,
1260
summer, i.e. between april and september
picnics or other recreation in the last few years
16
4
Q.2B And how often this winter, i.e. since October 2016?
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks,
1260
picnics or other recreation in the last few years
21
5
Q.3 Who managed the woodland you visited most recently?
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks,
1260
picnics or other recreation in the last few years
26
6
Q.4 Thinking back about all of your visits to woodland over
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks,
1260
the last 12 months, what is your best estimate of how many
picnics or other recreation in the last few years
times you visited a woodland managed by the forestry commission?
31
7
Q.5 Are you a ...?
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
36
8
Q.6 Have you in the past 12 months...
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
41
9
Q.7_01 Now thinking specifically about woodlands and
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks,
1260
forests and why they are important to the public please
picnics or other recreation in the last few years
indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the following statements. - They are places where I can relax and de-stress
46
10
Q.7_02 Now thinking specifically about woodlands and
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks,
1260
forests and why they are important to the public please
picnics or other recreation in the last few years
indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the following statements. - They are places where I can exercise and keep fit
51
11
Q.7_03 Now thinking specifically about woodlands and
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks,
1260
forests and why they are important to the public please
picnics or other recreation in the last few years
indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the following statements. - They are places where I can have fun and enjoy myself
56
12
Q.7_04 Now thinking specifically about woodlands and
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks,
1260
forests and why they are important to the public please
picnics or other recreation in the last few years
indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the following statements. - They are good places for me to socialise
Page Table
Title
Base Description
Base
61
13
Q.7_05 Now thinking specifically about woodlands and
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks,
1260
forests and why they are important to the public please
picnics or other recreation in the last few years
indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the following statements. - They are places where I can learn about the environment
66
14
Q.7_06 Now thinking specifically about woodlands and
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks,
1260
forests and why they are important to the public please
picnics or other recreation in the last few years
indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the following statements. - They are places where I can learn about local culture or history
71
15
Q.7_07 Now thinking specifically about woodlands and
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks,
1260
forests and why they are important to the public please
picnics or other recreation in the last few years
indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the following statements. - They get me involved in local issues
76
16
Q.7_08 Now thinking specifically about woodlands and
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks,
1260
forests and why they are important to the public please
picnics or other recreation in the last few years
indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the following statements. - They are places where I feel at home
81
17
Q.7 Now thinking specifically about woodlands and forests
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks,
1260
and why they are important to the public please indicate
picnics or other recreation in the last few years
whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the following statements. - Summary table
82
18
Q.8_01 Thinking about the nearest urban area (town or city),
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
where would you prefer public resources to be targeted? - 1st
87
19
Q.8_02 Thinking about the nearest urban area (town or city),
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
where would you prefer public resources to be targeted? - 2nd
92
20
Q.8_03 Thinking about the nearest urban area (town or city),
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
where would you prefer public resources to be targeted? - 3rd
97
21
Q.8_04 Thinking about the nearest urban area (town or city),
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
where would you prefer public resources to be targeted? - 4th
102
22
Q.8_05 Thinking about the nearest urban area (town or city),
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
where would you prefer public resources to be targeted? - 5th
Page Table
Title
Base Description
Base
107
23
Q.8_06 Thinking about the nearest urban area (town or city),
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
where would you prefer public resources to be targeted? - 6th
112
24
Q.8_07 Thinking about the nearest urban area (town or city),
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
where would you prefer public resources to be targeted? - 7th
117
25
Q.8 Thinking about the nearest urban area (town or city),
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
where would you prefer public resources to be targeted? - Summary table
118
26
Q.9_01 Would you agree or disagree with the following
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change? - No action is needed, let nature take its course
123
27
Q.9_02 Would you agree or disagree with the following
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change? - A lot more trees should be planted
128
28
Q.9_03 Would you agree or disagree with the following
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change? - Trees should not be felled in any circumstances, even if they are replaced
133
29
Q.9_04 Would you agree or disagree with the following
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change? - Different types of trees should be planted that will be more suited to future climates
138
30
Q.9 Would you agree or disagree with the following
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change? - Summary table
139
31
Q.10_01 Would you agree or disagree with the following
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
statements relating to tree health? - Everyone should take action when visiting woodlands to help prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases
144
32
Q.10_02 Would you agree or disagree with the following
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
statements relating to tree health? - I would be willing to look out for and report sightings of pests and diseases on trees, if appropriate information and advice was available to me
Page Table
Title
Base Description
Base
149
33
Q.10_03 Would you agree or disagree with the following
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
statements relating to tree health? - There is very little that anyone can do to prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases.
154
34
Q.10_04 Would you agree or disagree with the following
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
statements relating to tree health? - Action should be taken by authorities and woodland managers to protect trees from damaging pests and diseases.
159
35
Q.10_05 Would you agree or disagree with the following
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
statements relating to tree health? - If I buy an imported tree, it is more likely to carry tree pests and diseases than a tree grown in the UK.
164
36
Q.10_06 Would you agree or disagree with the following
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
statements relating to tree health? - I am aware that possible tree pests and diseases can be reported using the Tree Alert website.
169
37
Q.10 Would you agree or disagree with the following
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
statements relating to tree health? - Summary table
170
38
Q.11 Do you have any physical or mental health conditions or
Base: All Adults 16+
2113
illnesses lasting or expected to last for 12 months or more?
175
39
Q.12 Does your disability affect your use of woodlands/
Base: All who have any physical or mental health
457
forests or other greenspaces?
conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last for 12 months or more Q11\1
## Forests And Woodlands (Qs0303 - 836909)
Q.1A In the last few years have you visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation
Base: All Adults 16+
GENDER
AGE
Female
Male
65+
55-64
45-54
35-44
25-34
16-24
Total
1101
1012
544
303
319
326
336
285
2113
Unweighted Base
1087
1026
410
318
344
374
369
297
2113
Weighted Base
690
606
202
201
226
265
224
178
1296
Yes
63%
59%
49%
63%
66%
71%
61%
60%
61%
398
420
208
118
118
109
145
120
817
No
37%
41%
51%
37%
34%
29%
39%
40%
39%
## Forests And Woodlands (Qs0303 - 836909) Q.1A In The Last Few Years Have You Visited Forests Or Woodlands For Walks, Picnics Or Other Recreation Base: All Adults 16+
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 534 | 196 | 566 |
| Yes | | |
| 55% | 63% | 69% |
| 444 | 115 | 258 |
| No | | |
| 45% | 37% | 31% |
## Forests And Woodlands (Qs0303 - 836909) Q.1A In The Last Few Years Have You Visited Forests Or Woodlands For Walks, Picnics Or Other Recreation Base: All Adults 16+
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
33
127
193
124
157
63
118
87
88
154
52
100
1100
1296
Yes
69%
68%
66%
48%
76%
60%
61%
63%
48%
66%
61%
55%
62%
61%
15
60
100
134
49
42
76
51
97
80
33
80
680
817
No
31%
32%
34%
52%
24%
40%
39%
37%
52%
34%
39%
45%
38%
39%
## Forests And Woodlands (Qs0303 - 836909) Q.1A In The Last Few Years Have You Visited Forests Or Woodlands For Walks, Picnics Or Other Recreation Base: All Adults 16+
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
83
1209
4
18
52
169
190
862
434
1296
Yes
33%
65%
50%
89%
68%
71%
62%
59%
67%
61%
170
646
4
2
25
70
115
601
216
817
No
67%
35%
50%
11%
32%
29%
38%
41%
33%
39%
Q.1A In the last few years have you visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation
Base: All Adults 16+
INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION
DISABILITY
VISITED WOODLAND
The Rest
(Bottom 85%)
Top 15%
No
Yes
No
Yes
Total
1704
409
1656
457
853
1260
2113
Unweighted Base
1725
388
1702
411
817
1296
2113
Weighted Base
1118
178
1090
205
-
1296
1296
Yes
65%
46%
64%
50%
-
100%
61%
607
211
612
205
817
-
817
No
35%
54%
36%
50%
100%
-
39%
Q.1B Did you visit woodlands in the countryside or woodlands in and around towns or both? Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation in the last few years
GENDER
AGE
Female
Male
65+
55-64
45-54
35-44
25-34
16-24
Total
681
579
267
184
207
227
203
172
1260
Unweighted Base
690
606
202
201
226
265
224
178
1296
Weighted Base
218
208
90
74
80
68
59
54
425
Woodlands in the
32%
34%
45%
37%
36%
26%
26%
30%
33%
countryside
102
84
21
22
34
33
37
41
187
Woodlands in and around
15%
14%
10%
11%
15%
12%
16%
23%
14%
towns
370
314
91
105
112
164
128
83
684
Both
54%
52%
45%
52%
50%
62%
57%
47%
53%
## Q.1B Did You Visit Woodlands In The Countryside Or Woodlands In And Around Towns Or Both? Base: All Who Have Visited Forests Or Woodlands For Walks, Picnics Or Other Recreation In The Last Few Years
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|-------------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 581 | 188 | 491 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 534 | 196 | 566 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 178 | 69 | 178 |
| Woodlands in the | | |
| 33% | 35% | 31% |
| countryside | | |
| 98 | 28 | 60 |
| Woodlands in and around | | |
| 18% | 14% | 11% |
| towns | | |
| 258 | 98 | 328 |
| Both | | |
| 48% | 50% | 58% |
## Q.1B Did You Visit Woodlands In The Countryside Or Woodlands In And Around Towns Or Both? Base: All Who Have Visited Forests Or Woodlands For Walks, Picnics Or Other Recreation In The Last Few Years
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
41
119
183
113
151
66
124
93
82
143
49
96
1057
1260
Unweighted Base
33
127
193
124
157
63
118
87
88
154
52
100
1100
1296
Weighted Base
10
61
66
22
46
19
38
30
33
50
19
31
365
425
Woodlands in the
30%
48%
34%
18%
29%
30%
32%
35%
37%
32%
37%
32%
33%
33%
countryside
5
6
21
41
21
11
14
10
12
30
5
10
159
187
Woodlands in and around
16%
5%
11%
33%
13%
18%
12%
11%
14%
19%
9%
10%
15%
14%
towns
18
59
106
61
91
33
66
47
43
74
28
58
575
684
Both
54%
47%
55%
49%
58%
52%
56%
54%
49%
48%
54%
58%
52%
53%
## Q.1B Did You Visit Woodlands In The Countryside Or Woodlands In And Around Towns Or Both? Base: All Who Have Visited Forests Or Woodlands For Walks, Picnics Or Other Recreation In The Last Few Years
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
71
1185
4
18
47
154
174
863
397
1260
Unweighted Base
83
1209
4
18
52
169
190
862
434
1296
Weighted Base
20
403
2
4
16
46
60
299
126
425
Woodlands in the
24%
33%
44%
19%
30%
27%
31%
35%
29%
33%
countryside
31
156
2
5
10
27
30
113
73
187
Woodlands in and around
37%
13%
56%
25%
18%
16%
16%
13%
17%
14%
towns
32
650
-
10
27
96
100
450
234
684
Both
39%
54%
-
56%
51%
57%
53%
52%
54%
53%
Q.1B Did you visit woodlands in the countryside or woodlands in and around towns or both? Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation in the last few years
INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION
DISABILITY
VISITED WOODLAND
The Rest
(Bottom 85%)
Top 15%
No
Yes
No
Yes
Total
1079
181
1043
217
-
1260
1260
Unweighted Base
1118
178
1090
205
-
1296
1296
Weighted Base
372
54
357
68
-
425
425
Woodlands in the
33%
30%
33%
33%
-
33%
33%
countryside
144
43
155
32
-
187
187
Woodlands in and around
13%
24%
14%
16%
-
14%
14%
towns
602
81
579
105
-
684
684
Both
54%
46%
53%
51%
-
53%
53%
Q.2A How frequently did you visit forests and woodlands last summer, i.e. between april and september Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation in the last few years
GENDER
AGE
Female
Male
65+
55-64
45-54
35-44
25-34
16-24
Total
681
579
267
184
207
227
203
172
1260
Unweighted Base
690
606
202
201
226
265
224
178
1296
Weighted Base
114
97
25
31
36
41
42
36
211
Several times per week
17%
16%
12%
15%
16%
16%
19%
20%
16%
211
174
52
61
70
87
73
43
385
Several times per month
31%
29%
26%
31%
31%
33%
32%
24%
30%
215
190
68
48
78
96
68
47
405
About once a month
31%
31%
34%
24%
34%
36%
30%
27%
31%
123
121
43
53
35
33
37
43
244
Less often
18%
20%
21%
26%
15%
12%
17%
24%
19%
26
24
15
8
8
7
4
8
50
Never
4%
4%
8%
4%
3%
3%
2%
4%
4%
Q.2A How frequently did you visit forests and woodlands last summer, i.e. between april and september Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation in the last few years
WORKING STATUS
MARITAL STATUS
SOCIAL GRADE
Widow\
Married\
Divorced\
Living as
Not working
Part time
Full time
Separated
Single
married
DE
C2
C1
AB
Total
581
188
491
178
313
769
335
232
372
321
1260
Unweighted Base
534
196
566
168
320
807
282
242
420
352
1296
Weighted Base
86
29
96
32
57
123
46
47
66
52
211
Several times per week
16%
15%
17%
19%
18%
15%
16%
19%
16%
15%
16%
147
73
165
43
91
252
79
68
127
111
385
Several times per month
28%
37%
29%
25%
28%
31%
28%
28%
30%
31%
30%
163
56
186
48
83
274
86
68
132
118
405
About once a month
31%
29%
33%
29%
26%
34%
31%
28%
31%
33%
31%
107
31
106
34
72
137
54
49
73
67
244
Less often
20%
16%
19%
20%
23%
17%
19%
20%
17%
19%
19%
31
5
13
11
17
22
16
9
21
4
50
Never
6%
3%
2%
7%
5%
3%
6%
4%
5%
1%
4%
## Q.2A How Frequently Did You Visit Forests And Woodlands Last Summer, I.E. Between April And September Base: All Who Have Visited Forests Or Woodlands For Walks, Picnics Or Other Recreation In The Last Few Years
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
41
119
183
113
151
66
124
93
82
143
49
96
1057
1260
Unweighted Base
33
127
193
124
157
63
118
87
88
154
52
100
1100
1296
Weighted Base
10
18
44
14
26
18
15
9
8
24
7
20
163
211
Several times per week
31%
14%
23%
11%
16%
28%
13%
10%
9%
15%
13%
20%
15%
16%
13
37
72
35
51
14
35
24
17
41
16
31
327
385
Several times per month
39%
29%
37%
29%
32%
22%
30%
27%
19%
27%
31%
32%
30%
30%
6
38
49
39
51
14
42
32
39
47
21
26
359
405
About once a month
19%
30%
26%
32%
32%
22%
36%
37%
45%
31%
40%
26%
33%
31%
4
26
22
31
30
14
21
18
17
37
9
16
210
244
Less often
12%
20%
11%
25%
19%
22%
18%
21%
20%
24%
16%
16%
19%
19%
-
8
7
4
1
4
4
4
7
5
-
6
40
50
Never
-
6%
4%
3%
*
6%
4%
5%
7%
3%
-
6%
4%
4%
Q.2A How frequently did you visit forests and woodlands last summer, i.e. between april and september Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation in the last few years
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
71
1185
4
18
47
154
174
863
397
1260
Unweighted Base
83
1209
4
18
52
169
190
862
434
1296
Weighted Base
8
204
1
6
8
29
36
132
80
211
Several times per week
9%
17%
23%
34%
15%
17%
19%
15%
18%
16%
22
362
1
5
17
61
62
241
145
385
Several times per month
27%
30%
18%
25%
32%
36%
32%
28%
33%
30%
25
376
-
4
16
61
56
268
137
405
About once a month
31%
31%
-
23%
30%
36%
30%
31%
32%
31%
22
222
1
3
10
15
31
183
61
244
Less often
26%
18%
33%
19%
20%
9%
16%
21%
14%
19%
5
45
1
-
2
3
6
39
11
50
Never
7%
4%
26%
-
4%
2%
3%
5%
3%
4%
Q.2A How frequently did you visit forests and woodlands last summer, i.e. between april and september Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation in the last few years
INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION
DISABILITY
VISITED WOODLAND
The Rest
(Bottom 85%)
Top 15%
No
Yes
No
Yes
Total
1079
181
1043
217
-
1260
1260
Unweighted Base
1118
178
1090
205
-
1296
1296
Weighted Base
180
32
174
37
-
211
211
Several times per week
16%
18%
16%
18%
-
16%
16%
343
42
335
50
-
385
385
Several times per month
31%
24%
31%
24%
-
30%
30%
349
56
341
63
-
405
405
About once a month
31%
31%
31%
31%
-
31%
31%
201
43
203
40
-
244
244
Less often
18%
24%
19%
20%
-
19%
19%
45
5
36
14
-
50
50
Never
4%
3%
3%
7%
-
4%
4%
Q.2B And how often this winter, i.e. since October 2016? Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation in the last few years
GENDER
AGE
Female
Male
65+
55-64
45-54
35-44
25-34
16-24
Total
681
579
267
184
207
227
203
172
1260
Unweighted Base
690
606
202
201
226
265
224
178
1296
Weighted Base
71
55
14
26
27
24
20
14
126
Several times per week
10%
9%
7%
13%
12%
9%
9%
8%
10%
93
96
33
29
36
39
24
28
189
Several times per month
13%
16%
16%
15%
16%
15%
11%
16%
15%
151
107
32
30
50
62
49
35
258
About once a month
22%
18%
16%
15%
22%
23%
22%
20%
20%
204
186
53
68
58
85
73
54
390
Less often
30%
31%
26%
34%
26%
32%
32%
30%
30%
171
162
70
47
55
56
59
47
333
Never
25%
27%
34%
23%
24%
21%
26%
26%
26%
Q.2B And how often this winter, i.e. since October 2016? Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation in the last few years
WORKING STATUS
MARITAL STATUS
SOCIAL GRADE
Widow\
Married\
Divorced\
Living as
Not working
Part time
Full time
Separated
Single
married
DE
C2
C1
AB
Total
581
188
491
178
313
769
335
232
372
321
1260
Unweighted Base
534
196
566
168
320
807
282
242
420
352
1296
Weighted Base
49
18
59
18
28
80
26
28
32
40
126
Several times per week
9%
9%
10%
11%
9%
10%
9%
12%
8%
11%
10%
83
31
75
26
50
112
36
45
64
44
189
Several times per month
15%
16%
13%
16%
16%
14%
13%
19%
15%
12%
15%
93
43
122
27
62
170
42
43
81
92
258
About once a month
17%
22%
22%
16%
19%
21%
15%
18%
19%
26%
20%
146
63
180
45
98
247
80
62
133
114
390
Less often
27%
32%
32%
26%
31%
31%
29%
25%
32%
32%
30%
164
40
129
52
82
199
97
64
110
62
333
Never
31%
20%
23%
31%
26%
25%
35%
26%
26%
18%
26%
Q.2B And how often this winter, i.e. since October 2016? Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation in the last few years
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
41
119
183
113
151
66
124
93
82
143
49
96
1057
1260
Unweighted Base
33
127
193
124
157
63
118
87
88
154
52
100
1100
1296
Weighted Base
5
12
34
7
16
12
7
4
2
11
4
11
98
126
Several times per week
15%
10%
18%
6%
10%
19%
6%
5%
3%
7%
8%
11%
9%
10%
5
21
32
16
30
10
16
10
8
18
5
17
157
189
Several times per month
14%
17%
17%
13%
19%
15%
14%
12%
9%
12%
10%
17%
14%
15%
5
19
38
23
30
11
27
19
23
32
11
20
222
258
About once a month
14%
15%
20%
18%
19%
17%
23%
22%
26%
21%
21%
20%
20%
20%
11
34
57
31
56
17
38
25
25
56
17
23
339
390
Less often
33%
27%
29%
25%
36%
26%
32%
29%
28%
36%
33%
23%
31%
30%
8
40
32
47
24
14
30
28
30
38
15
28
283
333
Never
24%
31%
17%
38%
15%
22%
25%
32%
34%
24%
29%
29%
26%
26%
Q.2B And how often this winter, i.e. since October 2016? Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation in the last few years
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
71
1185
4
18
47
154
174
863
397
1260
Unweighted Base
83
1209
4
18
52
169
190
862
434
1296
Weighted Base
1
125
1
1
3
7
20
94
32
126
Several times per week
1%
10%
23%
7%
5%
4%
10%
11%
7%
10%
8
180
1
6
8
33
27
115
74
189
Several times per month
9%
15%
18%
30%
15%
19%
14%
13%
17%
15%
12
245
-
4
10
44
38
161
97
258
About once a month
15%
20%
-
23%
20%
26%
20%
19%
22%
20%
32
357
-
2
19
50
54
265
124
390
Less often
38%
30%
-
9%
36%
30%
28%
31%
29%
30%
30
303
2
6
13
34
51
227
106
333
Never
36%
25%
59%
31%
24%
20%
27%
26%
24%
26%
Q.2B And how often this winter, i.e. since October 2016? Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation in the last few years
INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION
DISABILITY
VISITED WOODLAND
The Rest
(Bottom 85%)
Top 15%
No
Yes
No
Yes
Total
1079
181
1043
217
-
1260
1260
Unweighted Base
1118
178
1090
205
-
1296
1296
Weighted Base
109
17
106
20
-
126
126
Several times per week
10%
10%
10%
10%
-
10%
10%
170
18
169
20
-
189
189
Several times per month
15%
10%
15%
10%
-
15%
15%
231
27
230
28
-
258
258
About once a month
21%
15%
21%
14%
-
20%
20%
334
56
329
61
-
390
390
Less often
30%
31%
30%
30%
-
30%
30%
274
59
257
76
-
333
333
Never
24%
33%
24%
37%
-
26%
26%
Q.3 Who managed the woodland you visited most recently? Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation in the last few years
GENDER
AGE
Female
Male
65+
55-64
45-54
35-44
25-34
16-24
Total
681
579
267
184
207
227
203
172
1260
Unweighted Base
690
606
202
201
226
265
224
178
1296
Weighted Base
5
9
2
1
3
2
4
2
14
Community Managed
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
Woodland
110
106
42
40
32
56
34
11
215
Forestry Commission
16%
17%
21%
20%
14%
21%
15%
6%
17%
119
117
30
41
44
56
32
32
235
Local Authority
17%
19%
15%
20%
20%
21%
14%
18%
18%
156
151
50
42
60
53
54
49
307
National Trust
23%
25%
25%
21%
26%
20%
24%
27%
24%
46
34
14
13
12
12
18
10
80
Woodland Trust
7%
6%
7%
6%
5%
4%
8%
6%
6%
31
25
11
10
13
14
4
3
56
Other
5%
4%
6%
5%
6%
5%
2%
2%
4%
223
165
53
54
62
71
77
71
388
Don't know
32%
27%
26%
27%
27%
27%
34%
40%
30%
## Q.3 Who Managed The Woodland You Visited Most Recently? Base: All Who Have Visited Forests Or Woodlands For Walks, Picnics Or Other Recreation In The Last Few Years
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|---------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 581 | 188 | 491 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 534 | 196 | 566 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 6 | 3 | 5 |
| Community Managed | | |
| 1% | 2% | 1% |
| - | | |
| 1% | | |
| Woodland | | |
| 88 | 36 | 91 |
| Forestry Commission | | |
| 17% | 18% | 16% |
| 94 | 38 | 104 |
| Local Authority | | |
| 18% | 19% | 18% |
| 120 | 39 | 148 |
| National Trust | | |
| 22% | 20% | 26% |
| 38 | 10 | 31 |
| Woodland Trust | | |
| 7% | 5% | 6% |
| 26 | 9 | 21 |
| Other | | |
| 5% | 5% | 4% |
| 162 | 61 | 165 |
| Don't know | | |
| 30% | 31% | 29% |
## Q.3 Who Managed The Woodland You Visited Most Recently? Base: All Who Have Visited Forests Or Woodlands For Walks, Picnics Or Other Recreation In The Last Few Years
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
41
119
183
113
151
66
124
93
82
143
49
96
1057
1260
Unweighted Base
33
127
193
124
157
63
118
87
88
154
52
100
1100
1296
Weighted Base
-
-
3
2
1
1
1
-
3
3
-
-
13
14
Community Managed
-
-
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
-
3%
2%
-
-
1%
1%
Woodland
9
27
28
6
30
14
18
14
12
16
10
31
161
215
Forestry Commission
27%
21%
15%
5%
19%
22%
15%
16%
14%
11%
19%
31%
15%
17%
2
9
34
40
32
6
26
14
19
22
12
19
208
235
Local Authority
7%
7%
18%
33%
20%
10%
22%
16%
22%
14%
22%
19%
19%
18%
9
44
46
25
31
5
30
20
25
57
9
5
288
307
National Trust
28%
35%
24%
20%
20%
8%
25%
23%
29%
37%
18%
5%
26%
24%
1
5
22
8
11
5
2
7
6
5
2
5
69
80
Woodland Trust
2%
4%
11%
7%
7%
8%
2%
8%
7%
4%
4%
5%
6%
6%
-
7
8
4
10
7
4
4
2
2
1
8
41
56
Other
-
5%
4%
3%
6%
11%
4%
5%
2%
1%
2%
8%
4%
4%
12
35
52
39
42
25
37
29
21
48
18
31
320
388
Don't know
36%
27%
27%
31%
27%
40%
31%
33%
24%
31%
35%
31%
29%
30%
## Q.3 Who Managed The Woodland You Visited Most Recently? Base: All Who Have Visited Forests Or Woodlands For Walks, Picnics Or Other Recreation In The Last Few Years
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
71
1185
4
18
47
154
174
863
397
1260
Unweighted Base
83
1209
4
18
52
169
190
862
434
1296
Weighted Base
-
14
-
-
-
1
6
7
7
14
Community Managed
-
1%
-
-
-
*
3%
1%
2%
1%
Woodland
6
210
-
-
9
35
33
137
78
215
Forestry Commission
7%
17%
-
-
17%
21%
18%
16%
18%
17%
27
208
-
4
12
32
33
154
81
235
Local Authority
33%
17%
-
23%
22%
19%
18%
18%
19%
18%
19
288
-
8
9
41
44
205
103
307
National Trust
23%
24%
-
45%
18%
24%
23%
24%
24%
24%
7
73
-
-
3
10
10
56
23
80
Woodland Trust
8%
6%
-
-
5%
6%
5%
7%
5%
6%
2
53
1
-
4
9
7
35
21
56
Other
3%
4%
23%
-
7%
5%
4%
4%
5%
4%
22
364
3
6
16
41
56
268
121
388
Don't know
26%
30%
77%
31%
30%
24%
29%
31%
28%
30%
## Q.3 Who Managed The Woodland You Visited Most Recently? Base: All Who Have Visited Forests Or Woodlands For Walks, Picnics Or Other Recreation In The Last Few Years
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1079 | 181 | 1043 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1118 | 178 | 1090 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 13 | 1 | 11 |
| Community Managed | | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% |
| - | | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| Woodland | | |
| 196 | 19 | 179 |
| Forestry Commission | | |
| 18% | 11% | 16% |
| - | | |
| 17% | 17% | |
| 194 | 42 | 193 |
| Local Authority | | |
| 17% | 23% | 18% |
| - | | |
| 18% | 18% | |
| 276 | 32 | 273 |
| National Trust | | |
| 25% | 18% | 25% |
| - | | |
| 24% | 24% | |
| 62 | 18 | 65 |
| Woodland Trust | | |
| 6% | 10% | 6% |
| - | | |
| 6% | 6% | |
| 50 | 6 | 44 |
| Other | | |
| 5% | 3% | 4% |
| - | | |
| 4% | 4% | |
| 327 | 61 | 326 |
| Don't know | | |
| 29% | 34% | 30% |
| - | | |
| 30% | 30% | |
## Q.4 Thinking Back About All Of Your Visits To Woodland Over The Last 12 Months, What Is Your Best Estimate Of How Many Times You Visited A Woodland Managed By The Forestry Commission? Base: All Who Have Visited Forests Or Woodlands For Walks, Picnics Or Other Recreation In The Last Few Years
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|------------------------|------|-----|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 681 | 579 | 267 | 184 | 207 | 227 | 203 | 172 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 690 | 606 | 202 | 201 | 226 | 265 | 224 | 178 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 115 | 114 | 50 | 38 | 46 | 39 | 31 | 27 |
| None | | | | | | | |
| 17% | 19% | 24% | 19% | 20% | 15% | 14% | 15% |
| 111 | 105 | 31 | 42 | 42 | 43 | 35 | 24 |
| Once or twice | | | | | | | |
| 16% | 17% | 16% | 21% | 19% | 16% | 16% | 13% |
| 70 | 76 | 23 | 26 | 28 | 32 | 29 | 7 |
| 3-5 times | | | | | | | |
| 10% | 12% | 11% | 13% | 12% | 12% | 13% | 4% |
| 51 | 30 | 12 | 17 | 12 | 17 | 16 | 7 |
| 6-10 times | | | | | | | |
| 7% | 5% | 6% | 8% | 5% | 6% | 7% | 4% |
| 46 | 49 | 13 | 13 | 17 | 30 | 13 | 9 |
| About once a month | | | | | | | |
| 7% | 8% | 7% | 7% | 8% | 11% | 6% | 5% |
| 13 | 15 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 5 | 4 |
| About once a fortnight | | | | | | | |
| 2% | 2% | 3% | 1% | 1% | 4% | 2% | 2% |
| 7 | 14 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| About once a week | | | | | | | |
| 1% | 2% | 2% | 4% | 2% | | | |
| * | | | | | | | |
| 1% | 1% | 2% | | | | | |
| 13 | 13 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 3 |
| About twice a week | | | | | | | |
| 2% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 2% | 3% | 2% | 2% |
| 15 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 4 | - | 4 |
| About once a day | | | | | | | |
| 2% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 3% | 2% | | |
| - | | | | | | | |
| 2% | 2% | | | | | | |
| 6 | 2 | 2 | 1 | - | 5 | 1 | - |
| About twice a day | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| * | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| * | - | | | | | | |
| 2% | 1% | | | | | | |
| - | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| 2 | 4 | 1 | - | 4 | - | 2 | - |
| More often | | | | | | | |
| * | | | | | | | |
| 1% | 1% | | | | | | |
| - | | | | | | | |
| 2% | | | | | | | |
| - | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| - | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| 239 | 179 | 56 | 48 | 60 | 76 | 85 | 93 |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| 35% | 30% | 28% | 24% | 27% | 29% | 38% | 52% |
## Q.4 Thinking Back About All Of Your Visits To Woodland Over The Last 12 Months, What Is Your Best Estimate Of How Many Times You Visited A Woodland Managed By The Forestry Commission? Base: All Who Have Visited Forests Or Woodlands For Walks, Picnics Or Other Recreation In The Last Few Years
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|------------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 581 | 188 | 491 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 534 | 196 | 566 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 117 | 31 | 81 |
| None | | |
| 22% | 16% | 14% |
| 81 | 37 | 99 |
| Once or twice | | |
| 15% | 19% | 17% |
| 47 | 18 | 80 |
| 3-5 times | | |
| 9% | 9% | 14% |
| 35 | 16 | 30 |
| 6-10 times | | |
| 7% | 8% | 5% |
| 34 | 17 | 44 |
| About once a month | | |
| 6% | 9% | 8% |
| 10 | 1 | 16 |
| About once a fortnight | | |
| 2% | 1% | 3% |
| * | | |
| 2% | 3% | 1% |
| 12 | - | 9 |
| About once a week | | |
| 2% | | |
| - | | |
| 2% | 4% | 1% |
| 10 | 3 | 13 |
| About twice a week | | |
| 2% | 2% | 2% |
| 6 | 6 | 8 |
| About once a day | | |
| 1% | 3% | 1% |
| 4 | 1 | 3 |
| About twice a day | | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% |
| * | | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| * | | |
| 1% | | |
| * | | |
| 1% | | |
| 2 | - | 5 |
| More often | | |
| * | - | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| * | | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% |
| * | * | |
| 1% | | |
| 177 | 64 | 177 |
| Don't know | | |
| 33% | 33% | 31% |
Q.4 Thinking back about all of your visits to woodland over the last 12 months, what is your best estimate of how many times you visited a woodland managed by the forestry commission?
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation in the last few years
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
41
119
183
113
151
66
124
93
82
143
49
96
1057
1260
Unweighted Base
33
127
193
124
157
63
118
87
88
154
52
100
1100
1296
Weighted Base
2
30
32
22
28
11
29
12
10
33
4
15
201
229
None
5%
24%
17%
18%
18%
18%
25%
14%
12%
21%
8%
15%
18%
18%
1
26
28
20
22
6
21
17
23
21
12
21
190
217
Once or twice
2%
20%
14%
16%
14%
9%
18%
20%
26%
14%
24%
21%
17%
17%
2
16
19
18
26
5
8
11
10
11
8
12
126
145
3-5 times
7%
13%
10%
14%
17%
7%
7%
13%
12%
7%
15%
12%
11%
11%
3
10
16
2
9
6
6
3
7
7
4
9
63
81
6-10 times
9%
8%
8%
2%
5%
10%
5%
3%
7%
4%
7%
9%
6%
6%
-
7
15
5
9
7
8
8
12
9
3
12
76
95
About once a month
-
5%
8%
4%
6%
12%
7%
9%
13%
6%
7%
12%
7%
7%
1
3
2
3
3
2
2
5
-
2
-
4
21
28
About once a fortnight
2%
3%
1%
3%
2%
3%
2%
6%
-
1%
-
4%
2%
2%
3
1
3
-
3
5
1
1
-
1
1
1
11
21
About once a week
10%
1%
2%
-
2%
9%
*
1%
-
*
2%
1%
1%
2%
2
-
3
3
12
-
2
1
-
-
-
3
20
26
About twice a week
6%
-
2%
2%
8%
-
2%
1%
-
-
-
3%
2%
2%
1
1
11
4
1
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
18
20
About once a day
2%
1%
5%
3%
1%
2%
-
1%
-
*
-
-
2%
2%
-
-
4
-
1
1
-
1
-
-
1
-
7
9
About twice a day
-
-
2%
-
1%
2%
-
1%
-
-
3%
-
1%
1%
-
-
1
-
2
-
-
1
1
-
-
2
5
7
More often
-
-
*
-
1%
-
-
1%
2%
-
-
2%
*
1%
19
33
60
46
42
18
40
26
25
70
18
20
361
419
Don't know
58%
26%
31%
37%
27%
28%
34%
29%
29%
46%
35%
20%
33%
32%
## Q.4 Thinking Back About All Of Your Visits To Woodland Over The Last 12 Months, What Is Your Best Estimate Of How Many Times You Visited A Woodland Managed By The Forestry Commission? Base: All Who Have Visited Forests Or Woodlands For Walks, Picnics Or Other Recreation In The Last Few Years
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
71
1185
4
18
47
154
174
863
397
1260
Unweighted Base
83
1209
4
18
52
169
190
862
434
1296
Weighted Base
20
210
1
2
10
15
36
165
64
229
None
24%
17%
26%
9%
19%
9%
19%
19%
15%
18%
19
197
-
3
9
28
37
140
76
217
Once or twice
23%
16%
-
14%
18%
16%
19%
16%
18%
17%
8
137
-
-
6
21
23
94
51
145
3-5 times
9%
11%
-
-
11%
13%
12%
11%
12%
11%
1
80
-
2
6
12
7
53
28
81
6-10 times
1%
7%
-
11%
11%
7%
4%
6%
6%
6%
3
92
-
1
3
22
7
61
34
95
About once a month
4%
8%
-
7%
6%
13%
4%
7%
8%
7%
1
27
-
-
-
7
4
17
11
28
About once a fortnight
2%
2%
-
-
-
4%
2%
2%
3%
2%
-
19
-
1
-
4
1
15
6
21
About once a week
-
2%
-
5%
-
2%
*
2%
1%
2%
1
25
-
1
2
3
4
15
10
26
About twice a week
1%
2%
-
4%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1
19
-
1
-
3
2
14
6
20
About once a day
2%
2%
-
7%
-
2%
1%
2%
1%
2%
-
9
-
-
-
4
1
4
5
9
About twice a day
-
1%
-
-
-
2%
1%
*
1%
1%
-
7
-
-
1
-
-
6
1
7
More often
-
1%
-
-
1%
-
-
1%
*
1%
28
389
3
8
15
50
67
275
143
419
Don't know
34%
32%
74%
43%
30%
29%
35%
32%
33%
32%
Q.4 Thinking back about all of your visits to woodland over the last 12 months, what is your best estimate of how many times you visited a woodland managed by the forestry commission?
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation in the last few years
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1079 | 181 | 1043 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1118 | 178 | 1090 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 194 | 35 | 179 |
| None | | |
| 17% | 20% | 16% |
| - | | |
| 18% | 18% | |
| 186 | 30 | 191 |
| Once or twice | | |
| 17% | 17% | 18% |
| - | | |
| 17% | 17% | |
| 137 | 8 | 122 |
| 3-5 times | | |
| 12% | 5% | 11% |
| - | | |
| 11% | 11% | |
| 76 | 5 | 68 |
| 6-10 times | | |
| 7% | 3% | 6% |
| - | | |
| 6% | 6% | |
| 81 | 14 | 83 |
| About once a month | | |
| 7% | 8% | 8% |
| - | | |
| 7% | 7% | |
| 26 | 2 | 22 |
| About once a fortnight | | |
| 2% | 1% | 2% |
| - | | |
| 2% | 2% | |
| 18 | 3 | 16 |
| About once a week | | |
| 2% | 2% | 1% |
| - | | |
| 2% | 2% | |
| 21 | 4 | 19 |
| About twice a week | | |
| 2% | 2% | 2% |
| - | | |
| 2% | 2% | |
| 18 | 2 | 18 |
| About once a day | | |
| 2% | 1% | 2% |
| - | | |
| 2% | 2% | |
| 8 | 1 | 7 |
| About twice a day | | |
| 1% | | |
| * | | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| - | | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| 5 | 2 | 6 |
| More often | | |
| * | | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% |
| - | | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| 347 | 72 | 360 |
| Don't know | | |
| 31% | 40% | 33% |
| - | | |
| 32% | 32% | |
| Fieldwork : 01/03/2017 - 05/03/2017 (Week 09) | | |
## Forests And Woodlands (Qs0303 - 836909)
Q.5 Are you a ...? Base: All Adults 16+
GENDER
AGE
Female
Male
65+
55-64
45-54
35-44
25-34
16-24
Total
1101
1012
544
303
319
326
336
285
2113
Unweighted Base
1087
1026
410
318
344
374
369
297
2113
Weighted Base
23
24
8
9
7
10
7
5
46
Member of English
2%
2%
2%
3%
2%
3%
2%
2%
2%
Heritage, Historic Scotland or Cadw in Wales
2
6
3
-
1
2
-
2
7
Holder of a Forestry
*
1%
1%
-
*
1%
-
1%
*
Commission England 'Discovery Pass'
95
77
56
35
23
36
17
4
172
Member of the National
9%
8%
14%
11%
7%
10%
5%
1%
8%
Trust or National Trust for Scotland
26
24
18
10
5
9
3
6
50
Member of the Royal
2%
2%
4%
3%
1%
2%
1%
2%
2%
Society for the
Protection of Birds
30
21
11
8
11
11
4
6
51
Member of a wildlife
3%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
1%
2%
2%
trust
21
15
12
3
7
6
5
2
36
Member of the Woodland
2%
1%
3%
1%
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
Trust
936
902
333
270
301
314
338
282
1837
None of the above
86%
88%
81%
85%
87%
84%
92%
95%
87%
Q.5 Are you a ...? Base: All Adults 16+
WORKING STATUS
MARITAL STATUS
SOCIAL GRADE
Widow\
Married\
Divorced\
Living as
Not working
Part time
Full time
Separated
Single
married
DE
C2
C1
AB
Total
1100
300
713
372
542
1199
737
428
545
403
2113
Unweighted Base
978
311
824
331
554
1229
624
437
611
441
2113
Weighted Base
19
8
20
4
7
35
5
8
11
22
46
Member of English
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
3%
1%
2%
2%
5%
2%
Heritage, Historic Scotland or Cadw in Wales
3
1
3
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
7
Holder of a Forestry
*
*
*
1%
*
*
-
*
1%
*
*
Commission England 'Discovery Pass'
88
22
61
24
19
129
22
31
38
81
172
Member of the National
9%
7%
7%
7%
3%
10%
4%
7%
6%
18%
8%
Trust or National Trust for Scotland
26
8
16
11
8
30
8
3
24
15
50
Member of the Royal
3%
2%
2%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
4%
3%
2%
Society for the Protection of Birds
24
7
19
5
11
35
8
9
17
17
51
Member of a wildlife
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
3%
1%
2%
3%
4%
2%
trust
19
5
12
8
5
23
6
6
14
10
36
Member of the Woodland
2%
2%
1%
3%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
Trust
844
272
722
293
514
1030
584
395
532
327
1837
None of the above
86%
88%
88%
89%
93%
84%
94%
90%
87%
74%
87%
Q.5 Are you a ...? Base: All Adults 16+
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
-
3
12
5
9
-
6
1
5
2
1
3
43
46
Member of English
-
2%
4%
2%
4%
-
3%
1%
3%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
Heritage, Historic Scotland or Cadw in Wales
-
1
2
-
1
-
-
-
-
2
1
-
7
7
Holder of a Forestry
-
*
1%
-
1%
-
-
-
-
1%
1%
-
*
*
Commission England 'Discovery Pass'
2
34
31
14
23
4
13
8
9
18
6
10
156
172
Member of the National
4%
18%
11%
5%
11%
4%
7%
6%
5%
8%
7%
5%
9%
8%
Trust or National Trust for Scotland
1
12
8
4
3
2
3
2
5
5
3
1
46
50
Member of the Royal
1%
6%
3%
2%
1%
2%
2%
2%
3%
2%
4%
1%
3%
2%
Society for the Protection of Birds
-
4
13
2
9
1
6
6
5
3
1
1
48
51
Member of a wildlife
-
2%
4%
1%
4%
1%
3%
4%
3%
1%
1%
1%
3%
2%
trust
-
4
10
3
4
1
3
3
1
3
2
4
32
36
Member of the Woodland
-
2%
3%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
*
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Trust
46
144
233
236
173
97
168
121
166
214
76
164
1530
1837
None of the above
95%
77%
79%
92%
84%
92%
86%
88%
90%
91%
89%
92%
86%
87%
Q.5 Are you a ...? Base: All Adults 16+
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
4
42
-
1
-
12
3
31
16
46
Member of English
2%
2%
-
6%
-
5%
1%
2%
2%
2%
Heritage, Historic Scotland or Cadw in Wales
-
7
-
-
-
2
-
5
2
7
Holder of a Forestry
-
*
-
-
-
1%
-
*
*
*
Commission England 'Discovery Pass'
3
169
-
1
2
18
21
130
41
172
Member of the National
1%
9%
-
5%
3%
7%
7%
9%
6%
8%
Trust or National Trust for Scotland
2
48
-
-
1
6
6
38
12
50
Member of the Royal
1%
3%
-
-
2%
2%
2%
3%
2%
2%
Society for the Protection of Birds
-
51
-
-
4
6
4
36
14
51
Member of a wildlife
-
3%
-
-
5%
3%
1%
2%
2%
2%
trust
1
35
-
-
-
7
2
27
9
36
Member of the Woodland
*
2%
-
-
-
3%
1%
2%
1%
2%
Trust
243
1589
8
18
72
198
274
1267
570
1837
None of the above
96%
86%
100%
89%
93%
83%
90%
87%
88%
87%
Q.5 Are you a ...? Base: All Adults 16+
INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION
DISABILITY
VISITED WOODLAND
The Rest
(Bottom 85%)
Top 15%
No
Yes
No
Yes
Total
1704
409
1656
457
853
1260
2113
Unweighted Base
1725
388
1702
411
817
1296
2113
Weighted Base
42
5
39
7
7
40
46
Member of English
2%
1%
2%
2%
1%
3%
2%
Heritage, Historic Scotland or Cadw in Wales
7
1
6
2
1
7
7
Holder of a Forestry
*
*
*
*
*
1%
*
Commission England 'Discovery Pass'
158
13
147
25
9
163
172
Member of the National
9%
3%
9%
6%
1%
13%
8%
Trust or National Trust for Scotland
45
6
37
13
10
40
50
Member of the Royal
3%
1%
2%
3%
1%
3%
2%
Society for the Protection of Birds
45
6
40
11
6
44
51
Member of a wildlife
3%
1%
2%
3%
1%
3%
2%
trust
32
4
31
5
5
31
36
Member of the Woodland
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
2%
Trust
1474
364
1474
363
787
1050
1837
None of the above
85%
94%
87%
88%
96%
81%
87%
## Forests And Woodlands (Qs0303 - 836909)
Q.6 Have you in the past 12 months... Base: All Adults 16+
GENDER
AGE
Female
Male
65+
55-64
45-54
35-44
25-34
16-24
Total
1101
1012
544
303
319
326
336
285
2113
Unweighted Base
1087
1026
410
318
344
374
369
297
2113
Weighted Base
10
8
3
4
5
4
1
2
18
Been involved or
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
*
1%
1%
consulted about plans for creating \ managing or using woodlands in your area.
20
4
2
4
6
5
4
4
24
Been involved in an
2%
*
*
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
organised tree planting event
13
9
2
3
6
-
4
7
23
Been involved in
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
-
1%
3%
1%
voluntary work in connection with a woodland (e.g. physical
work in a wood, admin, fund raising, running a group)
13
9
1
1
5
6
5
4
22
Become or are a member
1%
1%
*
*
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
of a community based woodland group such as a 'Community Trust' or 'Friends of' group
1046
1002
403
308
331
360
359
286
2048
None of these
96%
98%
98%
97%
96%
96%
97%
96%
97%
## Forests And Woodlands (Qs0303 - 836909)
Q.6 Have you in the past 12 months... Base: All Adults 16+
WORKING STATUS
MARITAL STATUS
SOCIAL GRADE
Widow\
Married\
Divorced\
Living as
Not working
Part time
Full time
Separated
Single
married
DE
C2
C1
AB
Total
1100
300
713
372
542
1199
737
428
545
403
2113
Unweighted Base
978
311
824
331
554
1229
624
437
611
441
2113
Weighted Base
12
1
4
5
4
9
4
2
8
4
18
Been involved or
1%
*
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
consulted about plans for creating \ managing or using woodlands in your area.
11
5
8
4
6
13
2
2
16
4
24
Been involved in an
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
*
1%
3%
1%
1%
organised tree planting event
15
2
6
1
7
15
3
2
12
5
23
Been involved in
1%
1%
1%
*
1%
1%
1%
*
2%
1%
1%
voluntary work in
connection with a woodland (e.g. physical work in a wood, admin, fund raising, running a group)
9
1
13
4
5
13
2
7
4
9
22
Become or are a member
1%
*
2%
1%
1%
1%
*
2%
1%
2%
1%
of a community based woodland group such as a 'Community Trust' or 'Friends of' group
948
302
799
319
537
1193
616
426
583
422
2048
None of these
97%
97%
97%
96%
97%
97%
99%
98%
95%
96%
97%
## Forests And Woodlands (Qs0303 - 836909)
Q.6 Have you in the past 12 months... Base: All Adults 16+
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
-
5
4
-
1
1
2
2
-
3
-
-
17
18
Been involved or
-
3%
1%
-
1%
1%
1%
2%
-
1%
-
-
1%
1%
consulted about plans for creating \ managing or using woodlands in your area.
-
1
8
-
2
-
2
3
2
5
-
-
24
24
Been involved in an
-
1%
3%
-
1%
-
1%
2%
1%
2%
-
-
1%
1%
organised tree planting event
-
-
3
2
5
3
2
2
1
3
-
3
17
23
Been involved in
-
-
1%
1%
2%
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
-
2%
1%
1%
voluntary work in
connection with a woodland (e.g. physical work in a wood, admin, fund raising, running a group)
1
3
5
2
1
-
-
2
4
2
-
2
19
22
Become or are a member
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
-
-
1%
2%
1%
-
1%
1%
1%
of a community based woodland group such as a 'Community Trust' or 'Friends of' group
47
180
281
255
198
103
188
132
178
226
85
175
1724
2048
None of these
98%
96%
96%
99%
96%
98%
97%
96%
97%
97%
100%
97%
97%
97%
## Forests And Woodlands (Qs0303 - 836909) Q.6 Have You In The Past 12 Months... Base: All Adults 16+
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
-
18
-
-
-
3
2
12
6
18
Been involved or
-
1%
-
-
-
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
consulted about plans for creating \ managing or using woodlands in your area.
1
23
-
-
-
6
3
15
9
24
Been involved in an
1%
1%
-
-
-
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
organised tree planting event
1
22
-
-
1
1
3
18
4
23
Been involved in
*
1%
-
-
1%
*
1%
1%
1%
1%
voluntary work in
connection with a woodland (e.g. physical work in a wood, admin, fund raising, running a group)
4
19
-
-
1
2
5
13
9
22
Become or are a member
1%
1%
-
-
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
of a community based woodland group such as a 'Community Trust' or 'Friends of' group
247
1796
8
21
76
229
292
1423
625
2048
None of these
98%
97%
100%
100%
98%
96%
96%
97%
96%
97%
## Forests And Woodlands (Qs0303 - 836909) Q.6 Have You In The Past 12 Months... Base: All Adults 16+
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 18 | - | 16 |
| Been involved or | | |
| 1% | | |
| - | | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| * | | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| consulted about plans | | |
| for creating \ managing | | |
| or using woodlands in | | |
| your area. | | |
| 20 | 4 | 17 |
| Been involved in an | | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% |
| * | | |
| 2% | 1% | |
| organised tree planting | | |
| event | | |
| 21 | 2 | 17 |
| Been involved in | | |
| 1% | | |
| * | | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| * | | |
| 2% | 1% | |
| voluntary work in | | |
| connection with a | | |
| woodland (e.g. physical | | |
| work in a wood, admin, | | |
| fund raising, running a | | |
| group) | | |
| 21 | 2 | 18 |
| Become or are a member | | |
| 1% | | |
| * | | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| * | | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| of a community based | | |
| woodland group such as a | | |
| 'Community Trust' or | | |
| 'Friends of' group | | |
| 1667 | 381 | 1655 |
| None of these | | |
| 97% | 98% | 97% |
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 681 | 579 | 267 | 184 | 207 | 227 | 203 | 172 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 690 | 606 | 202 | 201 | 226 | 265 | 224 | 178 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 3 | 3 | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | | | | | | |
| * | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| * | - | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| * | | | | | | | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% | | | | | |
| 12 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 3 | - |
| Disagree | (2) | | | | | | |
| 2% | 1% | 3% | 3% | 1% | 1% | 2% | |
| - | | | | | | | |
| 2% | | | | | | | |
| 31 | 31 | 14 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 13 | 14 |
| Neither agree | (3) | | | | | | |
| 5% | 5% | 7% | 2% | 4% | 3% | 6% | 8% |
| or disagree | | | | | | | |
| 388 | 339 | 120 | 119 | 130 | 140 | 117 | 101 |
| Agree | (4) | | | | | | |
| 56% | 56% | 59% | 59% | 57% | 53% | 52% | 57% |
| 251 | 224 | 61 | 72 | 83 | 112 | 87 | 60 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | | | | | | |
| 36% | 37% | 30% | 36% | 36% | 42% | 39% | 34% |
| 5 | - | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | 2 | - |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| - | * | - | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| * | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| - | * | | | | | | |
| 4.273 | 4.274 | 4.161 | 4.280 | 4.287 | 4.364 | 4.286 | 4.223 |
| Mean Score | | | | | | | |
| 0.669 | 0.672 | 0.706 | 0.644 | 0.655 | 0.635 | 0.695 | 0.685 |
| Standard Deviation | | | | | | | |
| 639 | 563 | 181 | 190 | 213 | 252 | 204 | 161 |
| AGREE | | | | | | | |
| 93% | 93% | 89% | 95% | 94% | 95% | 91% | 91% |
| 15 | 12 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 2 |
| DISAGREE | | | | | | | |
| 2% | 2% | 3% | 3% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 1% |
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 581 | 188 | 491 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 534 | 196 | 566 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| * | | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% |
| * | | |
| 1% | | |
| - | * | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| 10 | 1 | 9 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 2% | 1% | 2% |
| 30 | 12 | 21 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 6% | 6% | 4% |
| or disagree | | |
| 300 | 121 | 306 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 56% | 62% | 54% |
| 192 | 61 | 222 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 36% | 31% | 39% |
| 1 | - | 4 |
| Don't know | | |
| * | - | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| * | * | |
| 1% | | |
| - | | |
| 1% | | |
| - | * | |
| 4.263 | 4.219 | 4.302 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.662 | 0.638 | 0.689 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 492 | 181 | 528 |
| AGREE | | |
| 92% | 93% | 93% |
| 11 | 2 | 13 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 2% | 1% | 2% |
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
41
119
183
113
151
66
124
93
82
143
49
96
1057
1260
Unweighted Base
33
127
193
124
157
63
118
87
88
154
52
100
1100
1296
Weighted Base
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
1
-
2
1
-
7
7
Strongly disagree
(1)
-
-
1%
-
-
-
-
1%
-
1%
2%
-
1%
1%
-
3
4
1
2
-
1
1
1
3
-
4
16
20
Disagree
(2)
-
2%
2%
1%
2%
-
1%
1%
1%
2%
-
4%
1%
2%
1
5
5
8
8
3
6
2
3
12
4
6
53
63
Neither agree
(3)
3%
4%
3%
6%
5%
5%
5%
2%
3%
8%
7%
6%
5%
5%
or disagree
16
77
97
62
73
40
83
56
60
93
29
42
629
727
Agree
(4)
49%
61%
50%
50%
46%
63%
71%
65%
68%
60%
55%
42%
57%
56%
16
42
85
51
73
19
27
27
24
44
19
48
392
475
Strongly agree
(5)
48%
34%
44%
41%
46%
30%
23%
31%
28%
28%
36%
48%
36%
37%
-
-
-
2
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
5
Don't know
-
-
-
2%
1%
2%
-
-
-
-
-
-
*
*
4.445
4.258
4.333
4.346
4.382
4.259
4.161
4.228
4.225
4.123
4.233
4.338
4.263
4.273
Mean Score
0.567
0.626
0.743
0.627
0.661
0.541
0.547
0.672
0.554
0.745
0.732
0.770
0.670
0.670
Standard Deviation
32
119
182
113
145
59
111
83
84
136
47
90
1021
1202
AGREE
97%
94%
94%
91%
92%
93%
94%
96%
96%
89%
91%
90%
93%
93%
-
3
6
1
2
-
1
2
1
5
1
4
22
26
DISAGREE
-
2%
3%
1%
2%
-
1%
2%
1%
4%
2%
4%
2%
2%
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
71
1185
4
18
47
154
174
863
397
1260
Unweighted Base
83
1209
4
18
52
169
190
862
434
1296
Weighted Base
1
6
-
-
-
3
1
2
4
7
Strongly disagree
(1)
1%
*
-
-
-
2%
*
*
1%
1%
1
19
1
-
-
1
3
15
4
20
Disagree
(2)
1%
2%
18%
-
-
1%
2%
2%
1%
2%
8
54
-
2
4
10
9
38
24
63
Neither agree
(3)
10%
5%
-
9%
7%
6%
5%
4%
6%
5%
or disagree
47
677
3
10
34
89
110
480
247
727
Agree
(4)
57%
56%
82%
56%
66%
53%
58%
56%
57%
56%
24
449
-
6
14
64
66
324
151
475
Strongly agree
(5)
29%
37%
-
35%
27%
38%
35%
38%
35%
37%
1
4
-
-
-
2
-
3
2
5
Don't know
2%
*
-
-
-
1%
-
*
*
*
4.142
4.282
3.636
4.254
4.203
4.254
4.256
4.288
4.243
4.273
Mean Score
0.730
0.666
0.896
0.629
0.556
0.766
0.662
0.659
0.693
0.670
Standard Deviation
71
1126
3
17
49
153
177
803
398
1202
AGREE
86%
93%
82%
91%
93%
91%
93%
93%
92%
93%
2
25
1
-
-
4
4
18
9
26
DISAGREE
2%
2%
18%
-
-
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1079 | 181 | 1043 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1118 | 178 | 1090 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 6 | 1 | 6 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% |
| * | - | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| 18 | 2 | 19 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 2% | 1% | 2% |
| * | - | |
| 2% | 2% | |
| 46 | 17 | 51 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 4% | 9% | 5% |
| - | | |
| 5% | 5% | |
| or disagree | | |
| 623 | 104 | 616 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 56% | 59% | 56% |
| - | | |
| 56% | 56% | |
| 421 | 54 | 395 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 38% | 30% | 36% |
| - | | |
| 37% | 37% | |
| 5 | - | 4 |
| Don't know | | |
| * | - | * |
| 4.290 | 4.169 | 4.267 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.667 | 0.683 | 0.676 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 1044 | 158 | 1011 |
| AGREE | | |
| 93% | 89% | 93% |
| - | | |
| 93% | 93% | |
| 23 | 3 | 25 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 2% | 2% | 2% |
| - | | |
| 2% | 2% | |
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 681 | 579 | 267 | 184 | 207 | 227 | 203 | 172 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 690 | 606 | 202 | 201 | 226 | 265 | 224 | 178 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 6 | 3 | - | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| * | - | | | | | | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% | | | | | |
| * | | | | | | | |
| 1% | 1% | | | | | | |
| 48 | 28 | 16 | 17 | 17 | 9 | 9 | 9 |
| Disagree | (2) | | | | | | |
| 7% | 5% | 8% | 8% | 7% | 3% | 4% | 5% |
| 50 | 36 | 17 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 16 | 13 |
| Neither agree | (3) | | | | | | |
| 7% | 6% | 8% | 6% | 5% | 7% | 7% | 7% |
| or disagree | | | | | | | |
| 406 | 364 | 127 | 112 | 138 | 149 | 132 | 112 |
| Agree | (4) | | | | | | |
| 59% | 60% | 63% | 56% | 61% | 56% | 59% | 63% |
| 177 | 174 | 42 | 59 | 56 | 84 | 67 | 43 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | | | | | | |
| 26% | 29% | 21% | 29% | 25% | 32% | 30% | 24% |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | - | - |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| * | * | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| - | * | * | - | - | * | | |
| 4.017 | 4.122 | 3.966 | 4.051 | 4.015 | 4.145 | 4.136 | 4.058 |
| Mean Score | | | | | | | |
| 0.833 | 0.748 | 0.780 | 0.862 | 0.838 | 0.790 | 0.740 | 0.744 |
| Standard Deviation | | | | | | | |
| 583 | 538 | 168 | 171 | 194 | 233 | 198 | 155 |
| AGREE | | | | | | | |
| 84% | 89% | 83% | 85% | 86% | 88% | 89% | 87% |
| 54 | 31 | 16 | 18 | 19 | 12 | 10 | 10 |
| DISAGREE | | | | | | | |
| 8% | 5% | 8% | 9% | 9% | 5% | 4% | 5% |
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 581 | 188 | 491 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 534 | 196 | 566 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 5 | 3 | - |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 1% | 2% | |
| - | | |
| 2% | 1% | |
| * | | |
| 2% | 1% | |
| - | * | |
| 1% | | |
| 39 | 9 | 29 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 7% | 5% | 5% |
| 43 | 12 | 30 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 8% | 6% | 5% |
| or disagree | | |
| 315 | 116 | 339 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 59% | 60% | 60% |
| 130 | 54 | 167 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 24% | 28% | 30% |
| 2 | - | 1 |
| Don't know | | |
| * | - | * |
| 3.987 | 4.063 | 4.142 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.842 | 0.830 | 0.730 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 444 | 170 | 506 |
| AGREE | | |
| 83% | 87% | 89% |
| 44 | 13 | 29 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 8% | 7% | 5% |
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
41
119
183
113
151
66
124
93
82
143
49
96
1057
1260
Unweighted Base
33
127
193
124
157
63
118
87
88
154
52
100
1100
1296
Weighted Base
-
1
3
1
1
-
-
-
-
2
-
1
8
9
Strongly disagree
(1)
-
1%
2%
1%
1%
-
-
-
-
1%
-
1%
1%
1%
2
9
10
10
5
6
10
2
2
12
3
5
63
77
Disagree
(2)
5%
7%
5%
8%
3%
10%
9%
2%
2%
8%
6%
5%
6%
6%
2
2
13
18
8
2
10
7
7
9
3
7
76
86
Neither agree
(3)
6%
1%
7%
14%
5%
3%
8%
8%
8%
6%
6%
7%
7%
7%
or disagree
19
82
94
68
82
39
75
64
66
97
32
51
661
769
Agree
(4)
56%
65%
49%
55%
52%
62%
63%
74%
75%
63%
62%
51%
60%
59%
11
32
73
27
59
16
23
14
13
35
13
36
289
351
Strongly agree
(5)
33%
26%
38%
21%
37%
25%
20%
16%
15%
23%
26%
36%
26%
27%
-
-
-
1
2
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
3
Don't know
-
-
-
1%
1%
1%
-
-
-
-
-
-
*
*
4.166
4.072
4.153
3.897
4.239
4.022
3.938
4.045
4.023
3.988
4.072
4.153
4.058
4.066
Mean Score
0.766
0.795
0.884
0.849
0.758
0.830
0.795
0.575
0.565
0.832
0.753
0.845
0.790
0.795
Standard Deviation
30
115
167
95
141
55
98
79
79
132
46
87
950
1121
AGREE
89%
91%
86%
77%
90%
86%
83%
90%
90%
86%
88%
87%
86%
86%
2
10
13
10
6
6
10
2
2
13
3
6
71
85
DISAGREE
5%
8%
7%
8%
4%
10%
9%
2%
2%
9%
6%
6%
6%
7%
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
71
1185
4
18
47
154
174
863
397
1260
Unweighted Base
83
1209
4
18
52
169
190
862
434
1296
Weighted Base
1
8
1
1
-
1
3
3
5
9
Strongly disagree
(1)
1%
1%
18%
5%
-
1%
2%
*
1%
1%
6
70
-
-
-
4
8
65
12
77
Disagree
(2)
7%
6%
-
-
-
2%
4%
8%
3%
6%
8
78
-
2
4
14
6
60
26
86
Neither agree
(3)
10%
6%
-
9%
8%
8%
3%
7%
6%
7%
or disagree
47
721
2
10
31
99
122
505
264
769
Agree
(4)
56%
60%
56%
52%
59%
59%
64%
59%
61%
59%
21
329
1
6
17
50
51
226
126
351
Strongly agree
(5)
25%
27%
26%
34%
33%
30%
27%
26%
29%
27%
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
3
Don't know
-
*
-
-
-
-
-
*
-
*
3.969
4.073
3.715
4.102
4.252
4.150
4.104
4.031
4.136
4.066
Mean Score
0.869
0.789
1.566
0.945
0.591
0.714
0.773
0.817
0.746
0.795
Standard Deviation
67
1050
3
16
48
150
173
731
390
1121
AGREE
81%
87%
82%
86%
92%
89%
91%
85%
90%
86%
7
78
1
1
-
5
11
68
17
85
DISAGREE
9%
6%
18%
5%
-
3%
6%
8%
4%
7%
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1079 | 181 | 1043 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1118 | 178 | 1090 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 6 | 3 | 7 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 1% | 2% | 1% |
| - | | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| 66 | 11 | 61 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 6% | 6% | 6% |
| - | | |
| 6% | 6% | |
| 73 | 13 | 69 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 7% | 7% | 6% |
| - | | |
| 7% | 7% | |
| or disagree | | |
| 661 | 108 | 643 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 59% | 61% | 59% |
| - | | |
| 59% | 59% | |
| 308 | 43 | 308 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 28% | 24% | 28% |
| - | | |
| 27% | 27% | |
| 3 | - | 3 |
| Don't know | | |
| * | - | * |
| 4.077 | 4.002 | 4.089 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.788 | 0.839 | 0.787 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 969 | 151 | 950 |
| AGREE | | |
| 87% | 85% | 87% |
| - | | |
| 86% | 86% | |
| 72 | 14 | 68 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 6% | 8% | 6% |
| - | | |
| 7% | 7% | |
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 681 | 579 | 267 | 184 | 207 | 227 | 203 | 172 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 690 | 606 | 202 | 201 | 226 | 265 | 224 | 178 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | - | 1 | - | 1 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| * | * | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| - | * | - | * | * | | | |
| 11 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Disagree | (2) | | | | | | |
| 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 1% |
| 40 | 32 | 20 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 13 |
| Neither agree | (3) | | | | | | |
| 6% | 5% | 10% | 6% | 4% | 3% | 4% | 7% |
| or disagree | | | | | | | |
| 425 | 372 | 130 | 129 | 138 | 158 | 137 | 106 |
| Agree | (4) | | | | | | |
| 62% | 61% | 64% | 64% | 61% | 60% | 61% | 59% |
| 205 | 190 | 42 | 53 | 72 | 95 | 76 | 57 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | | | | | | |
| 30% | 31% | 21% | 27% | 32% | 36% | 34% | 32% |
| 6 | 2 | 4 | - | 2 | 1 | - | - |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| * | | | | | | | |
| 2% | | | | | | | |
| - | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| * | - | - | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| 4.193 | 4.226 | 4.046 | 4.134 | 4.235 | 4.309 | 4.270 | 4.214 |
| Mean Score | | | | | | | |
| 0.657 | 0.624 | 0.672 | 0.690 | 0.626 | 0.593 | 0.603 | 0.652 |
| Standard Deviation | | | | | | | |
| 630 | 562 | 172 | 182 | 210 | 253 | 212 | 162 |
| AGREE | | | | | | | |
| 91% | 93% | 85% | 91% | 93% | 96% | 95% | 91% |
| 15 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| DISAGREE | | | | | | | |
| 2% | 2% | 3% | 3% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 1% |
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 581 | 188 | 491 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 534 | 196 | 566 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 3 | - | 2 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 1% | | |
| - | * | |
| 1% | | |
| * | * | |
| 1% | | |
| * | * | * |
| 7 | 1 | 12 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 1% | | |
| * | | |
| 2% | 3% | 1% |
| 39 | 13 | 21 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 7% | 7% | 4% |
| or disagree | | |
| 334 | 116 | 347 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 63% | 59% | 61% |
| 146 | 63 | 185 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 27% | 32% | 33% |
| 5 | 2 | - |
| Don't know | | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| - | * | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% |
| * | * | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| 4.161 | 4.253 | 4.238 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.651 | 0.592 | 0.647 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 480 | 179 | 532 |
| AGREE | | |
| 90% | 92% | 94% |
| 10 | 1 | 14 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 2% | | |
| * | | |
| 2% | 4% | 2% |
Q.7_03 Now thinking specifically about woodlands and forests and why they are important to the public please indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree
or strongly disagree with the following statements. - They are places where I can have fun and enjoy myself
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation in the last few years
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
41
119
183
113
151
66
124
93
82
143
49
96
1057
1260
Unweighted Base
33
127
193
124
157
63
118
87
88
154
52
100
1100
1296
Weighted Base
-
1
-
-
1
-
-
1
-
1
1
-
4
4
Strongly disagree
(1)
-
1%
-
-
1%
-
-
1%
-
1%
2%
-
*
*
1
4
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
3
-
1
18
20
Disagree
(2)
3%
4%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
3%
2%
-
1%
2%
2%
1
6
12
4
5
3
12
6
3
11
8
2
66
72
Neither agree
(3)
3%
5%
6%
3%
3%
4%
10%
7%
3%
7%
16%
2%
6%
6%
or disagree
18
77
118
78
83
44
81
55
63
94
26
61
675
797
Agree
(4)
54%
61%
61%
63%
53%
70%
69%
63%
72%
61%
49%
61%
61%
62%
13
38
63
41
64
15
22
24
19
42
17
35
331
394
Strongly agree
(5)
41%
30%
32%
33%
41%
24%
19%
28%
21%
27%
33%
35%
30%
30%
-
-
-
1
2
1
1
-
1
2
-
1
6
8
Don't know
-
-
-
1%
1%
1%
1%
-
1%
1%
-
1%
1%
1%
4.324
4.161
4.252
4.288
4.328
4.178
4.060
4.153
4.135
4.143
4.127
4.316
4.197
4.209
Mean Score
0.669
0.735
0.590
0.552
0.676
0.547
0.590
0.693
0.577
0.688
0.796
0.562
0.652
0.642
Standard Deviation
31
115
180
118
147
59
104
79
82
136
43
95
1006
1192
AGREE
94%
91%
93%
96%
94%
94%
88%
91%
94%
89%
83%
96%
91%
92%
1
5
1
1
4
1
2
2
2
4
1
1
22
25
DISAGREE
3%
4%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
3%
3%
3%
2%
1%
2%
2%
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
71
1185
4
18
47
154
174
863
397
1260
Unweighted Base
83
1209
4
18
52
169
190
862
434
1296
Weighted Base
-
4
-
-
-
-
2
3
2
4
Strongly disagree
(1)
-
*
-
-
-
-
1%
*
*
*
-
20
-
-
-
1
3
16
4
20
Disagree
(2)
-
2%
-
-
-
1%
2%
2%
1%
2%
7
65
1
2
7
3
7
53
19
72
Neither agree
(3)
8%
5%
18%
9%
13%
2%
4%
6%
4%
6%
or disagree
51
742
3
11
26
111
113
533
264
797
Agree
(4)
62%
61%
82%
60%
51%
66%
59%
62%
61%
62%
25
370
-
6
19
54
65
250
144
394
Strongly agree
(5)
30%
31%
-
31%
36%
32%
34%
29%
33%
30%
-
8
-
-
-
-
-
8
-
8
Don't know
-
1%
-
-
-
-
-
1%
-
1%
4.213
4.209
3.818
4.214
4.231
4.289
4.247
4.185
4.256
4.209
Mean Score
0.584
0.647
0.448
0.611
0.671
0.532
0.687
0.650
0.623
0.642
Standard Deviation
76
1112
3
17
46
165
178
783
408
1192
AGREE
92%
92%
82%
91%
87%
98%
94%
91%
94%
92%
-
25
-
-
-
1
5
18
6
25
DISAGREE
-
2%
-
-
-
1%
3%
2%
1%
2%
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1079 | 181 | 1043 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1118 | 178 | 1090 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 4 | - | 4 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| * | - | * |
| 16 | 4 | 16 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 1% | 2% | 1% |
| - | | |
| 2% | 2% | |
| 57 | 15 | 61 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 5% | 9% | 6% |
| - | | |
| 6% | 6% | |
| or disagree | | |
| 674 | 123 | 672 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 60% | 69% | 62% |
| - | | |
| 62% | 62% | |
| 359 | 36 | 331 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 32% | 20% | 30% |
| - | | |
| 30% | 30% | |
| 8 | - | 7 |
| Don't know | | |
| 1% | | |
| - | | |
| 1% | | |
| * | - | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| 4.232 | 4.067 | 4.210 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.643 | 0.615 | 0.638 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 1033 | 158 | 1003 |
| AGREE | | |
| 92% | 89% | 92% |
| - | | |
| 92% | 92% | |
| 20 | 4 | 19 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 2% | 2% | 2% |
| - | | |
| 2% | 2% | |
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 681 | 579 | 267 | 184 | 207 | 227 | 203 | 172 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 690 | 606 | 202 | 201 | 226 | 265 | 224 | 178 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 27 | 20 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 9 | 8 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | | | | | | |
| 4% | 3% | 3% | 5% | 5% | 1% | 4% | 4% |
| 159 | 157 | 55 | 56 | 63 | 68 | 45 | 30 |
| Disagree | (2) | | | | | | |
| 23% | 26% | 27% | 28% | 28% | 26% | 20% | 17% |
| 122 | 109 | 43 | 34 | 35 | 51 | 37 | 31 |
| Neither agree | (3) | | | | | | |
| 18% | 18% | 21% | 17% | 16% | 19% | 17% | 17% |
| or disagree | | | | | | | |
| 287 | 260 | 73 | 78 | 94 | 107 | 109 | 87 |
| Agree | (4) | | | | | | |
| 42% | 43% | 36% | 39% | 41% | 40% | 49% | 49% |
| 89 | 59 | 24 | 23 | 23 | 33 | 24 | 22 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | | | | | | |
| 13% | 10% | 12% | 12% | 10% | 12% | 11% | 12% |
| 4 | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | - |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| - | * | | | | | | |
| 1% | 1% | | | | | | |
| * | - | - | * | | | | |
| 3.368 | 3.299 | 3.258 | 3.250 | 3.245 | 3.365 | 3.424 | 3.480 |
| Mean Score | | | | | | | |
| 1.094 | 1.061 | 1.091 | 1.123 | 1.108 | 1.045 | 1.053 | 1.050 |
| Standard Deviation | | | | | | | |
| 377 | 320 | 97 | 101 | 116 | 140 | 133 | 109 |
| AGREE | | | | | | | |
| 55% | 53% | 48% | 50% | 51% | 53% | 59% | 61% |
| 187 | 177 | 62 | 65 | 73 | 72 | 54 | 38 |
| DISAGREE | | | | | | | |
| 27% | 29% | 31% | 32% | 32% | 27% | 24% | 21% |
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 581 | 188 | 491 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 534 | 196 | 566 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 27 | 3 | 18 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 5% | 2% | 3% |
| 130 | 44 | 142 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 24% | 22% | 25% |
| 94 | 37 | 100 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 18% | 19% | 18% |
| or disagree | | |
| 219 | 92 | 237 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 41% | 47% | 42% |
| 63 | 20 | 66 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 12% | 10% | 12% |
| 1 | - | 4 |
| Don't know | | |
| * | - | |
| 1% | | |
| - | | |
| 1% | | |
| * | * | |
| 1% | | |
| * | - | * |
| 3.301 | 3.418 | 3.340 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 1.114 | 0.997 | 1.073 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 282 | 112 | 303 |
| AGREE | | |
| 53% | 57% | 53% |
| 157 | 47 | 159 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 29% | 24% | 28% |
Q.7_04 Now thinking specifically about woodlands and forests and why they are important to the public please indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree
or strongly disagree with the following statements. - They are good places for me to socialise
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation in the last few years
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
41
119
183
113
151
66
124
93
82
143
49
96
1057
1260
Unweighted Base
33
127
193
124
157
63
118
87
88
154
52
100
1100
1296
Weighted Base
2
6
14
3
2
3
1
2
2
5
-
7
35
48
Strongly disagree
(1)
5%
5%
7%
3%
1%
5%
1%
2%
3%
3%
-
8%
3%
4%
11
45
36
23
24
25
28
21
21
44
12
27
253
316
Disagree
(2)
34%
35%
19%
19%
15%
39%
23%
24%
24%
29%
23%
27%
23%
24%
3
24
37
16
34
4
25
11
15
32
12
19
205
232
Neither agree
(3)
8%
19%
19%
13%
21%
6%
22%
13%
17%
21%
22%
19%
19%
18%
or disagree
11
46
86
64
65
25
53
41
46
56
20
34
478
548
Agree
(4)
33%
36%
44%
52%
41%
40%
45%
47%
52%
37%
39%
34%
43%
42%
7
6
20
16
30
6
11
12
4
17
8
12
124
148
Strongly agree
(5)
20%
5%
10%
13%
19%
9%
9%
14%
4%
11%
16%
12%
11%
11%
-
-
-
1
3
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
4
Don't know
-
-
-
1%
2%
1%
-
-
-
-
-
-
*
*
3.291
3.006
3.316
3.543
3.631
3.091
3.385
3.471
3.319
3.239
3.465
3.167
3.366
3.336
Mean Score
1.272
1.048
1.115
1.030
1.011
1.172
0.970
1.076
0.967
1.080
1.024
1.177
1.056
1.079
Standard Deviation
17
52
106
80
95
31
64
54
50
73
28
46
602
696
AGREE
53%
41%
55%
65%
61%
49%
54%
61%
57%
48%
54%
46%
55%
54%
13
51
50
27
26
28
28
23
23
49
12
34
289
364
DISAGREE
39%
40%
26%
21%
16%
44%
24%
26%
26%
32%
23%
34%
26%
28%
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
71
1185
4
18
47
154
174
863
397
1260
Unweighted Base
83
1209
4
18
52
169
190
862
434
1296
Weighted Base
3
45
1
2
-
4
3
38
10
48
Strongly disagree
(1)
3%
4%
18%
9%
-
3%
2%
4%
2%
4%
9
306
1
1
12
39
52
211
105
316
Disagree
(2)
11%
25%
26%
7%
22%
23%
27%
24%
24%
24%
18
214
-
2
10
37
35
148
83
232
Neither agree
(3)
21%
18%
-
10%
18%
22%
19%
17%
19%
18%
or disagree
48
498
2
9
26
67
72
372
176
548
Agree
(4)
58%
41%
56%
48%
49%
40%
38%
43%
41%
42%
6
143
-
5
5
22
26
91
58
148
Strongly agree
(5)
7%
12%
-
26%
10%
13%
14%
11%
13%
11%
-
4
-
-
-
-
1
3
1
4
Don't know
-
*
-
-
-
-
1%
*
*
*
3.541
3.322
2.933
3.761
3.469
3.373
3.343
3.311
3.384
3.336
Mean Score
0.901
1.089
1.442
1.202
0.957
1.056
1.080
1.086
1.064
1.079
Standard Deviation
53
640
2
14
31
89
98
462
234
696
AGREE
65%
53%
56%
74%
59%
53%
52%
54%
54%
54%
12
350
2
3
12
43
55
248
115
364
DISAGREE
14%
29%
44%
16%
22%
26%
29%
29%
27%
28%
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1079 | 181 | 1043 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1118 | 178 | 1090 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 38 | 10 | 36 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 3% | 6% | 3% |
| - | | |
| 4% | 4% | |
| 280 | 36 | 266 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 25% | 20% | 24% |
| - | | |
| 24% | 24% | |
| 205 | 27 | 197 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 18% | 15% | 18% |
| - | | |
| 18% | 18% | |
| or disagree | | |
| 470 | 78 | 463 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 42% | 44% | 42% |
| - | | |
| 42% | 42% | |
| 122 | 27 | 124 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 11% | 15% | 11% |
| - | | |
| 11% | 11% | |
| 4 | - | 4 |
| Don't know | | |
| * | - | * |
| 3.321 | 3.428 | 3.345 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 1.069 | 1.136 | 1.069 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 591 | 105 | 587 |
| AGREE | | |
| 53% | 59% | 54% |
| - | | |
| 54% | 54% | |
| 318 | 46 | 302 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 28% | 26% | 28% |
| - | | |
| 28% | 28% | |
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 681 | 579 | 267 | 184 | 207 | 227 | 203 | 172 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 690 | 606 | 202 | 201 | 226 | 265 | 224 | 178 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 3 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 1 | - | 1 | - |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | | | | | | |
| * | | | | | | | |
| 1% | 1% | 2% | 1% | | | | |
| - | * | - | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| 49 | 50 | 24 | 20 | 18 | 18 | 10 | 9 |
| Disagree | (2) | | | | | | |
| 7% | 8% | 12% | 10% | 8% | 7% | 4% | 5% |
| 74 | 87 | 27 | 20 | 34 | 27 | 32 | 21 |
| Neither agree | (3) | | | | | | |
| 11% | 14% | 13% | 10% | 15% | 10% | 14% | 12% |
| or disagree | | | | | | | |
| 420 | 343 | 115 | 119 | 123 | 151 | 135 | 119 |
| Agree | (4) | | | | | | |
| 61% | 57% | 57% | 59% | 54% | 57% | 60% | 67% |
| 138 | 120 | 31 | 38 | 48 | 67 | 45 | 28 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | | | | | | |
| 20% | 20% | 15% | 19% | 21% | 25% | 20% | 16% |
| 6 | 1 | 3 | - | 3 | 1 | 1 | - |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| * | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| - | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| * | * | - | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| 3.937 | 3.866 | 3.743 | 3.841 | 3.887 | 4.012 | 3.961 | 3.944 |
| Mean Score | | | | | | | |
| 0.794 | 0.853 | 0.901 | 0.907 | 0.852 | 0.799 | 0.744 | 0.689 |
| Standard Deviation | | | | | | | |
| 558 | 463 | 146 | 157 | 171 | 218 | 181 | 148 |
| AGREE | | | | | | | |
| 81% | 76% | 72% | 78% | 76% | 82% | 81% | 83% |
| 52 | 55 | 27 | 24 | 19 | 18 | 11 | 9 |
| DISAGREE | | | | | | | |
| 8% | 9% | 13% | 12% | 8% | 7% | 5% | 5% |
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 581 | 188 | 491 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 534 | 196 | 566 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 5 | 1 | 1 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| * | | |
| 1% | | |
| * | * | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| * | * | |
| 1% | | |
| 47 | 8 | 44 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 9% | 4% | 8% |
| 57 | 22 | 81 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 11% | 11% | 14% |
| or disagree | | |
| 322 | 127 | 314 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 60% | 65% | 55% |
| 100 | 37 | 121 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 19% | 19% | 21% |
| 3 | - | 5 |
| Don't know | | |
| 1% | | |
| - | | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% |
| - | | |
| 1% | | |
| - | | |
| 1% | | |
| 3.876 | 3.972 | 3.907 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.848 | 0.732 | 0.828 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 422 | 164 | 435 |
| AGREE | | |
| 79% | 84% | 77% |
| 52 | 10 | 45 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 10% | 5% | 8% |
Q.7_05 Now thinking specifically about woodlands and forests and why they are important to the public please indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree
or strongly disagree with the following statements. - They are places where I can learn about the environment
Base: All who have visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation in the last few years
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
41
119
183
113
151
66
124
93
82
143
49
96
1057
1260
Unweighted Base
33
127
193
124
157
63
118
87
88
154
52
100
1100
1296
Weighted Base
-
-
1
1
1
-
-
-
-
1
-
4
4
7
Strongly disagree
(1)
-
-
1%
1%
*
-
-
-
-
1%
-
4%
*
1%
3
13
16
5
5
5
12
4
6
21
3
6
85
99
Disagree
(2)
9%
11%
8%
4%
3%
8%
10%
5%
7%
14%
5%
6%
8%
8%
2
14
28
18
17
7
18
13
8
16
10
9
142
160
Neither agree
(3)
6%
11%
14%
15%
11%
12%
15%
15%
9%
10%
20%
9%
13%
12%
or disagree
19
76
108
73
80
39
74
54
62
94
27
59
647
763
Agree
(4)
57%
60%
56%
59%
51%
61%
63%
62%
70%
61%
52%
59%
59%
59%
9
22
40
24
53
11
14
15
12
23
12
21
216
258
Strongly agree
(5)
26%
18%
21%
20%
34%
18%
12%
18%
14%
15%
22%
22%
20%
20%
1
1
-
3
2
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
8
Don't know
3%
1%
-
2%
1%
1%
-
-
-
-
-
-
1%
1%
4.031
3.857
3.872
3.954
4.160
3.896
3.773
3.921
3.912
3.757
3.919
3.878
3.903
3.904
Mean Score
0.843
0.835
0.858
0.755
0.765
0.792
0.791
0.730
0.712
0.890
0.801
0.952
0.812
0.823
Standard Deviation
27
98
148
97
133
50
89
69
74
116
39
80
863
1021
AGREE
83%
78%
77%
78%
84%
79%
75%
80%
84%
76%
75%
80%
78%
79%
3
13
18
6
5
5
12
4
6
22
3
10
89
107
DISAGREE
9%
11%
9%
5%
3%
8%
10%
5%
7%
14%
5%
10%
8%
8%
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
71
1185
4
18
47
154
174
863
397
1260
Unweighted Base
83
1209
4
18
52
169
190
862
434
1296
Weighted Base
-
7
1
-
-
-
-
7
1
7
Strongly disagree
(1)
-
1%
18%
-
-
-
-
1%
*
1%
6
94
-
-
-
8
11
81
19
99
Disagree
(2)
7%
8%
-
-
-
5%
6%
9%
4%
8%
12
148
-
2
8
23
25
102
58
160
Neither agree
(3)
14%
12%
-
9%
16%
13%
13%
12%
13%
12%
or disagree
48
714
3
12
36
97
117
498
265
763
Agree
(4)
58%
59%
82%
67%
69%
57%
61%
58%
61%
59%
16
241
-
4
8
40
37
168
89
258
Strongly agree
(5)
19%
20%
-
23%
15%
24%
19%
20%
21%
20%
1
6
-
-
-
1
-
6
1
8
Don't know
2%
1%
-
-
-
1%
-
1%
*
1%
3.903
3.903
3.454
4.142
3.994
4.012
3.943
3.865
3.980
3.904
Mean Score
0.792
0.825
1.344
0.569
0.566
0.751
0.749
0.864
0.729
0.823
Standard Deviation
64
954
3
17
44
137
153
666
354
1021
AGREE
77%
79%
82%
91%
84%
81%
81%
77%
82%
79%
6
101
1
-
-
8
11
87
20
107
DISAGREE
7%
8%
18%
-
-
5%
6%
10%
5%
8%
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1079 | 181 | 1043 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1118 | 178 | 1090 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 7 | - | 7 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 1% | | |
| - | | |
| 1% | | |
| - | - | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| 88 | 12 | 82 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 8% | 7% | 8% |
| - | | |
| 8% | 8% | |
| 139 | 21 | 137 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 12% | 12% | 13% |
| - | | |
| 12% | 12% | |
| or disagree | | |
| 659 | 104 | 641 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 59% | 59% | 59% |
| - | | |
| 59% | 59% | |
| 217 | 41 | 216 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 19% | 23% | 20% |
| - | | |
| 20% | 20% | |
| 8 | - | 7 |
| Don't know | | |
| 1% | | |
| - | | |
| 1% | | |
| * | - | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| 3.892 | 3.976 | 3.900 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.828 | 0.785 | 0.826 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 876 | 145 | 857 |
| AGREE | | |
| 78% | 81% | 79% |
| - | | |
| 79% | 79% | |
| 95 | 12 | 90 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 9% | 7% | 8% |
| - | | |
| 8% | 8% | |
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 681 | 579 | 267 | 184 | 207 | 227 | 203 | 172 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 690 | 606 | 202 | 201 | 226 | 265 | 224 | 178 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 11 | 12 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | | | | | | |
| 2% | 2% | 1% | 3% | 2% | | | |
| * | | | | | | | |
| 1% | 3% | 2% | | | | | |
| 106 | 99 | 42 | 43 | 33 | 31 | 30 | 24 |
| Disagree | (2) | | | | | | |
| 15% | 16% | 21% | 21% | 15% | 12% | 13% | 14% |
| 120 | 120 | 34 | 33 | 49 | 56 | 34 | 34 |
| Neither agree | (3) | | | | | | |
| 17% | 20% | 17% | 17% | 22% | 21% | 15% | 19% |
| or disagree | | | | | | | |
| 347 | 303 | 100 | 89 | 108 | 131 | 128 | 95 |
| Agree | (4) | | | | | | |
| 50% | 50% | 49% | 44% | 48% | 49% | 57% | 54% |
| 95 | 68 | 18 | 26 | 30 | 42 | 29 | 17 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | | | | | | |
| 14% | 11% | 9% | 13% | 13% | 16% | 13% | 9% |
| 11 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| 2% | 1% | 3% | 1% | | | | |
| * | | | | | | | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | | | | |
| 3.604 | 3.526 | 3.459 | 3.424 | 3.556 | 3.694 | 3.690 | 3.521 |
| Mean Score | | | | | | | |
| 0.964 | 0.960 | 0.966 | 1.076 | 0.971 | 0.898 | 0.892 | 0.964 |
| Standard Deviation | | | | | | | |
| 443 | 371 | 118 | 115 | 138 | 173 | 157 | 112 |
| AGREE | | | | | | | |
| 64% | 61% | 59% | 57% | 61% | 65% | 70% | 63% |
| 117 | 110 | 44 | 50 | 38 | 33 | 32 | 30 |
| DISAGREE | | | | | | | |
| 17% | 18% | 22% | 25% | 17% | 12% | 14% | 17% |
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 581 | 188 | 491 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 534 | 196 | 566 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 12 | 1 | 10 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 2% | 1% | 2% |
| 90 | 22 | 93 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 17% | 11% | 16% |
| 99 | 32 | 108 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 19% | 16% | 19% |
| or disagree | | |
| 258 | 115 | 277 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 48% | 59% | 49% |
| 67 | 23 | 73 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 13% | 12% | 13% |
| 8 | 2 | 5 |
| Don't know | | |
| 2% | 1% | 1% |
| * | | |
| 1% | 1% | 2% |
| 3.529 | 3.709 | 3.555 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.992 | 0.841 | 0.971 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 325 | 138 | 350 |
| AGREE | | |
| 61% | 71% | 62% |
| 102 | 23 | 102 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 19% | 12% | 18% |
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
41
119
183
113
151
66
124
93
82
143
49
96
1057
1260
Unweighted Base
33
127
193
124
157
63
118
87
88
154
52
100
1100
1296
Weighted Base
-
1
4
2
3
-
-
-
-
3
-
9
14
23
Strongly disagree
(1)
-
1%
2%
2%
2%
-
-
-
-
2%
-
9%
1%
2%
4
38
31
13
13
14
24
10
7
29
8
13
174
204
Disagree
(2)
12%
30%
16%
10%
8%
22%
21%
12%
8%
19%
16%
13%
16%
16%
4
16
42
30
30
16
17
14
17
25
14
14
205
240
Neither agree
(3)
12%
12%
22%
24%
19%
26%
15%
16%
19%
16%
26%
14%
19%
18%
or disagree
15
66
88
61
75
27
66
48
55
78
22
49
560
651
Agree
(4)
47%
52%
46%
50%
47%
43%
56%
55%
62%
51%
42%
49%
51%
50%
9
4
28
14
31
6
9
14
9
17
8
14
135
163
Strongly agree
(5)
26%
3%
14%
11%
20%
9%
8%
16%
10%
11%
16%
14%
12%
13%
1
2
-
4
5
1
1
-
-
1
-
1
13
15
Don't know
3%
1%
-
3%
3%
1%
1%
-
-
1%
-
1%
1%
1%
3.894
3.274
3.541
3.598
3.777
3.393
3.513
3.761
3.748
3.504
3.583
3.456
3.578
3.567
Mean Score
0.959
0.969
0.996
0.887
0.939
0.930
0.910
0.870
0.755
0.996
0.943
1.162
0.943
0.963
Standard Deviation
24
70
116
75
106
33
75
62
64
95
30
62
695
814
AGREE
73%
55%
60%
61%
67%
52%
64%
72%
73%
62%
58%
62%
63%
63%
4
39
35
15
16
14
24
10
7
32
8
22
187
227
DISAGREE
12%
31%
18%
12%
10%
22%
21%
12%
8%
21%
16%
22%
17%
18%
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
71
1185
4
18
47
154
174
863
397
1260
Unweighted Base
83
1209
4
18
52
169
190
862
434
1296
Weighted Base
2
21
1
-
-
-
3
19
4
23
Strongly disagree
(1)
3%
2%
18%
-
-
-
2%
2%
1%
2%
12
191
3
2
2
26
21
149
55
204
Disagree
(2)
15%
16%
82%
13%
5%
15%
11%
17%
13%
16%
15
224
-
2
11
33
32
162
78
240
Neither agree
(3)
19%
18%
-
9%
22%
19%
17%
19%
18%
18%
or disagree
42
608
-
10
27
83
108
422
229
651
Agree
(4)
50%
50%
-
54%
52%
49%
57%
49%
53%
50%
12
150
-
4
9
27
25
97
66
163
Strongly agree
(5)
14%
12%
-
23%
17%
16%
13%
11%
15%
13%
-
15
-
-
2
-
-
13
2
15
Don't know
-
1%
-
-
4%
-
-
2%
1%
1%
3.587
3.565
1.818
3.880
3.859
3.661
3.689
3.506
3.689
3.567
Mean Score
0.991
0.961
0.448
0.941
0.771
0.924
0.898
0.983
0.911
0.963
Standard Deviation
53
758
-
14
36
110
133
519
294
814
AGREE
64%
63%
-
78%
69%
65%
70%
60%
68%
63%
14
212
4
2
2
26
24
168
59
227
DISAGREE
17%
18%
100%
13%
5%
15%
13%
19%
14%
18%
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1079 | 181 | 1043 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1118 | 178 | 1090 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 19 | 4 | 19 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 2% | 2% | 2% |
| - | | |
| 2% | 2% | |
| 184 | 20 | 180 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 16% | 12% | 16% |
| - | | |
| 16% | 16% | |
| 217 | 22 | 199 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 19% | 13% | 18% |
| - | | |
| 18% | 18% | |
| or disagree | | |
| 556 | 95 | 549 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 50% | 53% | 50% |
| - | | |
| 50% | 50% | |
| 129 | 34 | 130 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 12% | 19% | 12% |
| - | | |
| 13% | 13% | |
| 14 | 2 | 15 |
| Don't know | | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% |
| * | - | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| 3.537 | 3.759 | 3.551 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.957 | 0.976 | 0.963 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 685 | 129 | 679 |
| AGREE | | |
| 61% | 72% | 62% |
| - | | |
| 63% | 63% | |
| 202 | 25 | 198 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 18% | 14% | 18% |
| - | | |
| 18% | 18% | |
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 681 | 579 | 267 | 184 | 207 | 227 | 203 | 172 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 690 | 606 | 202 | 201 | 226 | 265 | 224 | 178 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 38 | 36 | 13 | 12 | 16 | 8 | 12 | 14 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | | | | | | |
| 5% | 6% | 6% | 6% | 7% | 3% | 5% | 8% |
| 256 | 232 | 102 | 80 | 80 | 85 | 81 | 60 |
| Disagree | (2) | | | | | | |
| 37% | 38% | 50% | 40% | 35% | 32% | 36% | 34% |
| 175 | 172 | 39 | 54 | 56 | 80 | 61 | 57 |
| Neither agree | (3) | | | | | | |
| 25% | 28% | 19% | 27% | 25% | 30% | 27% | 32% |
| or disagree | | | | | | | |
| 174 | 130 | 35 | 39 | 61 | 68 | 56 | 44 |
| Agree | (4) | | | | | | |
| 25% | 21% | 17% | 20% | 27% | 26% | 25% | 25% |
| 41 | 33 | 9 | 14 | 12 | 22 | 13 | 4 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | | | | | | |
| 6% | 5% | 5% | 7% | 5% | 8% | 6% | 2% |
| 7 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | - |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| * | | | | | | | |
| 2% | 1% | | | | | | |
| * | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| * | - | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| 2.889 | 2.821 | 2.629 | 2.811 | 2.886 | 3.046 | 2.898 | 2.799 |
| Mean Score | | | | | | | |
| 1.039 | 1.015 | 1.003 | 1.042 | 1.058 | 1.017 | 1.031 | 0.969 |
| Standard Deviation | | | | | | | |
| 215 | 163 | 45 | 53 | 74 | 90 | 69 | 48 |
| AGREE | | | | | | | |
| 31% | 27% | 22% | 26% | 33% | 34% | 31% | 27% |
| 294 | 268 | 115 | 92 | 96 | 92 | 93 | 73 |
| DISAGREE | | | | | | | |
| 43% | 44% | 57% | 46% | 42% | 35% | 42% | 41% |
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 581 | 188 | 491 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 534 | 196 | 566 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 33 | 9 | 32 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 6% | 5% | 6% |
| 216 | 66 | 206 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 40% | 34% | 36% |
| 126 | 59 | 161 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 24% | 30% | 28% |
| or disagree | | |
| 118 | 54 | 132 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 22% | 28% | 23% |
| 36 | 6 | 32 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 7% | 3% | 6% |
| 5 | 1 | 4 |
| Don't know | | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% |
| * | | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% |
| * | | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| 2.826 | 2.907 | 2.869 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 1.061 | 0.963 | 1.019 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 154 | 60 | 164 |
| AGREE | | |
| 29% | 31% | 29% |
| 249 | 75 | 237 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 47% | 38% | 42% |
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
41
119
183
113
151
66
124
93
82
143
49
96
1057
1260
Unweighted Base
33
127
193
124
157
63
118
87
88
154
52
100
1100
1296
Weighted Base
4
8
14
7
5
4
-
1
-
12
4
14
52
74
Strongly disagree
(1)
12%
7%
7%
5%
3%
6%
-
2%
-
8%
7%
15%
5%
6%
15
64
79
32
45
26
45
32
32
60
21
39
407
487
Disagree
(2)
46%
50%
41%
26%
28%
41%
38%
36%
36%
39%
40%
39%
37%
38%
6
29
43
41
45
19
39
20
25
37
15
26
295
347
Neither agree
(3)
17%
23%
22%
33%
29%
31%
33%
24%
28%
24%
29%
26%
27%
27%
or disagree
6
21
40
37
40
12
32
29
29
37
5
14
272
304
Agree
(4)
18%
17%
21%
30%
25%
18%
27%
34%
33%
24%
10%
14%
25%
23%
2
3
16
4
21
1
2
4
1
8
7
5
67
74
Strongly agree
(5)
6%
3%
8%
3%
14%
1%
1%
5%
1%
5%
13%
5%
6%
6%
-
1
1
3
1
2
-
-
1
-
-
1
7
9
Don't know
-
1%
*
3%
1%
3%
-
-
1%
-
-
1%
1%
1%
2.604
2.585
2.820
3.003
3.174
2.656
2.925
3.036
2.997
2.798
2.825
2.555
2.904
2.857
Mean Score
1.124
0.938
1.106
0.963
1.096
0.899
0.844
0.985
0.872
1.053
1.154
1.065
1.023
1.028
Standard Deviation
8
25
56
41
61
12
34
34
30
45
12
19
339
378
AGREE
24%
19%
29%
33%
39%
19%
29%
38%
35%
29%
24%
19%
31%
29%
19
72
93
38
50
30
45
33
32
72
24
53
459
562
DISAGREE
58%
57%
48%
31%
32%
47%
38%
38%
36%
47%
47%
54%
42%
43%
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
71
1185
4
18
47
154
174
863
397
1260
Unweighted Base
83
1209
4
18
52
169
190
862
434
1296
Weighted Base
6
68
1
-
3
9
8
54
20
74
Strongly disagree
(1)
8%
6%
18%
-
6%
5%
4%
6%
5%
6%
28
457
2
4
15
59
71
335
152
487
Disagree
(2)
34%
38%
59%
23%
29%
35%
38%
39%
35%
38%
25
322
-
7
11
49
53
227
120
347
Neither agree
(3)
30%
27%
-
40%
22%
29%
28%
26%
28%
27%
or disagree
20
282
1
5
18
42
47
192
112
304
Agree
(4)
24%
23%
23%
27%
34%
25%
24%
22%
26%
23%
2
72
-
2
4
10
12
47
28
74
Strongly agree
(5)
3%
6%
-
10%
8%
6%
6%
5%
6%
6%
1
9
-
-
1
1
-
7
2
9
Don't know
1%
1%
-
-
2%
1%
-
1%
1%
1%
2.805
2.861
2.271
3.242
3.084
2.909
2.916
2.815
2.941
2.857
Mean Score
0.991
1.031
1.170
0.951
1.103
1.017
1.014
1.027
1.025
1.028
Standard Deviation
22
354
1
7
22
51
58
239
139
378
AGREE
27%
29%
23%
37%
41%
30%
31%
28%
32%
29%
35
525
3
4
18
68
79
389
172
562
DISAGREE
42%
43%
77%
23%
35%
40%
42%
45%
40%
43%
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1079 | 181 | 1043 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1118 | 178 | 1090 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 60 | 14 | 64 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 5% | 8% | 6% |
| - | | |
| 6% | 6% | |
| 429 | 59 | 401 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 38% | 33% | 37% |
| - | | |
| 38% | 38% | |
| 296 | 51 | 297 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 26% | 29% | 27% |
| - | | |
| 27% | 27% | |
| or disagree | | |
| 262 | 42 | 258 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 23% | 24% | 24% |
| - | | |
| 23% | 23% | |
| 63 | 11 | 63 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 6% | 6% | 6% |
| - | | |
| 6% | 6% | |
| 9 | 1 | 7 |
| Don't know | | |
| 1% | | |
| * | | |
| 1% | | |
| 1% | | |
| - | | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| 2.855 | 2.873 | 2.867 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 1.023 | 1.060 | 1.029 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 325 | 53 | 322 |
| AGREE | | |
| 29% | 30% | 29% |
| - | | |
| 29% | 29% | |
| 489 | 73 | 465 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 44% | 41% | 43% |
| - | | |
| 43% | 43% | |
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 681 | 579 | 267 | 184 | 207 | 227 | 203 | 172 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 690 | 606 | 202 | 201 | 226 | 265 | 224 | 178 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 4 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 4 | - | 5 | 3 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | | | | | | |
| 1% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 2% | | | |
| - | | | | | | | |
| 2% | 2% | 1% | | | | | |
| 59 | 52 | 13 | 22 | 12 | 23 | 15 | 25 |
| Disagree | (2) | | | | | | |
| 9% | 9% | 6% | 11% | 5% | 9% | 7% | 14% |
| 106 | 92 | 26 | 32 | 38 | 32 | 33 | 37 |
| Neither agree | (3) | | | | | | |
| 15% | 15% | 13% | 16% | 17% | 12% | 15% | 21% |
| or disagree | | | | | | | |
| 390 | 326 | 116 | 105 | 129 | 143 | 131 | 92 |
| Agree | (4) | | | | | | |
| 57% | 54% | 57% | 52% | 57% | 54% | 58% | 52% |
| 125 | 126 | 43 | 41 | 43 | 66 | 39 | 20 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | | | | | | |
| 18% | 21% | 21% | 20% | 19% | 25% | 18% | 11% |
| 6 | - | 3 | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | - |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| - | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| - | * | * | * | - | * | | |
| 3.836 | 3.837 | 3.927 | 3.809 | 3.863 | 3.954 | 3.831 | 3.565 |
| Mean Score | | | | | | | |
| 0.845 | 0.909 | 0.832 | 0.906 | 0.839 | 0.850 | 0.870 | 0.926 |
| Standard Deviation | | | | | | | |
| 515 | 453 | 159 | 146 | 172 | 209 | 170 | 112 |
| AGREE | | | | | | | |
| 75% | 75% | 79% | 73% | 76% | 79% | 76% | 63% |
| 63 | 62 | 15 | 23 | 16 | 23 | 20 | 28 |
| DISAGREE | | | | | | | |
| 9% | 10% | 7% | 11% | 7% | 9% | 9% | 16% |
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 581 | 188 | 491 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 534 | 196 | 566 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 4 | 1 | 9 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 1% | 1% | 2% |
| * | | |
| 1% | | |
| 46 | 11 | 54 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 9% | 6% | 9% |
| 81 | 33 | 84 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 15% | 17% | 15% |
| or disagree | | |
| 290 | 119 | 308 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 54% | 61% | 54% |
| 110 | 31 | 110 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 21% | 16% | 19% |
| 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Don't know | | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| * | | |
| 1% | | |
| * | * | |
| 1% | | |
| - | * | |
| 1% | | |
| * | | |
| 3.861 | 3.858 | 3.806 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.867 | 0.773 | 0.916 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 400 | 150 | 418 |
| AGREE | | |
| 75% | 76% | 74% |
| 50 | 12 | 63 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 9% | 6% | 11% |
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
41
119
183
113
151
66
124
93
82
143
49
96
1057
1260
Unweighted Base
33
127
193
124
157
63
118
87
88
154
52
100
1100
1296
Weighted Base
2
1
7
1
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
1
12
15
Strongly disagree
(1)
5%
1%
4%
1%
-
-
-
-
-
1%
-
1%
1%
1%
4
12
11
8
12
7
13
7
14
10
4
9
91
111
Disagree
(2)
12%
9%
6%
7%
7%
11%
11%
9%
17%
6%
7%
9%
8%
9%
3
20
31
22
23
9
24
13
7
28
5
12
174
197
Neither agree
(3)
9%
16%
16%
18%
14%
14%
21%
15%
8%
18%
10%
12%
16%
15%
or disagree
17
67
103
66
85
32
70
53
56
90
30
46
620
716
Agree
(4)
51%
53%
53%
53%
54%
51%
59%
61%
64%
58%
58%
47%
56%
55%
8
25
41
26
37
14
11
13
10
23
11
31
198
251
Strongly agree
(5)
23%
20%
21%
21%
24%
23%
9%
15%
11%
15%
22%
31%
18%
19%
-
1
1
-
1
1
-
-
-
1
1
-
5
6
Don't know
-
1%
1%
-
1%
1%
-
-
-
1%
2%
-
*
*
3.747
3.818
3.828
3.880
3.944
3.873
3.664
3.832
3.703
3.799
3.971
3.977
3.825
3.837
Mean Score
1.113
0.896
0.954
0.841
0.825
0.899
0.795
0.789
0.882
0.830
0.797
0.952
0.859
0.875
Standard Deviation
25
92
144
92
122
47
81
67
66
113
42
77
818
967
AGREE
74%
73%
74%
75%
78%
74%
68%
77%
75%
73%
80%
78%
74%
75%
6
13
18
9
12
7
13
7
14
12
4
10
103
125
DISAGREE
17%
10%
9%
7%
7%
11%
11%
9%
17%
8%
7%
10%
9%
10%
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
71
1185
4
18
47
154
174
863
397
1260
Unweighted Base
83
1209
4
18
52
169
190
862
434
1296
Weighted Base
1
14
1
-
-
-
3
11
4
15
Strongly disagree
(1)
1%
1%
18%
-
-
-
2%
1%
1%
1%
16
95
-
-
7
16
18
70
40
111
Disagree
(2)
19%
8%
-
-
13%
9%
10%
8%
9%
9%
16
180
-
2
10
31
23
131
66
197
Neither agree
(3)
19%
15%
-
13%
19%
18%
12%
15%
15%
15%
or disagree
42
673
3
12
30
95
106
470
246
716
Agree
(4)
50%
56%
82%
64%
58%
56%
56%
55%
57%
55%
9
243
-
3
6
28
38
177
75
251
Strongly agree
(5)
11%
20%
-
17%
11%
17%
20%
20%
17%
19%
-
6
-
1
-
-
1
4
2
6
Don't know
-
*
-
6%
-
-
1%
*
*
*
3.504
3.861
3.454
4.036
3.671
3.797
3.837
3.852
3.806
3.837
Mean Score
0.958
0.866
1.344
0.583
0.837
0.826
0.914
0.881
0.864
0.875
Standard Deviation
50
915
3
15
36
123
144
646
321
967
AGREE
61%
76%
82%
81%
69%
73%
76%
75%
74%
75%
17
108
1
-
7
16
21
81
44
125
DISAGREE
20%
9%
18%
-
13%
9%
11%
9%
10%
10%
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1079 | 181 | 1043 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1118 | 178 | 1090 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 11 | 3 | 15 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 1% | 2% | 1% |
| - | - | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| 96 | 14 | 98 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 9% | 8% | 9% |
| - | | |
| 9% | 9% | |
| 174 | 23 | 165 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 16% | 13% | 15% |
| - | | |
| 15% | 15% | |
| or disagree | | |
| 615 | 101 | 603 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 55% | 57% | 55% |
| - | | |
| 55% | 55% | |
| 217 | 34 | 204 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 19% | 19% | 19% |
| - | | |
| 19% | 19% | |
| 5 | 1 | 6 |
| Don't know | | |
| * | | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| - | - | * |
| 3.836 | 3.844 | 3.815 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.872 | 0.896 | 0.888 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 832 | 136 | 807 |
| AGREE | | |
| 74% | 76% | 74% |
| - | | |
| 75% | 75% | |
| 107 | 18 | 112 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 10% | 10% | 10% |
| - | | |
| 10% | 10% | |
They are places
where I can
They are places
They are places
They are places
They are places
They are places
They get me
learn about
where I can
They are good
where I can
where I can
where I can
where I feel at
involved in
local culture
learn about the
places for me
have fun and
exercise and
relax and dehome
local issues
or history
environment
to socialise
enjoy myself
keep fit
stress
1260
1260
1260
1260
1260
1260
1260
1260
Unweighted Base
1296
1296
1296
1296
1296
1296
1296
1296
Weighted Base
15
74
23
7
48
4
9
7
Strongly disagree
(1)
1%
6%
2%
1%
4%
*
1%
1%
111
487
204
99
316
20
77
20
Disagree
(2)
9%
38%
16%
8%
24%
2%
6%
2%
197
347
240
160
232
72
86
63
Neither agree
(3)
15%
27%
18%
12%
18%
6%
7%
5%
or disagree
716
304
651
763
548
797
769
727
Agree
(4)
55%
23%
50%
59%
42%
62%
59%
56%
251
74
163
258
148
394
351
475
Strongly agree
(5)
19%
6%
13%
20%
11%
30%
27%
37%
6
9
15
8
4
8
3
5
Don't know
*
1%
1%
1%
*
1%
*
*
3.837
2.857
3.567
3.904
3.336
4.209
4.066
4.273
Mean Score
0.875
1.028
0.963
0.823
1.079
0.642
0.795
0.670
Standard Deviation
967
378
814
1021
696
1192
1121
1202
AGREE
75%
29%
63%
79%
54%
92%
86%
93%
125
562
227
107
364
25
85
26
DISAGREE
10%
43%
18%
8%
28%
2%
7%
2%
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------------|------|-----|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 1101 | 1012 | 544 | 303 | 319 | 326 | 336 | 285 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 1087 | 1026 | 410 | 318 | 344 | 374 | 369 | 297 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 252 | 184 | 85 | 76 | 71 | 76 | 69 | 60 |
| Trees in public parks | | | | | | | |
| 23% | 18% | 21% | 24% | 21% | 20% | 19% | 20% |
| and gardens | | | | | | | |
| 166 | 186 | 49 | 56 | 62 | 81 | 64 | 40 |
| Larger woodlands with | | | | | | | |
| 15% | 18% | 12% | 18% | 18% | 22% | 17% | 13% |
| public access within 2.5 | | | | | | | |
| miles of your home | | | | | | | |
| 172 | 164 | 71 | 45 | 61 | 54 | 53 | 53 |
| Street trees and those | | | | | | | |
| 16% | 16% | 17% | 14% | 18% | 14% | 14% | 18% |
| on roundabouts or other | | | | | | | |
| green areas associated | | | | | | | |
| with roads | | | | | | | |
| 135 | 105 | 50 | 26 | 37 | 34 | 55 | 38 |
| Small woodlands with | | | | | | | |
| 12% | 10% | 12% | 8% | 11% | 9% | 15% | 13% |
| public access within | | | | | | | |
| 500m of your home | | | | | | | |
| 68 | 73 | 29 | 16 | 21 | 28 | 20 | 27 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | | | | | | |
| 6% | 7% | 7% | 5% | 6% | 7% | 5% | 9% |
| zones and public squares | | | | | | | |
| 59 | 61 | 24 | 16 | 20 | 22 | 19 | 20 |
| Trees in and around | | | | | | | |
| 5% | 6% | 6% | 5% | 6% | 6% | 5% | 7% |
| public buildings and car | | | | | | | |
| parks | | | | | | | |
| 56 | 52 | 22 | 21 | 20 | 22 | 12 | 12 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | | | | | | |
| 5% | 5% | 5% | 7% | 6% | 6% | 3% | 4% |
| component of public | | | | | | | |
| greenspaces | | | | | | | |
| 179 | 201 | 81 | 62 | 53 | 57 | 79 | 48 |
| I don't want public | | | | | | | |
| 16% | 20% | 20% | 19% | 15% | 15% | 21% | 16% |
| money spent on urban | | | | | | | |
| trees or woods | | | | | | | |
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 198 | 73 | 165 |
| Trees in public parks | | |
| 20% | 24% | 20% |
| and gardens | | |
| 147 | 52 | 153 |
| Larger woodlands with | | |
| 15% | 17% | 19% |
| public access within 2.5 | | |
| miles of your home | | |
| 148 | 55 | 133 |
| Street trees and those | | |
| 15% | 18% | 16% |
| on roundabouts or other | | |
| green areas associated | | |
| with roads | | |
| 109 | 37 | 94 |
| Small woodlands with | | |
| 11% | 12% | 11% |
| public access within | | |
| 500m of your home | | |
| 63 | 23 | 55 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | |
| 6% | 8% | 7% |
| zones and public squares | | |
| 62 | 14 | 45 |
| Trees in and around | | |
| 6% | 4% | 5% |
| public buildings and car | | |
| parks | | |
| 50 | 9 | 48 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | |
| 5% | 3% | 6% |
| component of public | | |
| greenspaces | | |
| 201 | 48 | 131 |
| I don't want public | | |
| 21% | 15% | 16% |
| money spent on urban | | |
| trees or woods | | |
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
16
41
54
55
40
25
32
35
18
54
20
47
348
436
Trees in public parks
33%
22%
18%
21%
19%
24%
16%
25%
10%
23%
24%
26%
20%
21%
and gardens
6
30
63
22
45
13
41
32
21
29
10
41
293
352
Larger woodlands with
12%
16%
22%
9%
22%
12%
21%
23%
11%
12%
12%
23%
16%
17%
public access within 2.5 miles of your home
9
20
52
47
29
9
35
18
34
51
14
17
300
336
Street trees and those
19%
11%
18%
18%
14%
9%
18%
13%
19%
22%
17%
10%
17%
16%
on roundabouts or other green areas associated with roads
10
25
32
22
27
9
25
19
21
28
10
12
209
240
Small woodlands with
21%
14%
11%
8%
13%
8%
13%
13%
11%
12%
12%
7%
12%
11%
public access within 500m of your home
4
13
23
18
15
10
19
8
15
10
2
6
122
141
Trees in pedestrian
9%
7%
8%
7%
7%
9%
10%
5%
8%
4%
3%
3%
7%
7%
zones and public squares
2
5
19
20
11
4
16
9
12
13
2
8
106
121
Trees in and around
4%
3%
6%
8%
5%
4%
8%
6%
7%
5%
2%
5%
6%
6%
public buildings and car parks
1
10
19
14
12
6
7
10
11
11
5
2
98
108
Clusters of trees as a
1%
5%
6%
5%
6%
6%
4%
7%
6%
5%
6%
1%
6%
5%
component of public greenspaces
1
42
32
61
28
29
19
9
53
39
20
47
304
380
I don't want public
1%
23%
11%
24%
14%
27%
10%
6%
29%
17%
24%
26%
17%
18%
money spent on urban trees or woods
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
41
394
3
3
18
47
61
303
132
436
Trees in public parks
16%
21%
33%
17%
23%
20%
20%
21%
20%
21%
and gardens
26
325
-
7
17
39
51
239
113
352
Larger woodlands with
10%
18%
-
35%
22%
16%
17%
16%
17%
17%
public access within 2.5 miles of your home
47
288
-
5
18
39
54
221
115
336
Street trees and those
18%
16%
-
23%
23%
16%
18%
15%
18%
16%
on roundabouts or other green areas associated with roads
23
217
1
-
7
30
42
161
79
240
Small woodlands with
9%
12%
11%
-
9%
12%
14%
11%
12%
11%
public access within 500m of your home
19
121
-
-
3
19
15
105
36
141
Trees in pedestrian
7%
7%
-
-
3%
8%
5%
7%
6%
7%
zones and public squares
16
104
1
-
5
18
16
81
39
121
Trees in and around
6%
6%
16%
-
6%
7%
5%
6%
6%
6%
public buildings and car parks
9
99
-
-
3
10
13
81
26
108
Clusters of trees as a
3%
5%
-
-
3%
4%
4%
6%
4%
5%
component of public greenspaces
72
307
3
5
9
38
53
272
108
380
I don't want public
28%
17%
39%
26%
11%
16%
17%
19%
17%
18%
money spent on urban trees or woods
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 361 | 75 | 346 |
| Trees in public parks | | |
| 21% | 19% | 20% |
| and gardens | | |
| 294 | 58 | 287 |
| Larger woodlands with | | |
| 17% | 15% | 17% |
| public access within 2.5 | | |
| miles of your home | | |
| 276 | 60 | 280 |
| Street trees and those | | |
| 16% | 16% | 16% |
| on roundabouts or other | | |
| green areas associated | | |
| with roads | | |
| 203 | 37 | 195 |
| Small woodlands with | | |
| 12% | 9% | 11% |
| public access within | | |
| 500m of your home | | |
| 125 | 17 | 117 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | |
| 7% | 4% | 7% |
| zones and public squares | | |
| 92 | 28 | 95 |
| Trees in and around | | |
| 5% | 7% | 6% |
| public buildings and car | | |
| parks | | |
| 93 | 15 | 83 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | |
| 5% | 4% | 5% |
| component of public | | |
| greenspaces | | |
| 282 | 98 | 299 |
| I don't want public | | |
| 16% | 25% | 18% |
| money spent on urban | | |
| trees or woods | | |
## Forests And Woodlands (Qs0303 - 836909) Q.8_02 Thinking About The Nearest Urban Area (Town Or City), Where Would You Prefer Public Resources To Be Targeted? - 2Nd Base: All Adults 16+
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------------|------|-----|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 1101 | 1012 | 544 | 303 | 319 | 326 | 336 | 285 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 1087 | 1026 | 410 | 318 | 344 | 374 | 369 | 297 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 206 | 197 | 64 | 71 | 79 | 83 | 64 | 43 |
| Small woodlands with | | | | | | | |
| 19% | 19% | 16% | 22% | 23% | 22% | 17% | 15% |
| public access within | | | | | | | |
| 500m of your home | | | | | | | |
| 143 | 114 | 45 | 34 | 36 | 54 | 46 | 42 |
| Trees in public parks | | | | | | | |
| 13% | 11% | 11% | 11% | 11% | 14% | 13% | 14% |
| and gardens | | | | | | | |
| 108 | 129 | 51 | 33 | 40 | 34 | 39 | 40 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | | | | | | |
| 10% | 13% | 12% | 10% | 12% | 9% | 10% | 13% |
| zones and public squares | | | | | | | |
| 135 | 96 | 48 | 36 | 38 | 43 | 36 | 30 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | | | | | | |
| 12% | 9% | 12% | 11% | 11% | 12% | 10% | 10% |
| component of public | | | | | | | |
| greenspaces | | | | | | | |
| 127 | 104 | 52 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 40 | 37 |
| Larger woodlands with | | | | | | | |
| 12% | 10% | 13% | 10% | 10% | 9% | 11% | 12% |
| public access within 2.5 | | | | | | | |
| miles of your home | | | | | | | |
| 108 | 116 | 46 | 26 | 38 | 35 | 42 | 39 |
| Trees in and around | | | | | | | |
| 10% | 11% | 11% | 8% | 11% | 9% | 11% | 13% |
| public buildings and car | | | | | | | |
| parks | | | | | | | |
| 80 | 69 | 25 | 24 | 26 | 33 | 24 | 18 |
| Street trees and those | | | | | | | |
| 7% | 7% | 6% | 7% | 8% | 9% | 6% | 6% |
| on roundabouts or other | | | | | | | |
| green areas associated | | | | | | | |
| with roads | | | | | | | |
| 179 | 201 | 81 | 62 | 53 | 57 | 79 | 48 |
| I don't want public | | | | | | | |
| 16% | 20% | 20% | 19% | 15% | 15% | 21% | 16% |
| money spent on urban | | | | | | | |
| trees or woods | | | | | | | |
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 170 | 60 | 173 |
| Small woodlands with | | |
| 17% | 19% | 21% |
| public access within | | |
| 500m of your home | | |
| 121 | 41 | 95 |
| Trees in public parks | | |
| 12% | 13% | 12% |
| and gardens | | |
| 114 | 29 | 94 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | |
| 12% | 9% | 11% |
| zones and public squares | | |
| 98 | 42 | 91 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | |
| 10% | 13% | 11% |
| component of public | | |
| greenspaces | | |
| 112 | 25 | 94 |
| Larger woodlands with | | |
| 11% | 8% | 11% |
| public access within 2.5 | | |
| miles of your home | | |
| 95 | 39 | 92 |
| Trees in and around | | |
| 10% | 12% | 11% |
| public buildings and car | | |
| parks | | |
| 67 | 28 | 54 |
| Street trees and those | | |
| 7% | 9% | 7% |
| on roundabouts or other | | |
| green areas associated | | |
| with roads | | |
| 201 | 48 | 131 |
| I don't want public | | |
| 21% | 15% | 16% |
| money spent on urban | | |
| trees or woods | | |
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
7
25
67
41
37
18
48
34
23
49
13
41
337
403
Small woodlands with
15%
13%
23%
16%
18%
17%
25%
24%
12%
21%
15%
23%
19%
19%
public access within 500m of your home
5
26
37
31
33
13
25
20
18
24
10
16
223
257
Trees in public parks
10%
14%
13%
12%
16%
12%
13%
14%
9%
10%
11%
9%
13%
12%
and gardens
9
19
40
24
23
5
25
15
22
25
10
20
202
237
Trees in pedestrian
20%
10%
13%
9%
11%
5%
13%
11%
12%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
zones and public squares
6
28
29
20
28
10
15
20
24
23
11
17
198
231
Clusters of trees as a
13%
15%
10%
8%
13%
9%
8%
15%
13%
10%
13%
10%
11%
11%
component of public greenspaces
13
17
32
29
27
12
24
16
12
27
11
12
195
231
Larger woodlands with
26%
9%
11%
11%
13%
11%
12%
11%
6%
12%
12%
6%
11%
11%
public access within 2.5 miles of your home
4
14
33
29
22
11
28
15
23
29
4
15
196
225
Trees in and around
8%
7%
11%
11%
10%
10%
14%
11%
12%
12%
5%
8%
11%
11%
public buildings and car parks
3
15
24
22
9
9
11
9
10
17
7
12
124
149
Street trees and those
7%
8%
8%
9%
4%
9%
6%
7%
6%
7%
9%
7%
7%
7%
on roundabouts or other green areas associated with roads
1
42
32
61
28
29
19
9
53
39
20
47
304
380
I don't want public
1%
23%
11%
24%
14%
27%
10%
6%
29%
17%
24%
26%
17%
18%
money spent on urban trees or woods
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
37
364
1
5
19
51
50
277
126
403
Small woodlands with
15%
20%
9%
25%
25%
21%
16%
19%
19%
19%
public access within 500m of your home
31
226
-
1
12
22
40
182
75
257
Trees in public parks
12%
12%
-
7%
15%
9%
13%
12%
12%
12%
and gardens
32
205
1
-
8
19
43
165
71
237
Trees in pedestrian
13%
11%
16%
-
10%
8%
14%
11%
11%
11%
zones and public squares
21
209
1
2
9
27
30
162
69
231
Clusters of trees as a
8%
11%
13%
12%
12%
11%
10%
11%
11%
11%
component of public greenspaces
18
213
2
2
5
28
35
159
72
231
Larger woodlands with
7%
11%
23%
11%
7%
12%
11%
11%
11%
11%
public access within 2.5 miles of your home
31
192
-
4
9
29
37
146
79
225
Trees in and around
12%
10%
-
20%
11%
12%
12%
10%
12%
11%
public buildings and car parks
11
138
-
-
7
27
17
99
50
149
Street trees and those
4%
7%
-
-
8%
11%
5%
7%
8%
7%
on roundabouts or other green areas associated with roads
72
307
3
5
9
38
53
272
108
380
I don't want public
28%
17%
39%
26%
11%
16%
17%
19%
17%
18%
money spent on urban trees or woods
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 339 | 64 | 325 |
| Small woodlands with | | |
| 20% | 16% | 19% |
| public access within | | |
| 500m of your home | | |
| 219 | 38 | 215 |
| Trees in public parks | | |
| 13% | 10% | 13% |
| and gardens | | |
| 200 | 37 | 178 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | |
| 12% | 10% | 10% |
| zones and public squares | | |
| 185 | 46 | 190 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | |
| 11% | 12% | 11% |
| component of public | | |
| greenspaces | | |
| 199 | 31 | 179 |
| Larger woodlands with | | |
| 12% | 8% | 11% |
| public access within 2.5 | | |
| miles of your home | | |
| 183 | 42 | 194 |
| Trees in and around | | |
| 11% | 11% | 11% |
| public buildings and car | | |
| parks | | |
| 118 | 31 | 122 |
| Street trees and those | | |
| 7% | 8% | 7% |
| on roundabouts or other | | |
| green areas associated | | |
| with roads | | |
| 282 | 98 | 299 |
| I don't want public | | |
| 16% | 25% | 18% |
| money spent on urban | | |
| trees or woods | | |
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------------|------|-----|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 1101 | 1012 | 544 | 303 | 319 | 326 | 336 | 285 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 1087 | 1026 | 410 | 318 | 344 | 374 | 369 | 297 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 188 | 183 | 63 | 66 | 60 | 68 | 74 | 40 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | | | | | | |
| 17% | 18% | 15% | 21% | 17% | 18% | 20% | 14% |
| component of public | | | | | | | |
| greenspaces | | | | | | | |
| 155 | 157 | 58 | 41 | 39 | 61 | 57 | 56 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | | | | | | |
| 14% | 15% | 14% | 13% | 11% | 16% | 15% | 19% |
| zones and public squares | | | | | | | |
| 145 | 124 | 52 | 34 | 49 | 44 | 44 | 46 |
| Trees in public parks | | | | | | | |
| 13% | 12% | 13% | 11% | 14% | 12% | 12% | 15% |
| and gardens | | | | | | | |
| 116 | 114 | 43 | 34 | 41 | 41 | 40 | 32 |
| Trees in and around | | | | | | | |
| 11% | 11% | 11% | 11% | 12% | 11% | 11% | 11% |
| public buildings and car | | | | | | | |
| parks | | | | | | | |
| 112 | 97 | 46 | 32 | 37 | 32 | 33 | 29 |
| Small woodlands with | | | | | | | |
| 10% | 9% | 11% | 10% | 11% | 8% | 9% | 10% |
| public access within | | | | | | | |
| 500m of your home | | | | | | | |
| 117 | 75 | 35 | 26 | 44 | 37 | 27 | 23 |
| Larger woodlands with | | | | | | | |
| 11% | 7% | 9% | 8% | 13% | 10% | 7% | 8% |
| public access within 2.5 | | | | | | | |
| miles of your home | | | | | | | |
| 75 | 76 | 33 | 23 | 22 | 34 | 14 | 24 |
| Street trees and those | | | | | | | |
| 7% | 7% | 8% | 7% | 6% | 9% | 4% | 8% |
| on roundabouts or other | | | | | | | |
| green areas associated | | | | | | | |
| with roads | | | | | | | |
| 179 | 201 | 81 | 62 | 53 | 57 | 79 | 48 |
| I don't want public | | | | | | | |
| 16% | 20% | 20% | 19% | 15% | 15% | 21% | 16% |
| money spent on urban | | | | | | | |
| trees or woods | | | | | | | |
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 162 | 46 | 162 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | |
| 17% | 15% | 20% |
| component of public | | |
| greenspaces | | |
| 137 | 58 | 117 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | |
| 14% | 19% | 14% |
| zones and public squares | | |
| 125 | 49 | 96 |
| Trees in public parks | | |
| 13% | 16% | 12% |
| and gardens | | |
| 106 | 32 | 92 |
| Trees in and around | | |
| 11% | 10% | 11% |
| public buildings and car | | |
| parks | | |
| 96 | 26 | 87 |
| Small woodlands with | | |
| 10% | 8% | 11% |
| public access within | | |
| 500m of your home | | |
| 78 | 33 | 81 |
| Larger woodlands with | | |
| 8% | 11% | 10% |
| public access within 2.5 | | |
| miles of your home | | |
| 73 | 19 | 59 |
| Street trees and those | | |
| 8% | 6% | 7% |
| on roundabouts or other | | |
| green areas associated | | |
| with roads | | |
| 201 | 48 | 131 |
| I don't want public | | |
| 21% | 15% | 16% |
| money spent on urban | | |
| trees or woods | | |
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
15
38
67
31
48
13
36
27
24
35
7
29
313
370
Clusters of trees as a
31%
20%
23%
12%
23%
12%
18%
20%
13%
15%
8%
16%
18%
18%
component of public greenspaces
4
25
44
38
31
10
30
30
22
38
16
24
273
311
Trees in pedestrian
8%
13%
15%
15%
15%
10%
15%
22%
12%
16%
19%
13%
15%
15%
zones and public squares
5
21
46
28
25
12
27
18
25
32
9
23
230
269
Trees in public parks
10%
11%
16%
11%
12%
11%
14%
13%
13%
14%
11%
13%
13%
13%
and gardens
8
17
42
19
26
12
22
12
19
28
12
14
197
231
Trees in and around
16%
9%
14%
7%
12%
12%
11%
9%
11%
12%
14%
8%
11%
11%
public buildings and car parks
8
21
25
32
20
12
17
16
16
22
5
16
173
209
Small woodlands with
16%
11%
8%
12%
10%
12%
9%
12%
8%
9%
6%
9%
10%
10%
public access within 500m of your home
5
12
25
31
15
5
25
10
19
23
9
14
168
192
Larger woodlands with
10%
7%
8%
12%
7%
5%
13%
7%
10%
10%
10%
8%
9%
9%
public access within 2.5 miles of your home
4
12
13
18
14
12
19
16
7
17
6
13
123
151
Street trees and those
8%
6%
4%
7%
7%
11%
10%
11%
4%
7%
8%
7%
7%
7%
on roundabouts or other green areas associated with roads
1
42
32
61
28
29
19
9
53
39
20
47
304
380
I don't want public
1%
23%
11%
24%
14%
27%
10%
6%
29%
17%
24%
26%
17%
18%
money spent on urban trees or woods
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
44
326
1
2
11
39
50
268
103
370
Clusters of trees as a
17%
18%
11%
10%
14%
16%
16%
18%
16%
18%
component of public greenspaces
31
280
-
3
13
37
48
210
102
311
Trees in pedestrian
12%
15%
-
16%
17%
15%
16%
14%
16%
15%
zones and public squares
21
247
1
3
11
37
41
175
94
269
Trees in public parks
8%
13%
16%
15%
14%
15%
14%
12%
14%
13%
and gardens
26
205
-
4
12
24
31
160
71
231
Trees in and around
10%
11%
-
17%
16%
10%
10%
11%
11%
11%
public buildings and car parks
15
194
1
1
3
22
30
152
57
209
Small woodlands with
6%
10%
11%
5%
4%
9%
10%
10%
9%
10%
public access within 500m of your home
31
161
1
2
13
27
23
126
66
192
Larger woodlands with
12%
9%
9%
11%
17%
11%
8%
9%
10%
9%
public access within 2.5 miles of your home
14
136
1
-
5
15
28
101
50
151
Street trees and those
6%
7%
13%
-
7%
6%
9%
7%
8%
7%
on roundabouts or other green areas associated with roads
72
307
3
5
9
38
53
272
108
380
I don't want public
28%
17%
39%
26%
11%
16%
17%
19%
17%
18%
money spent on urban trees or woods
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 316 | 55 | 296 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | |
| 18% | 14% | 17% |
| component of public | | |
| greenspaces | | |
| 252 | 59 | 257 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | |
| 15% | 15% | 15% |
| zones and public squares | | |
| 231 | 38 | 207 |
| Trees in public parks | | |
| 13% | 10% | 12% |
| and gardens | | |
| 188 | 42 | 183 |
| Trees in and around | | |
| 11% | 11% | 11% |
| public buildings and car | | |
| parks | | |
| 176 | 33 | 171 |
| Small woodlands with | | |
| 10% | 9% | 10% |
| public access within | | |
| 500m of your home | | |
| 154 | 38 | 162 |
| Larger woodlands with | | |
| 9% | 10% | 10% |
| public access within 2.5 | | |
| miles of your home | | |
| 126 | 25 | 127 |
| Street trees and those | | |
| 7% | 6% | 7% |
| on roundabouts or other | | |
| green areas associated | | |
| with roads | | |
| 282 | 98 | 299 |
| I don't want public | | |
| 16% | 25% | 18% |
| money spent on urban | | |
| trees or woods | | |
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------------|------|-----|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 1101 | 1012 | 544 | 303 | 319 | 326 | 336 | 285 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 1087 | 1026 | 410 | 318 | 344 | 374 | 369 | 297 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 190 | 223 | 74 | 58 | 80 | 75 | 79 | 48 |
| Trees in public parks | | | | | | | |
| 18% | 22% | 18% | 18% | 23% | 20% | 21% | 16% |
| and gardens | | | | | | | |
| 168 | 148 | 61 | 34 | 62 | 52 | 58 | 49 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | | | | | | |
| 15% | 14% | 15% | 11% | 18% | 14% | 16% | 17% |
| component of public | | | | | | | |
| greenspaces | | | | | | | |
| 130 | 105 | 50 | 38 | 30 | 49 | 30 | 37 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | | | | | | |
| 12% | 10% | 12% | 12% | 9% | 13% | 8% | 12% |
| zones and public squares | | | | | | | |
| 108 | 100 | 44 | 34 | 33 | 49 | 26 | 21 |
| Trees in and around | | | | | | | |
| 10% | 10% | 11% | 11% | 9% | 13% | 7% | 7% |
| public buildings and car | | | | | | | |
| parks | | | | | | | |
| 115 | 77 | 35 | 37 | 22 | 34 | 33 | 31 |
| Small woodlands with | | | | | | | |
| 11% | 7% | 8% | 12% | 7% | 9% | 9% | 10% |
| public access within | | | | | | | |
| 500m of your home | | | | | | | |
| 105 | 86 | 30 | 31 | 36 | 37 | 29 | 28 |
| Larger woodlands with | | | | | | | |
| 10% | 8% | 7% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 8% | 9% |
| public access within 2.5 | | | | | | | |
| miles of your home | | | | | | | |
| 93 | 87 | 37 | 24 | 28 | 21 | 35 | 35 |
| Street trees and those | | | | | | | |
| 9% | 8% | 9% | 8% | 8% | 6% | 9% | 12% |
| on roundabouts or other | | | | | | | |
| green areas associated | | | | | | | |
| with roads | | | | | | | |
| 179 | 201 | 81 | 62 | 53 | 57 | 79 | 48 |
| I don't want public | | | | | | | |
| 16% | 20% | 20% | 19% | 15% | 15% | 21% | 16% |
| money spent on urban | | | | | | | |
| trees or woods | | | | | | | |
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 176 | 56 | 182 |
| Trees in public parks | | |
| 18% | 18% | 22% |
| and gardens | | |
| 150 | 49 | 116 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | |
| 15% | 16% | 14% |
| component of public | | |
| greenspaces | | |
| 108 | 33 | 93 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | |
| 11% | 11% | 11% |
| zones and public squares | | |
| 91 | 35 | 81 |
| Trees in and around | | |
| 9% | 11% | 10% |
| public buildings and car | | |
| parks | | |
| 95 | 30 | 66 |
| Small woodlands with | | |
| 10% | 10% | 8% |
| public access within | | |
| 500m of your home | | |
| 71 | 36 | 84 |
| Larger woodlands with | | |
| 7% | 11% | 10% |
| public access within 2.5 | | |
| miles of your home | | |
| 87 | 24 | 70 |
| Street trees and those | | |
| 9% | 8% | 8% |
| on roundabouts or other | | |
| green areas associated | | |
| with roads | | |
| 201 | 48 | 131 |
| I don't want public | | |
| 21% | 15% | 16% |
| money spent on urban | | |
| trees or woods | | |
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
12
37
85
39
41
19
43
29
31
42
15
21
362
414
Trees in public parks
24%
20%
29%
15%
20%
18%
22%
21%
17%
18%
17%
12%
20%
20%
and gardens
13
19
32
39
32
16
32
19
17
52
12
34
254
316
Clusters of trees as a
26%
10%
11%
15%
15%
15%
17%
14%
9%
22%
14%
19%
14%
15%
component of public greenspaces
5
21
34
27
22
8
24
14
22
28
10
17
203
234
Trees in pedestrian
11%
11%
12%
11%
11%
7%
12%
10%
12%
12%
11%
10%
11%
11%
zones and public squares
7
19
28
24
15
10
19
23
15
20
8
20
171
207
Trees in and around
15%
10%
9%
9%
7%
9%
10%
17%
8%
8%
9%
11%
10%
10%
public buildings and car parks
3
21
28
25
25
8
17
9
12
18
9
16
165
192
Small woodlands with
6%
11%
10%
10%
12%
8%
9%
6%
7%
8%
10%
9%
9%
9%
public access within 500m of your home
3
16
20
24
25
11
17
12
18
16
10
19
157
190
Larger woodlands with
5%
8%
7%
9%
12%
11%
9%
9%
10%
7%
12%
11%
9%
9%
public access within 2.5 miles of your home
5
12
35
18
18
5
24
22
15
19
2
6
164
180
Street trees and those
10%
6%
12%
7%
9%
4%
12%
16%
8%
8%
2%
3%
9%
9%
on roundabouts or other green areas associated with roads
1
42
32
61
28
29
19
9
53
39
20
47
304
380
I don't want public
1%
23%
11%
24%
14%
27%
10%
6%
29%
17%
24%
26%
17%
18%
money spent on urban trees or woods
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
47
365
1
6
14
59
62
271
142
414
Trees in public parks
18%
20%
11%
30%
18%
25%
20%
19%
22%
20%
and gardens
31
284
2
4
18
38
45
209
106
316
Clusters of trees as a
12%
15%
20%
19%
23%
16%
15%
14%
16%
15%
component of public greenspaces
22
212
-
2
12
28
32
160
74
234
Trees in pedestrian
9%
11%
-
12%
16%
12%
10%
11%
11%
11%
zones and public squares
21
185
1
-
8
23
30
145
62
207
Trees in and around
8%
10%
13%
-
11%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
public buildings and car parks
29
163
-
3
9
18
26
136
56
192
Small woodlands with
11%
9%
-
13%
12%
8%
8%
9%
9%
9%
public access within 500m of your home
12
178
-
-
2
16
34
138
52
190
Larger woodlands with
5%
10%
-
-
3%
7%
11%
9%
8%
9%
public access within 2.5 miles of your home
19
161
1
-
4
19
24
131
49
180
Street trees and those
8%
9%
16%
-
5%
8%
8%
9%
8%
9%
on roundabouts or other green areas associated with roads
72
307
3
5
9
38
53
272
108
380
I don't want public
28%
17%
39%
26%
11%
16%
17%
19%
17%
18%
money spent on urban trees or woods
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 347 | 66 | 338 |
| Trees in public parks | | |
| 20% | 17% | 20% |
| and gardens | | |
| 260 | 55 | 247 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | |
| 15% | 14% | 15% |
| component of public | | |
| greenspaces | | |
| 190 | 44 | 187 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | |
| 11% | 11% | 11% |
| zones and public squares | | |
| 175 | 33 | 176 |
| Trees in and around | | |
| 10% | 8% | 10% |
| public buildings and car | | |
| parks | | |
| 157 | 34 | 150 |
| Small woodlands with | | |
| 9% | 9% | 9% |
| public access within | | |
| 500m of your home | | |
| 162 | 29 | 159 |
| Larger woodlands with | | |
| 9% | 7% | 9% |
| public access within 2.5 | | |
| miles of your home | | |
| 152 | 28 | 146 |
| Street trees and those | | |
| 9% | 7% | 9% |
| on roundabouts or other | | |
| green areas associated | | |
| with roads | | |
| 282 | 98 | 299 |
| I don't want public | | |
| 16% | 25% | 18% |
| money spent on urban | | |
| trees or woods | | |
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------------|------|-----|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 1101 | 1012 | 544 | 303 | 319 | 326 | 336 | 285 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 1087 | 1026 | 410 | 318 | 344 | 374 | 369 | 297 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 259 | 202 | 81 | 65 | 94 | 77 | 99 | 44 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | | | | | | |
| 24% | 20% | 20% | 21% | 27% | 21% | 27% | 15% |
| zones and public squares | | | | | | | |
| 184 | 181 | 70 | 52 | 59 | 65 | 53 | 65 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | | | | | | |
| 17% | 18% | 17% | 16% | 17% | 17% | 14% | 22% |
| component of public | | | | | | | |
| greenspaces | | | | | | | |
| 111 | 95 | 47 | 37 | 28 | 37 | 27 | 29 |
| Trees in and around | | | | | | | |
| 10% | 9% | 11% | 12% | 8% | 10% | 7% | 10% |
| public buildings and car | | | | | | | |
| parks | | | | | | | |
| 94 | 96 | 33 | 27 | 41 | 46 | 19 | 24 |
| Street trees and those | | | | | | | |
| 9% | 9% | 8% | 8% | 12% | 12% | 5% | 8% |
| on roundabouts or other | | | | | | | |
| green areas associated | | | | | | | |
| with roads | | | | | | | |
| 99 | 86 | 46 | 27 | 21 | 26 | 39 | 26 |
| Larger woodlands with | | | | | | | |
| 9% | 8% | 11% | 8% | 6% | 7% | 11% | 9% |
| public access within 2.5 | | | | | | | |
| miles of your home | | | | | | | |
| 88 | 92 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 44 | 28 | 33 |
| Small woodlands with | | | | | | | |
| 8% | 9% | 6% | 8% | 7% | 12% | 8% | 11% |
| public access within | | | | | | | |
| 500m of your home | | | | | | | |
| 73 | 74 | 28 | 23 | 23 | 20 | 25 | 28 |
| Trees in public parks | | | | | | | |
| 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 5% | 7% | 9% |
| and gardens | | | | | | | |
| 179 | 201 | 81 | 62 | 53 | 57 | 79 | 48 |
| I don't want public | | | | | | | |
| 16% | 20% | 20% | 19% | 15% | 15% | 21% | 16% |
| money spent on urban | | | | | | | |
| trees or woods | | | | | | | |
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 191 | 74 | 196 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | |
| 20% | 24% | 24% |
| zones and public squares | | |
| 156 | 65 | 144 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | |
| 16% | 21% | 17% |
| component of public | | |
| greenspaces | | |
| 99 | 31 | 75 |
| Trees in and around | | |
| 10% | 10% | 9% |
| public buildings and car | | |
| parks | | |
| 86 | 24 | 80 |
| Street trees and those | | |
| 9% | 8% | 10% |
| on roundabouts or other | | |
| green areas associated | | |
| with roads | | |
| 102 | 23 | 61 |
| Larger woodlands with | | |
| 10% | 7% | 7% |
| public access within 2.5 | | |
| miles of your home | | |
| 79 | 27 | 74 |
| Small woodlands with | | |
| 8% | 9% | 9% |
| public access within | | |
| 500m of your home | | |
| 64 | 20 | 63 |
| Trees in public parks | | |
| 7% | 6% | 8% |
| and gardens | | |
| 201 | 48 | 131 |
| I don't want public | | |
| 21% | 15% | 16% |
| money spent on urban | | |
| trees or woods | | |
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
16
41
84
41
53
18
37
37
25
50
17
42
385
461
Trees in pedestrian
33%
22%
29%
16%
26%
17%
19%
27%
14%
21%
20%
24%
22%
22%
zones and public squares
6
30
61
39
37
20
40
22
27
45
12
26
312
365
Clusters of trees as a
12%
16%
21%
15%
18%
19%
20%
16%
15%
19%
14%
15%
18%
17%
component of public greenspaces
7
11
21
29
16
11
25
22
16
24
7
17
171
205
Trees in and around
14%
6%
7%
11%
8%
10%
13%
16%
9%
10%
8%
9%
10%
10%
public buildings and car parks
2
14
26
18
27
11
22
15
15
19
5
16
161
190
Street trees and those
4%
7%
9%
7%
13%
11%
12%
11%
8%
8%
6%
9%
9%
9%
on roundabouts or other
green areas associated with roads
5
19
30
29
15
7
15
14
17
18
10
7
167
186
Larger woodlands with
10%
10%
10%
11%
7%
6%
8%
10%
9%
8%
12%
4%
9%
9%
public access within 2.5 miles of your home
6
20
20
24
14
8
22
14
13
14
11
15
152
181
Small woodlands with
13%
11%
7%
9%
7%
7%
11%
10%
7%
6%
13%
8%
9%
9%
public access within 500m of your home
6
9
19
16
17
3
15
5
19
26
3
10
128
147
Trees in public parks
13%
5%
7%
6%
8%
3%
7%
4%
10%
11%
4%
6%
7%
7%
and gardens
1
42
32
61
28
29
19
9
53
39
20
47
304
380
I don't want public
1%
23%
11%
24%
14%
27%
10%
6%
29%
17%
24%
26%
17%
18%
money spent on urban trees or woods
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
30
428
2
6
12
64
66
311
150
461
Trees in pedestrian
12%
23%
22%
31%
15%
27%
22%
21%
23%
22%
zones and public squares
30
334
1
3
7
47
59
248
117
365
Clusters of trees as a
12%
18%
16%
16%
9%
20%
19%
17%
18%
17%
component of public greenspaces
23
182
-
2
12
18
30
143
62
205
Trees in and around
9%
10%
-
11%
16%
7%
10%
10%
10%
10%
public buildings and car parks
26
164
2
3
11
22
19
133
57
190
Street trees and those
10%
9%
23%
17%
14%
9%
6%
9%
9%
9%
on roundabouts or other
green areas associated with roads
29
155
-
-
12
20
26
127
58
186
Larger woodlands with
11%
8%
-
-
15%
8%
9%
9%
9%
9%
public access within 2.5 miles of your home
24
157
-
-
7
17
30
127
54
181
Small woodlands with
9%
8%
-
-
10%
7%
10%
9%
8%
9%
public access within 500m of your home
19
127
-
-
8
14
22
103
44
147
Trees in public parks
8%
7%
-
-
10%
6%
7%
7%
7%
7%
and gardens
72
307
3
5
9
38
53
272
108
380
I don't want public
28%
17%
39%
26%
11%
16%
17%
19%
17%
18%
money spent on urban trees or woods
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 385 | 76 | 382 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | |
| 22% | 20% | 22% |
| zones and public squares | | |
| 314 | 50 | 302 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | |
| 18% | 13% | 18% |
| component of public | | |
| greenspaces | | |
| 174 | 32 | 157 |
| Trees in and around | | |
| 10% | 8% | 9% |
| public buildings and car | | |
| parks | | |
| 158 | 32 | 151 |
| Street trees and those | | |
| 9% | 8% | 9% |
| on roundabouts or other | | |
| green areas associated | | |
| with roads | | |
| 151 | 35 | 144 |
| Larger woodlands with | | |
| 9% | 9% | 8% |
| public access within 2.5 | | |
| miles of your home | | |
| 148 | 32 | 147 |
| Small woodlands with | | |
| 9% | 8% | 9% |
| public access within | | |
| 500m of your home | | |
| 113 | 33 | 121 |
| Trees in public parks | | |
| 7% | 9% | 7% |
| and gardens | | |
| 282 | 98 | 299 |
| I don't want public | | |
| 16% | 25% | 18% |
| money spent on urban | | |
| trees or woods | | |
## Forests And Woodlands (Qs0303 - 836909) Q.8_06 Thinking About The Nearest Urban Area (Town Or City), Where Would You Prefer Public Resources To Be Targeted? - 6Th Base: All Adults 16+
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------------|------|-----|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 1101 | 1012 | 544 | 303 | 319 | 326 | 336 | 285 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 1087 | 1026 | 410 | 318 | 344 | 374 | 369 | 297 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 253 | 216 | 84 | 63 | 88 | 74 | 93 | 67 |
| Trees in and around | | | | | | | |
| 23% | 21% | 20% | 20% | 26% | 20% | 25% | 23% |
| public buildings and car | | | | | | | |
| parks | | | | | | | |
| 185 | 192 | 86 | 51 | 66 | 67 | 57 | 52 |
| Small woodlands with | | | | | | | |
| 17% | 19% | 21% | 16% | 19% | 18% | 15% | 17% |
| public access within | | | | | | | |
| 500m of your home | | | | | | | |
| 128 | 89 | 39 | 42 | 36 | 47 | 28 | 26 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | | | | | | |
| 12% | 9% | 9% | 13% | 10% | 13% | 8% | 9% |
| zones and public squares | | | | | | | |
| 92 | 104 | 32 | 26 | 27 | 40 | 40 | 32 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | | | | | | |
| 8% | 10% | 8% | 8% | 8% | 11% | 11% | 11% |
| component of public | | | | | | | |
| greenspaces | | | | | | | |
| 96 | 87 | 26 | 30 | 29 | 42 | 31 | 25 |
| Street trees and those | | | | | | | |
| 9% | 8% | 6% | 9% | 9% | 11% | 8% | 8% |
| on roundabouts or other | | | | | | | |
| green areas associated | | | | | | | |
| with roads | | | | | | | |
| 94 | 77 | 34 | 25 | 30 | 22 | 27 | 33 |
| Larger woodlands with | | | | | | | |
| 9% | 7% | 8% | 8% | 9% | 6% | 7% | 11% |
| public access within 2.5 | | | | | | | |
| miles of your home | | | | | | | |
| 60 | 60 | 30 | 19 | 16 | 26 | 15 | 14 |
| Trees in public parks | | | | | | | |
| 5% | 6% | 7% | 6% | 5% | 7% | 4% | 5% |
| and gardens | | | | | | | |
| 179 | 201 | 81 | 62 | 53 | 57 | 79 | 48 |
| I don't want public | | | | | | | |
| 16% | 20% | 20% | 19% | 15% | 15% | 21% | 16% |
| money spent on urban | | | | | | | |
| trees or woods | | | | | | | |
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 197 | 64 | 208 |
| Trees in and around | | |
| 20% | 21% | 25% |
| public buildings and car | | |
| parks | | |
| 175 | 63 | 140 |
| Small woodlands with | | |
| 18% | 20% | 17% |
| public access within | | |
| 500m of your home | | |
| 101 | 30 | 86 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | |
| 10% | 10% | 10% |
| zones and public squares | | |
| 87 | 28 | 81 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | |
| 9% | 9% | 10% |
| component of public | | |
| greenspaces | | |
| 79 | 35 | 68 |
| Street trees and those | | |
| 8% | 11% | 8% |
| on roundabouts or other | | |
| green areas associated | | |
| with roads | | |
| 84 | 26 | 60 |
| Larger woodlands with | | |
| 9% | 8% | 7% |
| public access within 2.5 | | |
| miles of your home | | |
| 54 | 16 | 49 |
| Trees in public parks | | |
| 6% | 5% | 6% |
| and gardens | | |
| 201 | 48 | 131 |
| I don't want public | | |
| 21% | 15% | 16% |
| money spent on urban | | |
| trees or woods | | |
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
14
47
78
38
57
18
47
28
26
58
13
46
391
469
Trees in and around
28%
25%
26%
15%
27%
17%
24%
21%
14%
25%
15%
26%
22%
22%
public buildings and car parks
9
24
63
39
43
17
31
31
33
50
15
22
328
377
Small woodlands with
20%
13%
21%
15%
21%
16%
16%
22%
18%
21%
18%
12%
18%
18%
public access within 500m of your home
3
18
21
33
22
16
21
16
18
30
7
12
186
218
Trees in pedestrian
7%
9%
7%
13%
10%
15%
11%
12%
10%
13%
8%
7%
10%
10%
zones and public squares
5
11
28
28
16
5
26
18
18
13
10
18
169
197
Clusters of trees as a
11%
6%
10%
11%
8%
5%
13%
13%
10%
5%
11%
10%
9%
9%
component of public
greenspaces
6
21
33
22
24
5
13
9
14
14
11
10
161
183
Street trees and those
13%
11%
11%
8%
12%
5%
7%
7%
8%
6%
13%
6%
9%
9%
on roundabouts or other green areas associated with roads
7
17
24
20
6
12
19
13
12
22
3
15
137
170
Larger woodlands with
14%
9%
8%
8%
3%
11%
10%
10%
6%
9%
3%
8%
8%
8%
public access within 2.5 miles of your home
3
6
14
16
10
3
18
13
11
9
6
10
104
120
Trees in public parks
5%
3%
5%
6%
5%
3%
9%
10%
6%
4%
8%
5%
6%
6%
and gardens
1
42
32
61
28
29
19
9
53
39
20
47
304
380
I don't want public
1%
23%
11%
24%
14%
27%
10%
6%
29%
17%
24%
26%
17%
18%
money spent on urban trees or woods
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
37
431
2
4
15
50
71
326
143
469
Trees in and around
15%
23%
32%
21%
19%
21%
23%
22%
22%
22%
public buildings and car parks
37
339
2
5
16
49
53
253
125
377
Small woodlands with
15%
18%
29%
25%
20%
20%
17%
17%
19%
18%
public access within 500m of your home
32
185
-
1
11
26
29
149
68
218
Trees in pedestrian
13%
10%
-
5%
14%
11%
10%
10%
10%
10%
zones and public squares
27
168
-
1
12
25
31
127
70
197
Clusters of trees as a
11%
9%
-
6%
16%
11%
10%
9%
11%
9%
component of public
greenspaces
21
161
-
2
6
23
27
124
58
183
Street trees and those
8%
9%
-
11%
7%
10%
9%
9%
9%
9%
on roundabouts or other green areas associated with roads
18
152
-
-
6
18
23
124
46
170
Larger woodlands with
7%
8%
-
-
7%
7%
8%
8%
7%
8%
public access within 2.5 miles of your home
8
111
-
1
3
10
17
88
31
120
Trees in public parks
3%
6%
-
6%
4%
4%
6%
6%
5%
6%
and gardens
72
307
3
5
9
38
53
272
108
380
I don't want public
28%
17%
39%
26%
11%
16%
17%
19%
17%
18%
money spent on urban trees or woods
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 394 | 75 | 378 |
| Trees in and around | | |
| 23% | 19% | 22% |
| public buildings and car | | |
| parks | | |
| 316 | 62 | 309 |
| Small woodlands with | | |
| 18% | 16% | 18% |
| public access within | | |
| 500m of your home | | |
| 182 | 36 | 172 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | |
| 11% | 9% | 10% |
| zones and public squares | | |
| 161 | 36 | 166 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | |
| 9% | 9% | 10% |
| component of public | | |
| greenspaces | | |
| 154 | 29 | 147 |
| Street trees and those | | |
| 9% | 7% | 9% |
| on roundabouts or other | | |
| green areas associated | | |
| with roads | | |
| 136 | 34 | 135 |
| Larger woodlands with | | |
| 8% | 9% | 8% |
| public access within 2.5 | | |
| miles of your home | | |
| 100 | 20 | 97 |
| Trees in public parks | | |
| 6% | 5% | 6% |
| and gardens | | |
| 282 | 98 | 299 |
| I don't want public | | |
| 16% | 25% | 18% |
| money spent on urban | | |
| trees or woods | | |
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------------|------|-----|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 1101 | 1012 | 544 | 303 | 319 | 326 | 336 | 285 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 1087 | 1026 | 410 | 318 | 344 | 374 | 369 | 297 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 299 | 246 | 106 | 83 | 84 | 86 | 115 | 71 |
| Street trees and those | | | | | | | |
| 27% | 24% | 26% | 26% | 24% | 23% | 31% | 24% |
| on roundabouts or other | | | | | | | |
| green areas associated | | | | | | | |
| with roads | | | | | | | |
| 200 | 212 | 84 | 59 | 64 | 78 | 64 | 63 |
| Larger woodlands with | | | | | | | |
| 18% | 21% | 20% | 19% | 19% | 21% | 17% | 21% |
| public access within 2.5 | | | | | | | |
| miles of your home | | | | | | | |
| 153 | 122 | 41 | 47 | 45 | 59 | 43 | 41 |
| Trees in and around | | | | | | | |
| 14% | 12% | 10% | 15% | 13% | 16% | 12% | 14% |
| public buildings and car | | | | | | | |
| parks | | | | | | | |
| 85 | 62 | 35 | 21 | 26 | 27 | 18 | 21 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | | | | | | |
| 8% | 6% | 9% | 7% | 8% | 7% | 5% | 7% |
| component of public | | | | | | | |
| greenspaces | | | | | | | |
| 66 | 66 | 24 | 14 | 26 | 23 | 21 | 23 |
| Small woodlands with | | | | | | | |
| 6% | 6% | 6% | 4% | 8% | 6% | 6% | 8% |
| public access within | | | | | | | |
| 500m of your home | | | | | | | |
| 60 | 71 | 23 | 19 | 31 | 21 | 18 | 19 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | | | | | | |
| 6% | 7% | 6% | 6% | 9% | 6% | 5% | 7% |
| zones and public squares | | | | | | | |
| 45 | 46 | 16 | 13 | 16 | 22 | 11 | 12 |
| Trees in public parks | | | | | | | |
| 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 5% | 6% | 3% | 4% |
| and gardens | | | | | | | |
| 179 | 201 | 81 | 62 | 53 | 57 | 79 | 48 |
| I don't want public | | | | | | | |
| 16% | 20% | 20% | 19% | 15% | 15% | 21% | 16% |
| money spent on urban | | | | | | | |
| trees or woods | | | | | | | |
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 237 | 79 | 229 |
| Street trees and those | | |
| 24% | 25% | 28% |
| on roundabouts or other | | |
| green areas associated | | |
| with roads | | |
| 184 | 69 | 160 |
| Larger woodlands with | | |
| 19% | 22% | 19% |
| public access within 2.5 | | |
| miles of your home | | |
| 127 | 48 | 101 |
| Trees in and around | | |
| 13% | 15% | 12% |
| public buildings and car | | |
| parks | | |
| 74 | 23 | 50 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | |
| 8% | 7% | 6% |
| component of public | | |
| greenspaces | | |
| 54 | 20 | 58 |
| Small woodlands with | | |
| 5% | 7% | 7% |
| public access within | | |
| 500m of your home | | |
| 63 | 16 | 53 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | |
| 6% | 5% | 6% |
| zones and public squares | | |
| 40 | 8 | 43 |
| Trees in public parks | | |
| 4% | 3% | 5% |
| and gardens | | |
| 201 | 48 | 131 |
| I don't want public | | |
| 21% | 15% | 16% |
| money spent on urban | | |
| trees or woods | | |
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
18
50
79
51
58
26
51
40
35
59
18
59
442
545
Street trees and those
37%
27%
27%
20%
28%
25%
26%
29%
19%
25%
22%
33%
25%
26%
on roundabouts or other green areas associated with roads
10
32
68
41
46
17
33
32
34
60
13
26
359
412
Larger woodlands with
20%
17%
23%
16%
22%
16%
17%
23%
18%
26%
15%
15%
20%
19%
public access within 2.5 miles of your home
7
32
41
39
32
11
20
19
20
24
18
13
244
275
Trees in and around
14%
17%
14%
15%
16%
10%
10%
13%
11%
10%
21%
7%
14%
13%
public buildings and car parks
3
9
26
25
5
6
20
13
10
15
9
6
132
147
Clusters of trees as a
5%
5%
9%
10%
2%
6%
11%
9%
6%
7%
10%
3%
7%
7%
component of public greenspaces
4
8
26
13
11
5
16
8
14
14
2
11
112
131
Small woodlands with
8%
4%
9%
5%
5%
4%
8%
6%
8%
6%
2%
6%
6%
6%
public access within 500m of your home
5
8
15
17
13
10
19
9
7
14
3
11
105
131
Trees in pedestrian
11%
4%
5%
6%
6%
10%
10%
6%
4%
6%
4%
6%
6%
6%
zones and public squares
1
5
6
11
13
2
17
9
11
8
2
6
82
91
Trees in public parks
2%
3%
2%
4%
6%
2%
9%
7%
6%
3%
2%
4%
5%
4%
and gardens
1
42
32
61
28
29
19
9
53
39
20
47
304
380
I don't want public
1%
23%
11%
24%
14%
27%
10%
6%
29%
17%
24%
26%
17%
18%
money spent on urban trees or woods
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
43
499
1
5
18
56
83
381
163
545
Street trees and those
17%
27%
9%
24%
24%
23%
27%
26%
25%
26%
on roundabouts or other green areas associated with roads
47
364
2
4
14
54
60
278
134
412
Larger woodlands with
19%
20%
29%
17%
18%
22%
20%
19%
21%
19%
public access within 2.5 miles of your home
26
249
-
1
7
40
37
190
85
275
Trees in and around
10%
13%
-
5%
9%
17%
12%
13%
13%
13%
public buildings and car parks
20
127
-
2
10
15
25
96
51
147
Clusters of trees as a
8%
7%
-
11%
12%
6%
8%
7%
8%
7%
component of public greenspaces
16
114
-
1
7
16
21
86
45
131
Small woodlands with
6%
6%
-
6%
9%
7%
7%
6%
7%
6%
public access within 500m of your home
15
117
2
2
9
8
18
91
40
131
Trees in pedestrian
6%
6%
23%
11%
12%
3%
6%
6%
6%
6%
zones and public squares
14
77
-
-
3
13
8
68
24
91
Trees in public parks
5%
4%
-
-
3%
5%
3%
5%
4%
4%
and gardens
72
307
3
5
9
38
53
272
108
380
I don't want public
28%
17%
39%
26%
11%
16%
17%
19%
17%
18%
money spent on urban trees or woods
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 459 | 85 | 430 |
| Street trees and those | | |
| 27% | 22% | 25% |
| on roundabouts or other | | |
| green areas associated | | |
| with roads | | |
| 346 | 66 | 337 |
| Larger woodlands with | | |
| 20% | 17% | 20% |
| public access within 2.5 | | |
| miles of your home | | |
| 237 | 39 | 220 |
| Trees in and around | | |
| 14% | 10% | 13% |
| public buildings and car | | |
| parks | | |
| 115 | 33 | 119 |
| Clusters of trees as a | | |
| 7% | 8% | 7% |
| component of public | | |
| greenspaces | | |
| 104 | 28 | 107 |
| Small woodlands with | | |
| 6% | 7% | 6% |
| public access within | | |
| 500m of your home | | |
| 110 | 21 | 110 |
| Trees in pedestrian | | |
| 6% | 5% | 6% |
| zones and public squares | | |
| 72 | 19 | 80 |
| Trees in public parks | | |
| 4% | 5% | 5% |
| and gardens | | |
| 282 | 98 | 299 |
| I don't want public | | |
| 16% | 25% | 18% |
| money spent on urban | | |
| trees or woods | | |
Street trees
Larger
and those on
woodlands with
Small woodlands
Clusters of
roundabouts or
public access
with public
trees as a
Trees in
Trees in and
other green
within 2.5
access within
component of
Trees in public
pedestrian
around public
areas
miles of your
500m of your
public
parks and
zones and
buildings and
associated with
home
home
greenspaces
gardens
public squares
car parks
roads
2113
2113
2113
2113
2113
2113
2113
Unweighted Base
2113
2113
2113
2113
2113
2113
2113
Weighted Base
352
240
108
436
141
121
336
1st
(1)
17%
11%
5%
21%
7%
6%
16%
231
403
231
257
237
225
149
2nd
(2)
11%
19%
11%
12%
11%
11%
7%
192
209
370
269
311
231
151
3rd
(3)
9%
10%
18%
13%
15%
11%
7%
190
192
316
414
234
207
180
4th
(4)
9%
9%
15%
20%
11%
10%
9%
186
181
365
147
461
205
190
5th
(5)
9%
9%
17%
7%
22%
10%
9%
170
377
197
120
218
469
183
6th
(6)
8%
18%
9%
6%
10%
22%
9%
412
131
147
91
131
275
545
7th
(7)
19%
6%
7%
4%
6%
13%
26%
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
I don't want public
18%
18%
18%
18%
18%
18%
18%
money spent on urban trees or woods
4.030
3.766
4.026
3.174
4.047
4.535
4.423
Mean Score
2.261
1.975
1.654
1.779
1.706
1.904
2.315
Standard Deviation
## Q.9_01 Would You Agree Or Disagree With The Following Statements About The Ways In Which Forests And Woodlands In The Uk Can Impact On Climate Change? - No Action Is Needed, Let Nature Take Its Course Base: All Adults 16+
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 1101 | 1012 | 544 | 303 | 319 | 326 | 336 | 285 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 1087 | 1026 | 410 | 318 | 344 | 374 | 369 | 297 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 165 | 143 | 48 | 53 | 54 | 64 | 46 | 44 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | | | | | | |
| 15% | 14% | 12% | 17% | 16% | 17% | 12% | 15% |
| 459 | 424 | 166 | 145 | 145 | 163 | 140 | 125 |
| Disagree | (2) | | | | | | |
| 42% | 41% | 40% | 46% | 42% | 44% | 38% | 42% |
| 164 | 177 | 65 | 31 | 45 | 54 | 82 | 65 |
| Neither agree | (3) | | | | | | |
| 15% | 17% | 16% | 10% | 13% | 14% | 22% | 22% |
| or disagree | | | | | | | |
| 222 | 209 | 97 | 66 | 72 | 70 | 75 | 52 |
| Agree | (4) | | | | | | |
| 20% | 20% | 24% | 21% | 21% | 19% | 20% | 17% |
| 46 | 36 | 19 | 13 | 20 | 14 | 10 | 7 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | | | | | | |
| 4% | 4% | 5% | 4% | 6% | 4% | 3% | 2% |
| 30 | 36 | 15 | 11 | 8 | 8 | 17 | 6 |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| 3% | 3% | 4% | 3% | 2% | 2% | 5% | 2% |
| 2.550 | 2.566 | 2.675 | 2.481 | 2.577 | 2.473 | 2.615 | 2.495 |
| Mean Score | | | | | | | |
| 1.115 | 1.086 | 1.114 | 1.130 | 1.165 | 1.103 | 1.049 | 1.023 |
| Standard Deviation | | | | | | | |
| 268 | 245 | 116 | 79 | 92 | 84 | 85 | 58 |
| AGREE | | | | | | | |
| 25% | 24% | 28% | 25% | 27% | 23% | 23% | 20% |
| 625 | 568 | 214 | 198 | 200 | 227 | 185 | 168 |
| DISAGREE | | | | | | | |
| 57% | 55% | 52% | 62% | 58% | 61% | 50% | 57% |
Q.9_01 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change?
- No action is needed, let nature take its course Base: All Adults 16+
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 134 | 50 | 124 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 14% | 16% | 15% |
| 395 | 124 | 364 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 40% | 40% | 44% |
| 163 | 62 | 116 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 17% | 20% | 14% |
| or disagree | | |
| 211 | 58 | 162 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 22% | 19% | 20% |
| 46 | 8 | 28 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 5% | 3% | 3% |
| 28 | 8 | 29 |
| Don't know | | |
| 3% | 3% | 4% |
| 2.621 | 2.503 | 2.504 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 1.121 | 1.065 | 1.088 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 258 | 66 | 190 |
| AGREE | | |
| 26% | 21% | 23% |
| 530 | 175 | 488 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 54% | 56% | 59% |
Q.9_01 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change?
- No action is needed, let nature take its course Base: All Adults 16+
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
8
34
53
21
38
10
20
25
29
28
10
33
258
309
Strongly disagree
(1)
17%
18%
18%
8%
18%
10%
10%
18%
16%
12%
12%
18%
14%
15%
17
93
141
101
87
43
92
45
61
109
28
67
757
883
Disagree
(2)
34%
50%
48%
39%
42%
41%
48%
33%
33%
46%
33%
37%
43%
42%
8
21
37
48
30
22
36
22
44
32
15
26
284
341
Neither agree
(3)
17%
11%
13%
18%
15%
21%
19%
16%
24%
14%
17%
15%
16%
16%
or disagree
11
26
48
57
33
21
39
41
41
49
26
40
360
432
Agree
(4)
22%
14%
16%
22%
16%
20%
20%
30%
22%
21%
31%
22%
20%
20%
4
7
7
8
13
6
4
3
5
14
4
7
65
82
Strongly agree
(5)
9%
4%
2%
3%
6%
5%
2%
2%
3%
6%
5%
4%
4%
4%
-
5
8
25
5
3
2
1
4
3
2
7
56
66
Don't know
-
3%
3%
10%
2%
3%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
4%
3%
3%
2.710
2.335
2.354
2.699
2.487
2.695
2.556
2.648
2.625
2.612
2.839
2.550
2.546
2.558
Mean Score
1.252
1.061
1.041
1.036
1.163
1.082
1.003
1.157
1.087
1.124
1.157
1.161
1.091
1.101
Standard Deviation
15
33
55
64
46
27
43
44
46
62
30
47
425
514
AGREE
31%
18%
19%
25%
23%
26%
22%
32%
25%
27%
36%
26%
24%
24%
25
127
194
121
125
54
113
70
90
137
38
99
1015
1192
DISAGREE
52%
68%
66%
47%
60%
51%
58%
51%
49%
59%
45%
55%
57%
56%
Q.9_01 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change?
- No action is needed, let nature take its course Base: All Adults 16+
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
29
278
-
4
13
35
36
221
88
309
Strongly disagree
(1)
11%
15%
-
21%
17%
14%
12%
15%
14%
15%
99
783
4
3
31
111
120
613
270
883
Disagree
(2)
39%
42%
54%
14%
40%
47%
40%
42%
42%
42%
52
288
4
5
10
51
58
214
127
341
Neither agree
(3)
21%
16%
46%
24%
12%
21%
19%
15%
20%
16%
or disagree
54
377
-
8
19
28
72
304
128
432
Agree
(4)
21%
20%
-
37%
25%
12%
24%
21%
20%
20%
6
77
-
1
2
7
13
59
24
82
Strongly agree
(5)
2%
4%
-
4%
3%
3%
4%
4%
4%
4%
13
53
-
-
2
7
5
52
14
66
Don't know
5%
3%
-
-
3%
3%
2%
4%
2%
3%
2.618
2.552
2.463
2.900
2.557
2.408
2.689
2.550
2.575
2.558
Mean Score
1.036
1.109
0.534
1.259
1.140
0.988
1.099
1.114
1.071
1.101
Standard Deviation
60
453
-
9
22
35
86
363
151
514
AGREE
24%
24%
-
42%
28%
15%
28%
25%
23%
24%
128
1061
4
7
44
146
156
835
358
1192
DISAGREE
51%
57%
54%
35%
57%
61%
51%
57%
55%
56%
Q.9_01 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change?
- No action is needed, let nature take its course Base: All Adults 16+
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 266 | 43 | 240 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 15% | 11% | 14% |
| 757 | 126 | 720 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 44% | 32% | 42% |
| 263 | 78 | 286 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 15% | 20% | 17% |
| or disagree | | |
| 326 | 106 | 346 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 19% | 27% | 20% |
| 54 | 29 | 56 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 3% | 7% | 3% |
| 59 | 7 | 54 |
| Don't know | | |
| 3% | 2% | 3% |
| 2.486 | 2.870 | 2.549 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 1.074 | 1.161 | 1.078 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 379 | 135 | 401 |
| AGREE | | |
| 22% | 35% | 24% |
| 1023 | 169 | 961 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 59% | 44% | 56% |
Q.9_02 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change?
- A lot more trees should be planted Base: All Adults 16+
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 1101 | 1012 | 544 | 303 | 319 | 326 | 336 | 285 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 1087 | 1026 | 410 | 318 | 344 | 374 | 369 | 297 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 9 | 13 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - | 4 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | | | | | | |
| 1% | 1% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 1% | | |
| - | | | | | | | |
| 1% | 1% | | | | | | |
| 42 | 30 | 19 | 12 | 9 | 8 | 13 | 11 |
| Disagree | (2) | | | | | | |
| 4% | 3% | 5% | 4% | 3% | 2% | 4% | 4% |
| 95 | 104 | 39 | 21 | 41 | 35 | 32 | 31 |
| Neither agree | (3) | | | | | | |
| 9% | 10% | 9% | 7% | 12% | 9% | 9% | 10% |
| or disagree | | | | | | | |
| 571 | 512 | 206 | 153 | 166 | 194 | 205 | 158 |
| Agree | (4) | | | | | | |
| 53% | 50% | 50% | 48% | 48% | 52% | 56% | 53% |
| 351 | 336 | 130 | 119 | 118 | 125 | 108 | 87 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | | | | | | |
| 32% | 33% | 32% | 37% | 34% | 34% | 29% | 29% |
| 19 | 30 | 9 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 11 | 6 |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| 2% | 3% | 2% | 3% | 2% | 2% | 3% | 2% |
| 4.135 | 4.133 | 4.084 | 4.200 | 4.137 | 4.173 | 4.137 | 4.075 |
| Mean Score | | | | | | | |
| 0.796 | 0.817 | 0.866 | 0.829 | 0.818 | 0.763 | 0.722 | 0.828 |
| Standard Deviation | | | | | | | |
| 922 | 848 | 336 | 272 | 284 | 320 | 313 | 245 |
| AGREE | | | | | | | |
| 85% | 83% | 82% | 85% | 82% | 86% | 85% | 82% |
| 51 | 44 | 26 | 16 | 13 | 11 | 13 | 15 |
| DISAGREE | | | | | | | |
| 5% | 4% | 6% | 5% | 4% | 3% | 4% | 5% |
Q.9_02 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change?
- A lot more trees should be planted Base: All Adults 16+
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 11 | 1 | 9 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 1% | | |
| * | | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% |
| * | | |
| 1% | | |
| 37 | 13 | 22 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 4% | 4% | 3% |
| 85 | 36 | 78 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 9% | 12% | 9% |
| or disagree | | |
| 499 | 166 | 418 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 51% | 53% | 51% |
| 325 | 89 | 273 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 33% | 29% | 33% |
| 21 | 5 | 24 |
| Don't know | | |
| 2% | 2% | 3% |
| 4.137 | 4.071 | 4.154 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.820 | 0.788 | 0.795 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 824 | 255 | 691 |
| AGREE | | |
| 84% | 82% | 84% |
| 48 | 15 | 32 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 5% | 5% | 4% |
Q.9_02 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change?
- A lot more trees should be planted Base: All Adults 16+
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
-
4
1
5
2
-
1
1
7
1
-
1
22
22
Strongly disagree
(1)
-
2%
*
2%
1%
-
1%
1%
4%
*
-
*
1%
1%
1
4
7
10
5
7
8
5
6
8
1
8
55
72
Disagree
(2)
3%
2%
2%
4%
3%
7%
4%
4%
3%
4%
1%
5%
3%
3%
3
13
25
32
11
10
19
11
11
33
9
21
166
199
Neither agree
(3)
6%
7%
9%
12%
6%
9%
10%
8%
6%
14%
10%
12%
9%
9%
or disagree
20
89
152
128
81
59
119
66
114
124
40
90
914
1083
Agree
(4)
41%
48%
52%
50%
39%
56%
61%
48%
62%
53%
48%
50%
51%
51%
24
71
103
65
105
27
45
51
41
65
33
55
581
687
Strongly agree
(5)
50%
38%
35%
25%
51%
26%
23%
37%
22%
28%
39%
30%
33%
33%
-
4
5
18
2
2
2
3
5
2
2
6
42
50
Don't know
-
2%
2%
7%
1%
2%
1%
2%
3%
1%
2%
3%
2%
2%
4.387
4.204
4.213
3.994
4.370
4.030
4.033
4.204
3.987
4.052
4.272
4.088
4.138
4.134
Mean Score
0.737
0.847
0.726
0.870
0.797
0.803
0.744
0.791
0.881
0.782
0.692
0.810
0.806
0.806
Standard Deviation
44
161
256
193
186
86
164
117
155
190
73
145
1495
1770
AGREE
91%
86%
87%
75%
90%
82%
84%
85%
84%
81%
87%
80%
84%
84%
1
8
8
15
8
7
9
6
13
9
1
9
77
95
DISAGREE
3%
4%
3%
6%
4%
7%
5%
4%
7%
4%
1%
5%
4%
4%
Q.9_02 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change?
- A lot more trees should be planted Base: All Adults 16+
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
3
19
-
-
1
2
4
15
7
22
Strongly disagree
(1)
1%
1%
-
-
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
10
62
-
-
3
5
13
51
21
72
Disagree
(2)
4%
3%
-
-
3%
2%
4%
4%
3%
3%
28
171
-
4
6
20
33
136
63
199
Neither agree
(3)
11%
9%
-
19%
7%
8%
11%
9%
10%
9%
or disagree
129
952
6
10
39
130
164
733
350
1083
Agree
(4)
51%
51%
84%
49%
51%
54%
54%
50%
54%
51%
77
608
1
7
28
75
86
491
196
687
Strongly agree
(5)
30%
33%
16%
32%
36%
31%
28%
34%
30%
33%
6
43
-
-
1
7
5
37
13
50
Don't know
2%
2%
-
-
1%
3%
1%
3%
2%
2%
4.081
4.140
4.165
4.124
4.183
4.164
4.050
4.144
4.111
4.134
Mean Score
0.833
0.803
0.398
0.723
0.812
0.751
0.825
0.813
0.790
0.806
Standard Deviation
206
1560
8
17
67
205
250
1224
546
1770
AGREE
81%
84%
100%
81%
87%
86%
82%
84%
84%
84%
13
81
-
-
4
7
17
67
28
95
DISAGREE
5%
4%
-
-
5%
3%
5%
5%
4%
4%
Q.9_02 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change?
- A lot more trees should be planted Base: All Adults 16+
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 15 | 7 | 17 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 1% | 2% | 1% |
| * | | |
| 1% | | |
| 48 | 24 | 52 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 3% | 6% | 3% |
| 154 | 45 | 160 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 9% | 12% | 9% |
| or disagree | | |
| 895 | 188 | 897 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 52% | 48% | 53% |
| 568 | 119 | 534 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 33% | 31% | 31% |
| 43 | 6 | 43 |
| Don't know | | |
| 3% | 2% | 3% |
| 4.161 | 4.014 | 4.132 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.776 | 0.919 | 0.785 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 1464 | 306 | 1431 |
| AGREE | | |
| 85% | 79% | 84% |
| 64 | 31 | 69 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 4% | 8% | 4% |
## Q.9_03 Would You Agree Or Disagree With The Following Statements About The Ways In Which Forests And Woodlands In The Uk Can Impact On Climate Change? - Trees Should Not Be Felled In Any Circumstances, Even If They Are Replaced Base: All Adults 16+
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 1101 | 1012 | 544 | 303 | 319 | 326 | 336 | 285 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 1087 | 1026 | 410 | 318 | 344 | 374 | 369 | 297 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 68 | 87 | 31 | 36 | 31 | 29 | 16 | 12 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | | | | | | |
| 6% | 8% | 8% | 11% | 9% | 8% | 4% | 4% |
| 432 | 433 | 198 | 144 | 148 | 154 | 128 | 92 |
| Disagree | (2) | | | | | | |
| 40% | 42% | 48% | 45% | 43% | 41% | 35% | 31% |
| 240 | 230 | 66 | 56 | 79 | 85 | 95 | 90 |
| Neither agree | (3) | | | | | | |
| 22% | 22% | 16% | 18% | 23% | 23% | 26% | 30% |
| or disagree | | | | | | | |
| 249 | 195 | 77 | 56 | 59 | 74 | 100 | 79 |
| Agree | (4) | | | | | | |
| 23% | 19% | 19% | 18% | 17% | 20% | 27% | 27% |
| 64 | 46 | 23 | 16 | 22 | 22 | 11 | 18 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | | | | | | |
| 6% | 5% | 6% | 5% | 6% | 6% | 3% | 6% |
| 33 | 35 | 17 | 10 | 6 | 10 | 19 | 7 |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| 3% | 3% | 4% | 3% | 2% | 3% | 5% | 2% |
| 2.819 | 2.679 | 2.650 | 2.584 | 2.678 | 2.739 | 2.891 | 2.996 |
| Mean Score | | | | | | | |
| 1.058 | 1.034 | 1.060 | 1.074 | 1.066 | 1.060 | 0.974 | 0.998 |
| Standard Deviation | | | | | | | |
| 314 | 241 | 99 | 72 | 80 | 96 | 111 | 97 |
| AGREE | | | | | | | |
| 29% | 24% | 24% | 23% | 23% | 26% | 30% | 33% |
| 500 | 520 | 229 | 180 | 179 | 183 | 144 | 104 |
| DISAGREE | | | | | | | |
| 46% | 51% | 56% | 57% | 52% | 49% | 39% | 35% |
Q.9_03 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change?
- Trees should not be felled in any circumstances, even if they are replaced Base: All Adults 16+
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 62 | 19 | 74 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 6% | 6% | 9% |
| 390 | 133 | 342 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 40% | 43% | 41% |
| 200 | 75 | 195 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 20% | 24% | 24% |
| or disagree | | |
| 230 | 61 | 154 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 23% | 20% | 19% |
| 66 | 15 | 30 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 7% | 5% | 4% |
| 31 | 8 | 29 |
| Don't know | | |
| 3% | 3% | 4% |
| 2.840 | 2.733 | 2.652 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 1.082 | 1.010 | 1.014 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 296 | 76 | 184 |
| AGREE | | |
| 30% | 24% | 22% |
| 452 | 152 | 416 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 46% | 49% | 50% |
Q.9_03 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change?
- Trees should not be felled in any circumstances, even if they are replaced Base: All Adults 16+
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
5
16
25
9
15
11
5
11
13
12
4
28
110
155
Strongly disagree
(1)
11%
8%
8%
4%
7%
11%
3%
8%
7%
5%
5%
16%
6%
7%
17
99
125
71
92
47
92
43
74
99
32
74
727
865
Disagree
(2)
36%
53%
43%
27%
45%
44%
47%
31%
40%
42%
38%
41%
41%
41%
11
37
63
75
39
22
46
25
33
56
23
40
397
470
Neither agree
(3)
22%
20%
22%
29%
19%
21%
24%
18%
18%
24%
28%
22%
22%
22%
or disagree
8
22
58
68
41
19
41
40
54
54
18
21
396
445
Agree
(4)
17%
12%
20%
26%
20%
18%
21%
29%
29%
23%
21%
12%
22%
21%
7
10
16
14
17
3
7
11
4
9
5
8
93
111
Strongly agree
(5)
14%
5%
5%
5%
8%
3%
4%
8%
2%
4%
6%
4%
5%
5%
-
4
7
21
2
4
3
7
7
3
2
8
56
68
Don't know
-
2%
2%
8%
1%
3%
2%
5%
4%
1%
2%
4%
3%
3%
2.862
2.519
2.705
3.028
2.771
2.565
2.752
2.970
2.788
2.772
2.860
2.461
2.788
2.751
Mean Score
1.245
0.998
1.058
0.991
1.114
1.013
0.946
1.153
1.028
0.993
1.018
1.054
1.039
1.048
Standard Deviation
15
32
74
82
58
22
48
51
58
63
23
29
489
555
AGREE
31%
17%
25%
32%
28%
21%
25%
37%
31%
27%
27%
16%
27%
26%
23
114
149
80
107
58
97
54
87
112
36
102
837
1020
DISAGREE
47%
61%
51%
31%
52%
55%
50%
40%
47%
48%
43%
57%
47%
48%
Q.9_03 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change?
- Trees should not be felled in any circumstances, even if they are replaced Base: All Adults 16+
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
5
149
-
1
5
15
17
117
38
155
Strongly disagree
(1)
2%
8%
-
7%
6%
6%
6%
8%
6%
7%
66
798
2
2
27
88
120
626
239
865
Disagree
(2)
26%
43%
24%
10%
35%
37%
39%
43%
37%
41%
70
398
3
8
17
62
82
297
172
470
Neither agree
(3)
28%
21%
44%
40%
22%
26%
27%
20%
27%
22%
or disagree
82
360
2
7
17
53
67
298
147
445
Agree
(4)
32%
19%
32%
34%
22%
22%
22%
20%
23%
21%
17
94
-
1
8
11
14
77
34
111
Strongly agree
(5)
7%
5%
-
5%
10%
5%
4%
5%
5%
5%
13
55
-
1
4
10
5
48
20
68
Don't know
5%
3%
-
5%
5%
4%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3.169
2.695
3.074
3.215
2.933
2.817
2.804
2.711
2.840
2.751
Mean Score
0.974
1.045
0.798
0.973
1.136
1.023
0.999
1.058
1.022
1.048
Standard Deviation
99
455
2
8
25
64
81
375
180
555
AGREE
39%
25%
32%
38%
32%
27%
27%
26%
28%
26%
70
947
2
3
32
103
137
743
277
1020
DISAGREE
28%
51%
24%
16%
41%
43%
45%
51%
43%
48%
Q.9_03 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change?
- Trees should not be felled in any circumstances, even if they are replaced Base: All Adults 16+
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 121 | 34 | 124 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 7% | 9% | 7% |
| 747 | 118 | 691 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 43% | 30% | 41% |
| 367 | 102 | 386 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 21% | 26% | 23% |
| or disagree | | |
| 349 | 95 | 367 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 20% | 24% | 22% |
| 86 | 25 | 81 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 5% | 6% | 5% |
| 54 | 14 | 54 |
| Don't know | | |
| 3% | 4% | 3% |
| 2.720 | 2.887 | 2.752 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 1.036 | 1.090 | 1.037 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 436 | 120 | 448 |
| AGREE | | |
| 25% | 31% | 26% |
| 868 | 152 | 814 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 50% | 39% | 48% |
## Q.9_04 Would You Agree Or Disagree With The Following Statements About The Ways In Which Forests And Woodlands In The Uk Can Impact On Climate Change? - Different Types Of Trees Should Be Planted That Will Be More Suited To Future Climates Base: All Adults 16+
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 1101 | 1012 | 544 | 303 | 319 | 326 | 336 | 285 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 1087 | 1026 | 410 | 318 | 344 | 374 | 369 | 297 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 6 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | | | | | | |
| 1% | 1% | | | | | | |
| * | | | | | | | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | | |
| 39 | 39 | 16 | 11 | 10 | 12 | 16 | 12 |
| Disagree | (2) | | | | | | |
| 4% | 4% | 4% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 4% | 4% |
| 163 | 164 | 61 | 43 | 56 | 58 | 64 | 46 |
| Neither agree | (3) | | | | | | |
| 15% | 16% | 15% | 13% | 16% | 16% | 17% | 15% |
| or disagree | | | | | | | |
| 612 | 579 | 234 | 187 | 180 | 200 | 203 | 188 |
| Agree | (4) | | | | | | |
| 56% | 56% | 57% | 59% | 52% | 53% | 55% | 63% |
| 232 | 192 | 80 | 66 | 81 | 88 | 64 | 46 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | | | | | | |
| 21% | 19% | 19% | 21% | 23% | 24% | 17% | 15% |
| 36 | 41 | 18 | 10 | 13 | 13 | 19 | 3 |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| 3% | 4% | 4% | 3% | 4% | 4% | 5% | 1% |
| 3.975 | 3.916 | 3.955 | 3.985 | 3.969 | 3.995 | 3.884 | 3.887 |
| Mean Score | | | | | | | |
| 0.756 | 0.784 | 0.746 | 0.750 | 0.819 | 0.776 | 0.781 | 0.744 |
| Standard Deviation | | | | | | | |
| 844 | 771 | 313 | 253 | 261 | 287 | 267 | 233 |
| AGREE | | | | | | | |
| 78% | 75% | 76% | 80% | 76% | 77% | 72% | 78% |
| 44 | 50 | 17 | 13 | 15 | 15 | 19 | 15 |
| DISAGREE | | | | | | | |
| 4% | 5% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 5% | 5% |
Q.9_04 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change?
- Different types of trees should be planted that will be more suited to future climates Base: All Adults 16+
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 3 | 2 | 12 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| * | | |
| 1% | 1% | |
| * | * | |
| 1% | | |
| * | | |
| 2% | 1% | 1% |
| 34 | 7 | 36 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 3% | 2% | 4% |
| 138 | 65 | 123 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 14% | 21% | 15% |
| or disagree | | |
| 574 | 175 | 442 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 59% | 56% | 54% |
| 192 | 55 | 176 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 20% | 18% | 21% |
| 36 | 5 | 35 |
| Don't know | | |
| 4% | 2% | 4% |
| 3.975 | 3.903 | 3.930 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.725 | 0.731 | 0.834 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 767 | 231 | 618 |
| AGREE | | |
| 78% | 74% | 75% |
| 37 | 9 | 48 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 4% | 3% | 6% |
Q.9_04 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change?
- Different types of trees should be planted that will be more suited to future climates Base: All Adults 16+
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
-
-
3
2
2
-
1
-
5
-
2
1
16
17
Strongly disagree
(1)
-
-
1%
1%
1%
-
1%
-
3%
-
3%
*
1%
1%
-
8
17
9
8
4
9
3
5
10
-
5
68
77
Disagree
(2)
-
4%
6%
4%
4%
4%
4%
2%
3%
4%
-
3%
4%
4%
5
33
36
49
29
18
31
17
21
33
23
33
271
327
Neither agree
(3)
10%
18%
12%
19%
14%
17%
16%
12%
11%
14%
27%
18%
15%
15%
or disagree
21
104
178
135
90
58
124
88
119
139
37
98
1013
1191
Agree
(4)
44%
56%
61%
52%
43%
55%
64%
64%
64%
59%
43%
55%
57%
56%
21
28
49
46
71
21
24
25
29
49
23
37
344
424
Strongly agree
(5)
44%
15%
17%
18%
34%
20%
12%
18%
16%
21%
27%
21%
19%
20%
1
13
9
18
7
3
5
4
6
3
-
6
66
77
Don't know
2%
7%
3%
7%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
1%
-
3%
4%
4%
4.356
3.887
3.887
3.891
4.099
3.944
3.857
4.016
3.905
3.980
3.915
3.957
3.935
3.947
Mean Score
0.659
0.721
0.803
0.774
0.870
0.748
0.714
0.639
0.807
0.728
0.883
0.743
0.775
0.770
Standard Deviation
42
133
227
180
161
80
149
113
148
188
59
135
1358
1615
AGREE
88%
71%
77%
70%
78%
75%
77%
82%
80%
80%
70%
75%
76%
76%
-
8
21
11
10
4
10
3
10
10
2
5
84
94
DISAGREE
-
4%
7%
4%
5%
4%
5%
2%
5%
4%
3%
3%
5%
4%
Q.9_04 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change?
- Different types of trees should be planted that will be more suited to future climates Base: All Adults 16+
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
5
11
-
-
-
3
4
9
8
17
Strongly disagree
(1)
2%
1%
-
-
-
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2
75
-
-
3
11
8
55
22
77
Disagree
(2)
1%
4%
-
-
3%
5%
3%
4%
3%
4%
37
290
1
4
8
29
57
228
99
327
Neither agree
(3)
14%
16%
9%
19%
11%
12%
19%
16%
15%
15%
or disagree
145
1043
7
12
44
129
176
822
369
1191
Agree
(4)
57%
56%
91%
60%
57%
54%
58%
56%
57%
56%
50
373
-
4
20
57
48
295
129
424
Strongly agree
(5)
20%
20%
-
21%
26%
24%
16%
20%
20%
20%
14
63
-
-
3
10
10
53
23
77
Don't know
5%
3%
-
-
4%
4%
3%
4%
4%
4%
3.976
3.943
3.909
4.015
4.086
3.986
3.864
3.949
3.941
3.947
Mean Score
0.768
0.768
0.308
0.651
0.718
0.830
0.769
0.766
0.781
0.770
Standard Deviation
195
1416
7
17
64
186
224
1118
498
1615
AGREE
77%
76%
91%
81%
82%
78%
73%
76%
77%
76%
7
86
-
-
3
14
13
65
29
94
DISAGREE
3%
5%
-
-
3%
6%
4%
4%
5%
4%
Q.9_04 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements about the ways in which forests and woodlands in the uk can impact on climate change?
- Different types of trees should be planted that will be more suited to future climates Base: All Adults 16+
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 12 | 5 | 16 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% |
| * | | |
| 2% | | |
| * | | |
| 1% | | |
| 68 | 9 | 52 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 4% | 2% | 3% |
| 264 | 63 | 255 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 15% | 16% | 15% |
| or disagree | | |
| 972 | 219 | 984 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 56% | 56% | 58% |
| 342 | 82 | 331 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 20% | 21% | 19% |
| 67 | 10 | 65 |
| Don't know | | |
| 4% | 3% | 4% |
| 3.943 | 3.962 | 3.954 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.770 | 0.774 | 0.755 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 1314 | 301 | 1315 |
| AGREE | | |
| 76% | 78% | 77% |
| 80 | 14 | 68 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 5% | 4% | 4% |
## Q.9 Would You Agree Or Disagree With The Following Statements About The Ways In Which Forests And Woodlands In The Uk Can Impact On Climate Change? - Summary Table Base: All Adults 16+
| Different types | Trees should |
|--------------------|----------------|
| of trees should | not be felled |
| be planted that | in any |
| will be more | circumstances, |
| suited to | even if they |
| future climates | are replaced |
| 2113 | 2113 |
| Unweighted Base | |
| 2113 | 2113 |
| Weighted Base | |
| 17 | 155 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) |
| 1% | 7% |
| 77 | 865 |
| Disagree | (2) |
| 4% | 41% |
| 327 | 470 |
| Neither agree | (3) |
| 15% | 22% |
| or disagree | |
| 1191 | 445 |
| Agree | (4) |
| 56% | 21% |
| 424 | 111 |
| Strongly agree | (5) |
| 20% | 5% |
| 77 | 68 |
| Don't know | |
| 4% | 3% |
| 3.947 | 2.751 |
| Mean Score | |
| 0.770 | 1.048 |
| Standard Deviation | |
| 1615 | 555 |
| AGREE | |
| 76% | 26% |
| 94 | 1020 |
| DISAGREE | |
| 4% | 48% |
## Q.10_01 Would You Agree Or Disagree With The Following Statements Relating To Tree Health? - Everyone Should Take Action When Visiting Woodlands To Help Prevent The Spread Of Damaging Tree Pests And Diseases Base: All Adults 16+
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 1101 | 1012 | 544 | 303 | 319 | 326 | 336 | 285 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 1087 | 1026 | 410 | 318 | 344 | 374 | 369 | 297 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 6 | 9 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | - | 1 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | | | | | | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | | |
| - | * | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| 50 | 61 | 17 | 16 | 14 | 18 | 22 | 23 |
| Disagree | (2) | | | | | | |
| 5% | 6% | 4% | 5% | 4% | 5% | 6% | 8% |
| 154 | 169 | 51 | 40 | 65 | 55 | 56 | 57 |
| Neither agree | (3) | | | | | | |
| 14% | 17% | 12% | 12% | 19% | 15% | 15% | 19% |
| or disagree | | | | | | | |
| 615 | 558 | 239 | 175 | 175 | 222 | 192 | 170 |
| Agree | (4) | | | | | | |
| 57% | 54% | 58% | 55% | 51% | 59% | 52% | 57% |
| 209 | 182 | 83 | 70 | 75 | 65 | 63 | 36 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | | | | | | |
| 19% | 18% | 20% | 22% | 22% | 17% | 17% | 12% |
| 53 | 46 | 17 | 14 | 10 | 12 | 36 | 11 |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| 5% | 5% | 4% | 4% | 3% | 3% | 10% | 4% |
| 3.938 | 3.861 | 3.972 | 3.954 | 3.901 | 3.908 | 3.889 | 3.750 |
| Mean Score | | | | | | | |
| 0.772 | 0.819 | 0.763 | 0.828 | 0.843 | 0.762 | 0.781 | 0.791 |
| Standard Deviation | | | | | | | |
| 824 | 740 | 322 | 245 | 250 | 287 | 255 | 205 |
| AGREE | | | | | | | |
| 76% | 72% | 79% | 77% | 73% | 77% | 69% | 69% |
| 56 | 70 | 20 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 22 | 25 |
| DISAGREE | | | | | | | |
| 5% | 7% | 5% | 6% | 6% | 5% | 6% | 8% |
Q.10_01 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - Everyone should take action when visiting woodlands to help prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases Base: All Adults 16+
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 9 | 1 | 6 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 1% | | |
| * | | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% |
| 49 | 10 | 51 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 5% | 3% | 6% |
| 141 | 50 | 133 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 14% | 16% | 16% |
| or disagree | | |
| 544 | 180 | 449 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 56% | 58% | 55% |
| 186 | 54 | 151 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 19% | 17% | 18% |
| 49 | 16 | 34 |
| Don't know | | |
| 5% | 5% | 4% |
| 3.915 | 3.936 | 3.871 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.801 | 0.717 | 0.817 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 730 | 234 | 600 |
| AGREE | | |
| 75% | 75% | 73% |
| 58 | 11 | 57 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 6% | 4% | 7% |
Q.10_01 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - Everyone should take action when visiting woodlands to help prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases Base: All Adults 16+
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
-
1
3
1
-
1
1
1
3
3
-
1
14
15
Strongly disagree
(1)
-
1%
1%
*
-
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
-
*
1%
1%
1
14
20
13
6
4
10
7
6
14
1
15
91
111
Disagree
(2)
3%
7%
7%
5%
3%
4%
5%
5%
3%
6%
1%
8%
5%
5%
3
34
42
37
30
14
34
31
26
28
15
28
279
324
Neither agree
(3)
5%
18%
14%
14%
15%
14%
18%
23%
14%
12%
17%
16%
16%
15%
or disagree
23
107
160
140
98
63
130
68
107
145
45
88
999
1173
Agree
(4)
48%
57%
54%
54%
47%
60%
67%
50%
58%
62%
53%
49%
56%
56%
19
18
55
43
70
17
18
21
28
40
21
41
314
391
Strongly agree
(5)
39%
10%
19%
17%
34%
17%
10%
15%
15%
17%
25%
23%
18%
18%
2
13
13
24
3
6
-
9
14
4
4
8
84
100
Don't know
5%
7%
4%
9%
1%
5%
-
6%
8%
2%
5%
4%
5%
5%
4.285
3.728
3.869
3.901
4.131
3.930
3.800
3.791
3.886
3.886
4.064
3.890
3.890
3.901
Mean Score
0.723
0.776
0.850
0.771
0.772
0.735
0.699
0.807
0.788
0.809
0.687
0.879
0.790
0.796
Standard Deviation
42
124
215
183
167
81
149
89
135
185
66
129
1313
1564
AGREE
86%
67%
73%
71%
81%
76%
77%
65%
73%
79%
77%
72%
74%
74%
1
15
23
14
6
5
11
8
9
17
1
15
104
126
DISAGREE
3%
8%
8%
5%
3%
4%
6%
6%
5%
7%
1%
9%
6%
6%
Q.10_01 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - Everyone should take action when visiting woodlands to help prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases Base: All Adults 16+
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
1
14
-
-
-
1
-
14
1
15
Strongly disagree
(1)
*
1%
-
-
-
1%
-
1%
*
1%
10
101
-
1
6
18
11
75
36
111
Disagree
(2)
4%
5%
-
4%
7%
7%
4%
5%
5%
5%
43
281
-
4
11
32
63
214
110
324
Neither agree
(3)
17%
15%
-
21%
14%
13%
21%
15%
17%
15%
or disagree
140
1029
8
11
38
131
165
820
354
1173
Agree
(4)
56%
55%
100%
52%
49%
55%
54%
56%
54%
56%
36
354
-
4
17
45
51
274
117
391
Strongly agree
(5)
14%
19%
-
19%
21%
19%
17%
19%
18%
18%
23
77
-
1
6
12
13
67
32
100
Don't know
9%
4%
-
5%
8%
5%
4%
5%
5%
5%
3.870
3.904
4.000
3.897
3.925
3.887
3.880
3.906
3.890
3.901
Mean Score
0.737
0.804
0.000
0.767
0.840
0.833
0.734
0.803
0.779
0.796
Standard Deviation
176
1382
8
15
55
177
217
1093
471
1564
AGREE
70%
75%
100%
70%
71%
74%
71%
75%
72%
74%
11
115
-
1
6
19
11
89
37
126
DISAGREE
4%
6%
-
4%
7%
8%
4%
6%
6%
6%
Q.10_01 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - Everyone should take action when visiting woodlands to help prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases Base: All Adults 16+
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 12 | 3 | 12 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% |
| * | | |
| 1% | | |
| 90 | 21 | 88 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 5% | 5% | 5% |
| 255 | 69 | 269 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 15% | 18% | 16% |
| or disagree | | |
| 975 | 198 | 947 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 57% | 51% | 56% |
| 319 | 72 | 302 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 19% | 18% | 18% |
| 74 | 25 | 84 |
| Don't know | | |
| 4% | 7% | 5% |
| 3.909 | 3.864 | 3.889 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.788 | 0.828 | 0.791 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 1294 | 270 | 1249 |
| AGREE | | |
| 75% | 69% | 73% |
| 102 | 24 | 100 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 6% | 6% | 6% |
Q.10_02 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - I would be willing to look out for and report sightings of pests and diseases on trees, if appropriate information and advice was available to me Base: All Adults 16+
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 1101 | 1012 | 544 | 303 | 319 | 326 | 336 | 285 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 1087 | 1026 | 410 | 318 | 344 | 374 | 369 | 297 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 28 | 21 | 14 | 8 | 10 | 2 | 5 | 11 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | | | | | | |
| 3% | 2% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 1% | 1% | 4% |
| 119 | 137 | 67 | 38 | 41 | 37 | 37 | 36 |
| Disagree | (2) | | | | | | |
| 11% | 13% | 16% | 12% | 12% | 10% | 10% | 12% |
| 171 | 177 | 67 | 39 | 53 | 63 | 70 | 56 |
| Neither agree | (3) | | | | | | |
| 16% | 17% | 16% | 12% | 15% | 17% | 19% | 19% |
| or disagree | | | | | | | |
| 584 | 541 | 199 | 183 | 178 | 212 | 196 | 159 |
| Agree | (4) | | | | | | |
| 54% | 53% | 49% | 57% | 52% | 57% | 53% | 53% |
| 143 | 108 | 50 | 41 | 54 | 46 | 36 | 25 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | | | | | | |
| 13% | 11% | 12% | 13% | 16% | 12% | 10% | 8% |
| 41 | 40 | 13 | 10 | 8 | 13 | 26 | 11 |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| 4% | 4% | 3% | 3% | 2% | 4% | 7% | 4% |
| 3.665 | 3.588 | 3.515 | 3.682 | 3.673 | 3.731 | 3.641 | 3.524 |
| Mean Score | | | | | | | |
| 0.942 | 0.933 | 1.026 | 0.940 | 0.984 | 0.833 | 0.863 | 0.948 |
| Standard Deviation | | | | | | | |
| 728 | 650 | 249 | 223 | 232 | 258 | 231 | 183 |
| AGREE | | | | | | | |
| 67% | 63% | 61% | 70% | 68% | 69% | 63% | 62% |
| 148 | 158 | 81 | 46 | 51 | 39 | 42 | 47 |
| DISAGREE | | | | | | | |
| 14% | 15% | 20% | 14% | 15% | 10% | 11% | 16% |
Q.10_02 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - I would be willing to look out for and report sightings of pests and diseases on trees, if appropriate information and advice was available to me Base: All Adults 16+
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 30 | 2 | 18 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 3% | 1% | 2% |
| 122 | 33 | 101 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 13% | 11% | 12% |
| 162 | 63 | 123 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 17% | 20% | 15% |
| or disagree | | |
| 514 | 163 | 448 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 53% | 53% | 54% |
| 112 | 39 | 101 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 11% | 13% | 12% |
| 37 | 11 | 33 |
| Don't know | | |
| 4% | 3% | 4% |
| 3.590 | 3.686 | 3.650 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.966 | 0.856 | 0.934 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 626 | 203 | 549 |
| AGREE | | |
| 64% | 65% | 67% |
| 153 | 34 | 119 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 16% | 11% | 14% |
Q.10_02 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - I would be willing to look out for and report sightings of pests and diseases on trees, if appropriate information and advice was available to me Base: All Adults 16+
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
1
9
7
1
-
8
-
2
11
2
-
8
33
49
Strongly disagree
(1)
2%
5%
2%
*
-
7%
-
2%
6%
1%
-
5%
2%
2%
4
32
29
34
14
12
31
11
17
32
9
31
209
256
Disagree
(2)
8%
17%
10%
13%
7%
12%
16%
8%
9%
14%
11%
17%
12%
12%
4
30
51
51
30
17
39
28
28
40
12
19
309
348
Neither agree
(3)
8%
16%
17%
20%
14%
16%
20%
20%
15%
17%
15%
11%
17%
16%
or disagree
27
90
165
126
112
56
104
81
98
133
48
85
958
1126
Agree
(4)
57%
48%
56%
49%
54%
53%
54%
59%
53%
57%
57%
48%
54%
53%
10
21
31
22
46
9
18
10
17
24
13
30
203
252
Strongly agree
(5)
21%
11%
11%
9%
22%
8%
9%
7%
9%
10%
16%
17%
11%
12%
2
5
11
23
4
4
3
5
14
2
2
6
69
82
Don't know
5%
3%
4%
9%
2%
4%
1%
3%
8%
1%
2%
3%
4%
4%
3.915
3.457
3.653
3.570
3.938
3.447
3.574
3.641
3.541
3.631
3.789
3.561
3.637
3.627
Mean Score
0.903
1.061
0.897
0.872
0.812
1.060
0.869
0.817
1.017
0.879
0.848
1.117
0.910
0.938
Standard Deviation
37
111
196
148
158
64
122
91
115
158
61
116
1161
1378
AGREE
78%
59%
67%
57%
77%
61%
63%
66%
62%
67%
72%
64%
65%
65%
5
40
36
35
14
20
31
14
28
34
9
39
241
306
DISAGREE
10%
22%
12%
14%
7%
19%
16%
10%
15%
14%
11%
22%
14%
14%
Q.10_02 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - I would be willing to look out for and report sightings of pests and diseases on trees, if appropriate information and advice was available to me Base: All Adults 16+
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
4
45
-
1
1
5
3
39
10
49
Strongly disagree
(1)
2%
2%
-
4%
1%
2%
1%
3%
2%
2%
25
230
1
2
5
25
32
191
65
256
Disagree
(2)
10%
12%
9%
9%
6%
11%
10%
13%
10%
12%
57
290
1
8
20
38
57
224
124
348
Neither agree
(3)
23%
16%
11%
38%
26%
16%
19%
15%
19%
16%
or disagree
121
1002
6
7
39
130
166
778
348
1126
Agree
(4)
48%
54%
80%
34%
50%
54%
55%
53%
54%
53%
25
226
-
2
10
32
35
172
79
252
Strongly agree
(5)
10%
12%
-
9%
13%
13%
12%
12%
12%
12%
21
61
-
1
3
9
11
58
24
82
Don't know
8%
3%
-
5%
3%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3.590
3.632
3.706
3.366
3.708
3.681
3.679
3.607
3.673
3.627
Mean Score
0.885
0.945
0.668
0.970
0.831
0.927
0.859
0.962
0.882
0.938
Standard Deviation
145
1228
6
9
49
161
201
951
427
1378
AGREE
58%
66%
80%
43%
63%
67%
66%
65%
66%
65%
29
276
1
3
6
31
35
231
75
306
DISAGREE
12%
15%
9%
14%
7%
13%
11%
16%
12%
14%
Q.10_02 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - I would be willing to look out for and report sightings of pests and diseases on trees, if appropriate information and advice was available to me Base: All Adults 16+
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 35 | 14 | 34 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 2% | 4% | 2% |
| 202 | 55 | 208 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 12% | 14% | 12% |
| 272 | 76 | 290 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 16% | 20% | 17% |
| or disagree | | |
| 948 | 178 | 908 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 55% | 46% | 53% |
| 201 | 51 | 194 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 12% | 13% | 11% |
| 67 | 15 | 70 |
| Don't know | | |
| 4% | 4% | 4% |
| 3.651 | 3.524 | 3.625 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.917 | 1.024 | 0.922 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 1149 | 228 | 1102 |
| AGREE | | |
| 67% | 59% | 65% |
| 237 | 69 | 242 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 14% | 18% | 14% |
## Q.10_03 Would You Agree Or Disagree With The Following Statements Relating To Tree Health? - There Is Very Little That Anyone Can Do To Prevent The Spread Of Damaging Tree Pests And Diseases. Base: All Adults 16+
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 1101 | 1012 | 544 | 303 | 319 | 326 | 336 | 285 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 1087 | 1026 | 410 | 318 | 344 | 374 | 369 | 297 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 93 | 94 | 28 | 36 | 41 | 25 | 36 | 19 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | | | | | | |
| 9% | 9% | 7% | 11% | 12% | 7% | 10% | 7% |
| 461 | 394 | 152 | 143 | 149 | 167 | 125 | 119 |
| Disagree | (2) | | | | | | |
| 42% | 38% | 37% | 45% | 43% | 45% | 34% | 40% |
| 209 | 209 | 74 | 45 | 62 | 77 | 85 | 75 |
| Neither agree | (3) | | | | | | |
| 19% | 20% | 18% | 14% | 18% | 21% | 23% | 25% |
| or disagree | | | | | | | |
| 198 | 240 | 101 | 66 | 63 | 75 | 75 | 59 |
| Agree | (4) | | | | | | |
| 18% | 23% | 25% | 21% | 18% | 20% | 20% | 20% |
| 25 | 25 | 15 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 11 | 8 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | | | | | | |
| 2% | 2% | 4% | 1% | 2% | 2% | 3% | 3% |
| 101 | 63 | 40 | 24 | 23 | 23 | 37 | 17 |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| 9% | 6% | 10% | 8% | 7% | 6% | 10% | 6% |
| 2.597 | 2.696 | 2.789 | 2.521 | 2.507 | 2.629 | 2.698 | 2.707 |
| Mean Score | | | | | | | |
| 0.994 | 1.030 | 1.052 | 1.018 | 1.002 | 0.957 | 1.040 | 0.974 |
| Standard Deviation | | | | | | | |
| 224 | 265 | 116 | 70 | 68 | 81 | 86 | 67 |
| AGREE | | | | | | | |
| 21% | 26% | 28% | 22% | 20% | 22% | 23% | 23% |
| 554 | 488 | 180 | 179 | 191 | 192 | 161 | 138 |
| DISAGREE | | | | | | | |
| 51% | 48% | 44% | 56% | 55% | 52% | 44% | 47% |
Q.10_03 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - There is very little that anyone can do to prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases.
Base: All Adults 16+
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 81 | 28 | 78 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 8% | 9% | 9% |
| 376 | 124 | 355 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 38% | 40% | 43% |
| 181 | 75 | 162 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 18% | 24% | 20% |
| or disagree | | |
| 229 | 53 | 157 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 23% | 17% | 19% |
| 30 | 6 | 14 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 3% | 2% | 2% |
| 82 | 24 | 58 |
| Don't know | | |
| 8% | 8% | 7% |
| 2.722 | 2.596 | 2.575 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 1.045 | 0.972 | 0.984 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 258 | 59 | 171 |
| AGREE | | |
| 26% | 19% | 21% |
| 457 | 153 | 433 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 47% | 49% | 52% |
Q.10_03 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - There is very little that anyone can do to prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases.
Base: All Adults 16+
## Government Regions
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
7
16
32
15
30
4
12
11
14
16
6
24
152
187
Strongly disagree
(1)
14%
9%
11%
6%
15%
4%
6%
8%
8%
7%
7%
14%
9%
9%
26
93
116
90
84
40
100
48
58
100
26
74
715
855
Disagree
(2)
53%
50%
39%
35%
40%
38%
51%
35%
32%
43%
31%
41%
40%
40%
4
29
57
53
55
22
36
25
42
42
22
31
361
418
Neither agree
(3)
8%
15%
19%
21%
27%
21%
18%
19%
23%
18%
26%
17%
20%
20%
or disagree
7
26
65
49
16
23
38
40
54
57
23
39
369
438
Agree
(4)
15%
14%
22%
19%
8%
22%
20%
29%
29%
24%
27%
22%
21%
21%
3
-
6
12
4
4
1
2
3
10
5
2
42
50
Strongly agree
(5)
5%
-
2%
5%
2%
4%
*
1%
1%
4%
6%
1%
2%
2%
2
22
18
40
17
12
7
12
13
9
3
9
141
164
Don't know
5%
12%
6%
15%
8%
11%
4%
9%
7%
4%
4%
5%
8%
8%
2.429
2.398
2.622
2.788
2.369
2.821
2.545
2.791
2.844
2.759
2.944
2.525
2.655
2.646
Mean Score
1.100
0.873
1.034
1.040
0.928
1.007
0.903
1.026
1.013
1.052
1.063
1.028
1.008
1.013
Standard Deviation
10
26
71
61
21
27
39
41
57
67
28
41
411
489
AGREE
20%
14%
24%
24%
10%
26%
20%
30%
31%
29%
33%
23%
23%
23%
32
109
148
104
114
44
112
59
72
116
32
99
867
1042
DISAGREE
67%
59%
50%
40%
55%
42%
58%
43%
39%
49%
38%
55%
49%
49%
Q.10_03 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - There is very little that anyone can do to prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases.
Base: All Adults 16+
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
18
168
-
2
11
14
30
131
56
187
Strongly disagree
(1)
7%
9%
-
9%
14%
6%
10%
9%
9%
9%
74
778
3
6
31
100
115
602
253
855
Disagree
(2)
29%
42%
33%
27%
40%
42%
38%
41%
39%
40%
54
363
3
6
10
53
71
276
142
418
Neither agree
(3)
22%
20%
35%
28%
13%
22%
23%
19%
22%
20%
or disagree
68
371
2
5
16
46
63
307
131
438
Agree
(4)
27%
20%
20%
25%
21%
19%
21%
21%
20%
21%
12
38
-
-
3
8
7
32
18
50
Strongly agree
(5)
5%
2%
-
-
4%
3%
2%
2%
3%
2%
26
138
1
2
7
19
19
116
48
164
Don't know
10%
7%
11%
11%
9%
8%
6%
8%
7%
8%
2.925
2.611
2.853
2.776
2.559
2.702
2.662
2.635
2.670
2.646
Mean Score
1.076
0.999
0.827
1.001
1.122
0.987
1.016
1.012
1.014
1.013
Standard Deviation
80
408
2
5
19
54
70
339
149
489
AGREE
32%
22%
20%
25%
24%
22%
23%
23%
23%
23%
92
946
3
7
42
113
145
732
310
1042
DISAGREE
36%
51%
33%
36%
54%
47%
48%
50%
48%
49%
Q.10_03 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - There is very little that anyone can do to prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases.
Base: All Adults 16+
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 159 | 28 | 135 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 9% | 7% | 8% |
| 724 | 131 | 696 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 42% | 34% | 41% |
| 343 | 75 | 347 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 20% | 19% | 20% |
| or disagree | | |
| 330 | 109 | 355 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 19% | 28% | 21% |
| 31 | 19 | 40 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 2% | 5% | 2% |
| 138 | 26 | 130 |
| Don't know | | |
| 8% | 7% | 8% |
| 2.590 | 2.891 | 2.661 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.988 | 1.083 | 0.999 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 361 | 128 | 395 |
| AGREE | | |
| 21% | 33% | 23% |
| 883 | 159 | 831 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 51% | 41% | 49% |
## Q.10_04 Would You Agree Or Disagree With The Following Statements Relating To Tree Health? - Action Should Be Taken By Authorities And Woodland Managers To Protect Trees From Damaging Pests And Diseases. Base: All Adults 16+
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 1101 | 1012 | 544 | 303 | 319 | 326 | 336 | 285 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 1087 | 1026 | 410 | 318 | 344 | 374 | 369 | 297 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 3 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | | | | | | |
| * | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| * | | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| * | * | | | | | | |
| 1% | | | | | | | |
| * | * | | | | | | |
| 10 | 16 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Disagree | (2) | | | | | | |
| 1% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 1% |
| 92 | 110 | 31 | 19 | 35 | 34 | 47 | 36 |
| Neither agree | (3) | | | | | | |
| 8% | 11% | 8% | 6% | 10% | 9% | 13% | 12% |
| or disagree | | | | | | | |
| 671 | 629 | 255 | 198 | 204 | 238 | 212 | 193 |
| Agree | (4) | | | | | | |
| 62% | 61% | 62% | 62% | 59% | 64% | 57% | 65% |
| 272 | 227 | 111 | 83 | 88 | 88 | 74 | 56 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | | | | | | |
| 25% | 22% | 27% | 26% | 26% | 23% | 20% | 19% |
| 39 | 38 | 9 | 12 | 10 | 11 | 27 | 9 |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| 4% | 4% | 2% | 4% | 3% | 3% | 7% | 3% |
| 4.144 | 4.068 | 4.178 | 4.156 | 4.117 | 4.126 | 4.015 | 4.032 |
| Mean Score | | | | | | | |
| 0.624 | 0.674 | 0.606 | 0.658 | 0.673 | 0.610 | 0.707 | 0.634 |
| Standard Deviation | | | | | | | |
| 943 | 856 | 366 | 280 | 293 | 325 | 286 | 248 |
| AGREE | | | | | | | |
| 87% | 83% | 89% | 88% | 85% | 87% | 77% | 83% |
| 13 | 22 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 5 |
| DISAGREE | | | | | | | |
| 1% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 2% | 1% | 3% | 2% |
Q.10_04 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - Action should be taken by authorities and woodland managers to protect trees from damaging pests and diseases.
Base: All Adults 16+
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| * | | |
| 1% | | |
| * | * | * |
| 1% | 1% | |
| * | * | * |
| 10 | 3 | 13 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 1% | 1% | 2% |
| 97 | 36 | 69 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 10% | 12% | 8% |
| or disagree | | |
| 591 | 193 | 515 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 60% | 62% | 62% |
| 243 | 65 | 191 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 25% | 21% | 23% |
| 36 | 9 | 33 |
| Don't know | | |
| 4% | 3% | 4% |
| 4.129 | 4.040 | 4.107 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.634 | 0.692 | 0.651 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 834 | 258 | 706 |
| AGREE | | |
| 85% | 83% | 86% |
| 12 | 7 | 17 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 1% | 2% | 2% |
Q.10_04 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - Action should be taken by authorities and woodland managers to protect trees from damaging pests and diseases.
Base: All Adults 16+
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
-
1
2
1
-
-
1
-
3
1
-
-
8
8
Strongly disagree
(1)
-
1%
1%
*
-
-
1%
-
2%
*
-
-
*
*
-
5
4
4
-
1
3
1
4
2
1
2
24
26
Disagree
(2)
-
3%
2%
2%
-
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
3
20
18
32
14
10
25
17
16
24
11
11
178
202
Neither agree
(3)
7%
11%
6%
12%
7%
9%
13%
12%
9%
10%
13%
6%
10%
10%
or disagree
26
111
192
148
105
74
134
82
116
152
46
114
1086
1300
Agree
(4)
53%
60%
65%
57%
51%
70%
69%
59%
63%
65%
55%
64%
61%
62%
19
44
66
53
79
16
29
35
35
53
23
47
417
499
Strongly agree
(5)
39%
23%
23%
21%
38%
15%
15%
25%
19%
23%
27%
26%
23%
24%
1
6
11
20
8
5
1
4
10
3
3
6
66
78
Don't know
1%
3%
4%
8%
4%
5%
1%
3%
6%
1%
3%
3%
4%
4%
4.324
4.060
4.121
4.045
4.328
4.050
3.971
4.124
4.003
4.102
4.105
4.191
4.096
4.107
Mean Score
0.602
0.714
0.632
0.672
0.604
0.531
0.630
0.629
0.750
0.617
0.693
0.581
0.663
0.650
Standard Deviation
44
155
258
201
185
90
163
116
151
205
69
161
1503
1798
AGREE
92%
83%
88%
78%
89%
85%
84%
85%
82%
88%
81%
90%
84%
85%
-
6
6
5
-
1
4
1
7
2
1
2
33
35
DISAGREE
-
3%
2%
2%
-
1%
2%
1%
4%
1%
2%
1%
2%
2%
Q.10_04 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - Action should be taken by authorities and woodland managers to protect trees from damaging pests and diseases.
Base: All Adults 16+
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
2
7
-
-
-
1
3
5
4
8
Strongly disagree
(1)
1%
*
-
-
-
1%
1%
*
1%
*
6
20
-
-
1
1
4
21
5
26
Disagree
(2)
2%
1%
-
-
1%
*
1%
1%
1%
1%
34
168
2
4
7
22
48
120
82
202
Neither agree
(3)
13%
9%
20%
19%
9%
9%
16%
8%
13%
10%
or disagree
155
1143
4
11
51
152
175
906
393
1300
Agree
(4)
61%
62%
55%
51%
66%
64%
58%
62%
61%
62%
39
457
1
5
16
55
64
357
141
499
Strongly agree
(5)
16%
25%
13%
24%
20%
23%
21%
24%
22%
24%
17
60
1
1
3
8
11
54
24
78
Don't know
7%
3%
11%
5%
4%
3%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3.953
4.127
3.917
4.052
4.097
4.119
4.005
4.129
4.058
4.107
Mean Score
0.686
0.642
0.657
0.695
0.588
0.625
0.715
0.641
0.668
0.650
Standard Deviation
194
1600
5
16
67
207
240
1264
535
1798
AGREE
77%
86%
68%
76%
86%
87%
79%
86%
82%
85%
8
27
-
-
1
2
6
26
9
35
DISAGREE
3%
1%
-
-
1%
1%
2%
2%
1%
2%
Q.10_04 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - Action should be taken by authorities and woodland managers to protect trees from damaging pests and diseases.
Base: All Adults 16+
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| * | | |
| 1% | | |
| * | * | |
| 1% | | |
| * | * | |
| 22 | 5 | 17 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 1% | 1% | 1% |
| 151 | 51 | 165 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 9% | 13% | 10% |
| or disagree | | |
| 1092 | 208 | 1069 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 63% | 53% | 63% |
| 396 | 102 | 375 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 23% | 26% | 22% |
| 61 | 17 | 69 |
| Don't know | | |
| 4% | 4% | 4% |
| 4.116 | 4.070 | 4.095 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.620 | 0.768 | 0.635 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 1488 | 310 | 1444 |
| AGREE | | |
| 86% | 80% | 85% |
| 25 | 10 | 24 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 1% | 3% | 1% |
Q.10_05 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - If I buy an imported tree, it is more likely to carry tree pests and diseases than a tree grown in the UK.
Base: All Adults 16+
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 1101 | 1012 | 544 | 303 | 319 | 326 | 336 | 285 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 1087 | 1026 | 410 | 318 | 344 | 374 | 369 | 297 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 12 | 24 | 6 | 6 | 13 | 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | | | | | | |
| 1% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 4% | | | |
| * | | | | | | | |
| 1% | 2% | 2% | | | | | |
| 81 | 95 | 27 | 29 | 30 | 43 | 28 | 20 |
| Disagree | (2) | | | | | | |
| 7% | 9% | 7% | 9% | 9% | 11% | 8% | 7% |
| 327 | 308 | 99 | 87 | 90 | 143 | 99 | 116 |
| Neither agree | (3) | | | | | | |
| 30% | 30% | 24% | 27% | 26% | 38% | 27% | 39% |
| or disagree | | | | | | | |
| 425 | 398 | 176 | 115 | 143 | 117 | 156 | 115 |
| Agree | (4) | | | | | | |
| 39% | 39% | 43% | 36% | 42% | 31% | 42% | 39% |
| 99 | 84 | 51 | 31 | 29 | 30 | 28 | 14 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | | | | | | |
| 9% | 8% | 12% | 10% | 9% | 8% | 8% | 5% |
| 143 | 117 | 51 | 50 | 39 | 38 | 54 | 27 |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| 13% | 11% | 12% | 16% | 11% | 10% | 15% | 9% |
| 3.549 | 3.466 | 3.664 | 3.511 | 3.480 | 3.395 | 3.549 | 3.425 |
| Mean Score | | | | | | | |
| 0.842 | 0.896 | 0.871 | 0.909 | 0.947 | 0.840 | 0.839 | 0.777 |
| Standard Deviation | | | | | | | |
| 524 | 482 | 227 | 146 | 173 | 148 | 184 | 129 |
| AGREE | | | | | | | |
| 48% | 47% | 55% | 46% | 50% | 40% | 50% | 44% |
| 93 | 119 | 33 | 35 | 43 | 44 | 33 | 25 |
| DISAGREE | | | | | | | |
| 9% | 12% | 8% | 11% | 12% | 12% | 9% | 8% |
Q.10_05 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - If I buy an imported tree, it is more likely to carry tree pests and diseases than a tree grown in the UK.
Base: All Adults 16+
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 14 | 3 | 20 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 1% | 1% | 2% |
| 62 | 23 | 91 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 6% | 7% | 11% |
| 286 | 112 | 236 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 29% | 36% | 29% |
| or disagree | | |
| 401 | 118 | 304 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 41% | 38% | 37% |
| 87 | 19 | 77 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 9% | 6% | 9% |
| 128 | 36 | 95 |
| Don't know | | |
| 13% | 12% | 12% |
| 3.572 | 3.466 | 3.450 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.833 | 0.785 | 0.935 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 488 | 137 | 382 |
| AGREE | | |
| 50% | 44% | 46% |
| 75 | 26 | 111 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 8% | 8% | 13% |
Q.10_05 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - If I buy an imported tree, it is more likely to carry tree pests and diseases than a tree grown in the UK.
Base: All Adults 16+
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
3
3
8
6
4
1
2
2
2
4
1
1
31
36
Strongly disagree
(1)
7%
1%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
*
2%
2%
6
24
20
22
15
8
14
13
15
21
4
14
148
176
Disagree
(2)
13%
13%
7%
8%
7%
8%
7%
9%
8%
9%
5%
8%
8%
8%
13
37
85
76
72
42
70
36
47
76
16
65
514
634
Neither agree
(3)
27%
20%
29%
29%
35%
39%
36%
26%
25%
32%
19%
36%
29%
30%
or disagree
16
71
112
91
69
38
89
56
86
88
44
64
705
823
Agree
(4)
33%
38%
38%
35%
34%
36%
46%
41%
46%
38%
51%
36%
40%
39%
6
15
27
20
29
8
8
12
13
22
8
15
154
184
Strongly agree
(5)
12%
8%
9%
8%
14%
8%
4%
9%
7%
10%
10%
8%
9%
9%
4
37
42
44
17
9
12
19
22
23
11
21
226
260
Don't know
9%
20%
14%
17%
8%
8%
6%
14%
12%
10%
12%
11%
13%
12%
3.337
3.474
3.520
3.454
3.553
3.465
3.476
3.541
3.570
3.491
3.714
3.493
3.517
3.508
Mean Score
1.118
0.941
0.903
0.896
0.916
0.802
0.739
0.872
0.822
0.883
0.817
0.806
0.872
0.870
Standard Deviation
22
86
139
111
98
46
97
68
99
110
52
79
860
1007
AGREE
45%
46%
47%
43%
48%
44%
50%
50%
54%
47%
61%
44%
48%
48%
9
27
28
28
19
9
16
14
17
25
6
15
179
212
DISAGREE
19%
14%
9%
11%
9%
8%
8%
10%
9%
11%
7%
8%
10%
10%
Q.10_05 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - If I buy an imported tree, it is more likely to carry tree pests and diseases than a tree grown in the UK.
Base: All Adults 16+
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
4
31
-
2
1
3
2
28
8
36
Strongly disagree
(1)
2%
2%
-
8%
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
19
156
2
-
5
16
25
128
48
176
Disagree
(2)
8%
8%
26%
-
6%
6%
8%
9%
7%
8%
76
558
1
7
27
78
112
408
226
634
Neither agree
(3)
30%
30%
18%
36%
35%
33%
37%
28%
35%
30%
or disagree
100
721
3
10
25
93
114
578
245
823
Agree
(4)
39%
39%
45%
46%
32%
39%
37%
40%
38%
39%
16
168
-
1
8
20
18
136
47
184
Strongly agree
(5)
6%
9%
-
5%
11%
8%
6%
9%
7%
9%
37
222
1
1
11
29
34
184
76
260
Don't know
15%
12%
11%
5%
14%
12%
11%
13%
12%
12%
3.485
3.514
3.212
3.425
3.510
3.523
3.448
3.521
3.479
3.508
Mean Score
0.834
0.872
0.937
0.940
0.881
0.830
0.781
0.892
0.817
0.870
Standard Deviation
116
889
3
11
33
113
132
715
292
1007
AGREE
46%
48%
45%
51%
43%
47%
43%
49%
45%
48%
23
187
2
2
6
19
27
157
56
212
DISAGREE
9%
10%
26%
8%
8%
8%
9%
11%
9%
10%
Q.10_05 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - If I buy an imported tree, it is more likely to carry tree pests and diseases than a tree grown in the UK.
Base: All Adults 16+
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 27 | 9 | 29 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 2% | 2% | 2% |
| 150 | 26 | 147 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 9% | 7% | 9% |
| 522 | 113 | 519 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 30% | 29% | 30% |
| or disagree | | |
| 664 | 159 | 662 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 38% | 41% | 39% |
| 149 | 35 | 134 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 9% | 9% | 8% |
| 214 | 46 | 212 |
| Don't know | | |
| 12% | 12% | 12% |
| 3.501 | 3.541 | 3.486 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 0.868 | 0.877 | 0.863 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 812 | 194 | 796 |
| AGREE | | |
| 47% | 50% | 47% |
| 177 | 35 | 176 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 10% | 9% | 10% |
## Q.10_06 Would You Agree Or Disagree With The Following Statements Relating To Tree Health? - I Am Aware That Possible Tree Pests And Diseases Can Be Reported Using The Tree Alert Website. Base: All Adults 16+
| | | | | | | GENDER | AGE |
|--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|-------|
| Female | Male | 65+ | 55-64 | 45-54 | 35-44 | 25-34 | 16-24 |
| Total | | | | | | | |
| 1101 | 1012 | 544 | 303 | 319 | 326 | 336 | 285 |
| Unweighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 1087 | 1026 | 410 | 318 | 344 | 374 | 369 | 297 |
| Weighted Base | | | | | | | |
| 254 | 239 | 98 | 78 | 76 | 85 | 87 | 70 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | | | | | | |
| 23% | 23% | 24% | 24% | 22% | 23% | 24% | 24% |
| 373 | 325 | 130 | 114 | 118 | 136 | 96 | 103 |
| Disagree | (2) | | | | | | |
| 34% | 32% | 32% | 36% | 34% | 36% | 26% | 35% |
| 130 | 116 | 44 | 23 | 36 | 38 | 62 | 43 |
| Neither agree | (3) | | | | | | |
| 12% | 11% | 11% | 7% | 11% | 10% | 17% | 15% |
| or disagree | | | | | | | |
| 194 | 193 | 74 | 62 | 61 | 63 | 73 | 55 |
| Agree | (4) | | | | | | |
| 18% | 19% | 18% | 20% | 18% | 17% | 20% | 18% |
| 47 | 48 | 22 | 18 | 23 | 14 | 9 | 8 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | | | | | | |
| 4% | 5% | 5% | 6% | 7% | 4% | 2% | 3% |
| 89 | 105 | 42 | 23 | 30 | 38 | 42 | 19 |
| Don't know | | | | | | | |
| 8% | 10% | 10% | 7% | 9% | 10% | 11% | 6% |
| 2.406 | 2.442 | 2.438 | 2.419 | 2.483 | 2.358 | 2.453 | 2.384 |
| Mean Score | | | | | | | |
| 1.193 | 1.224 | 1.244 | 1.251 | 1.251 | 1.168 | 1.181 | 1.146 |
| Standard Deviation | | | | | | | |
| 241 | 241 | 96 | 80 | 84 | 77 | 82 | 63 |
| AGREE | | | | | | | |
| 22% | 24% | 23% | 25% | 24% | 21% | 22% | 21% |
| 627 | 564 | 228 | 192 | 194 | 221 | 183 | 173 |
| DISAGREE | | | | | | | |
| 58% | 55% | 56% | 60% | 56% | 59% | 50% | 58% |
Q.10_06 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - I am aware that possible tree pests and diseases can be reported using the Tree Alert website.
Base: All Adults 16+
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|--------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 237 | 76 | 180 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 24% | 24% | 22% |
| 313 | 102 | 283 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 32% | 33% | 34% |
| 122 | 49 | 76 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 12% | 16% | 9% |
| or disagree | | |
| 186 | 54 | 147 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 19% | 17% | 18% |
| 42 | 8 | 44 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 4% | 3% | 5% |
| 78 | 23 | 93 |
| Don't know | | |
| 8% | 7% | 11% |
| 2.428 | 2.360 | 2.442 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 1.212 | 1.139 | 1.229 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 229 | 61 | 192 |
| AGREE | | |
| 23% | 20% | 23% |
| 549 | 178 | 464 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 56% | 57% | 56% |
Q.10_06 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - I am aware that possible tree pests and diseases can be reported using the Tree Alert website.
Base: All Adults 16+
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
13
68
68
27
57
33
24
14
34
79
20
55
392
493
Strongly disagree
(1)
28%
37%
23%
11%
28%
31%
13%
10%
18%
34%
24%
31%
22%
23%
21
55
90
72
58
36
94
49
51
73
37
60
580
698
Disagree
(2)
44%
30%
31%
28%
28%
34%
48%
35%
28%
31%
44%
34%
33%
33%
1
7
27
44
25
10
25
27
24
29
9
19
216
246
Neither agree
(3)
2%
4%
9%
17%
12%
10%
13%
20%
13%
13%
10%
11%
12%
12%
or disagree
9
21
57
50
32
15
44
28
55
41
13
23
340
387
Agree
(4)
19%
11%
19%
19%
15%
14%
22%
20%
30%
18%
15%
13%
19%
18%
3
7
21
10
11
5
5
5
5
10
5
9
78
95
Strongly agree
(5)
6%
3%
7%
4%
5%
4%
3%
4%
3%
4%
6%
5%
4%
4%
-
28
31
55
24
7
3
14
15
2
1
14
173
194
Don't know
-
15%
11%
21%
12%
7%
2%
10%
8%
1%
1%
8%
10%
9%
2.314
2.001
2.519
2.716
2.351
2.216
2.532
2.681
2.685
2.270
2.346
2.220
2.460
2.423
Mean Score
1.254
1.179
1.299
1.123
1.252
1.200
1.058
1.078
1.202
1.220
1.172
1.201
1.205
1.208
Standard Deviation
12
28
78
60
43
20
48
33
60
51
18
32
418
482
AGREE
25%
15%
27%
23%
21%
19%
25%
24%
33%
22%
21%
18%
24%
23%
35
124
158
100
115
68
118
63
85
152
57
115
972
1191
DISAGREE
72%
66%
54%
39%
56%
65%
61%
46%
46%
65%
68%
64%
55%
56%
Q.10_06 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - I am aware that possible tree pests and diseases can be reported using the Tree Alert website.
Base: All Adults 16+
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
40
452
2
3
20
59
64
346
147
493
Strongly disagree
(1)
16%
24%
23%
13%
26%
24%
21%
24%
23%
23%
65
631
1
6
18
87
93
493
205
698
Disagree
(2)
26%
34%
9%
30%
24%
36%
30%
34%
32%
33%
48
198
1
6
9
22
44
163
83
246
Neither agree
(3)
19%
11%
18%
28%
12%
9%
15%
11%
13%
12%
or disagree
59
328
3
3
17
43
67
253
134
387
Agree
(4)
23%
18%
39%
15%
22%
18%
22%
17%
21%
18%
9
85
-
1
6
11
9
67
27
95
Strongly agree
(5)
3%
5%
-
7%
8%
5%
3%
5%
4%
4%
33
161
1
1
7
18
27
140
54
194
Don't know
13%
9%
11%
7%
9%
7%
9%
10%
8%
9%
2.690
2.387
2.819
2.710
2.598
2.373
2.513
2.397
2.481
2.423
Mean Score
1.161
1.208
1.337
1.141
1.352
1.207
1.181
1.205
1.213
1.208
Standard Deviation
67
413
3
5
23
54
76
321
161
482
AGREE
27%
22%
39%
22%
30%
23%
25%
22%
25%
23%
104
1083
2
9
38
145
157
839
351
1191
DISAGREE
41%
58%
32%
43%
49%
61%
51%
57%
54%
56%
Q.10_06 Would you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to tree health? - I am aware that possible tree pests and diseases can be reported using the Tree Alert website.
Base: All Adults 16+
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 408 | 85 | 385 |
| Strongly disagree | (1) | |
| 24% | 22% | 23% |
| 584 | 114 | 560 |
| Disagree | (2) | |
| 34% | 29% | 33% |
| 186 | 60 | 203 |
| Neither agree | (3) | |
| 11% | 16% | 12% |
| or disagree | | |
| 312 | 75 | 322 |
| Agree | (4) | |
| 18% | 19% | 19% |
| 70 | 25 | 69 |
| Strongly agree | (5) | |
| 4% | 6% | 4% |
| 165 | 29 | 165 |
| Don't know | | |
| 10% | 7% | 10% |
| 2.393 | 2.555 | 2.435 |
| Mean Score | | |
| 1.197 | 1.248 | 1.197 |
| Standard Deviation | | |
| 382 | 100 | 391 |
| AGREE | | |
| 22% | 26% | 23% |
| 991 | 199 | 944 |
| DISAGREE | | |
| 57% | 51% | 55% |
## Q.10 Would You Agree Or Disagree With The Following Statements Relating To Tree Health? - Summary Table Base: All Adults 16+
I would be
willing to look
out for and
report
Action should
sightings of
Everyone should
If I buy an
be taken by
There is very
pests and
take action
I am aware that
imported tree,
authorities and
little that
diseases on
when visiting
possible tree
it is more
woodland
anyone can do
trees, if
woodlands to
pests and
likely to carry
managers to
to prevent the
appropriate
help prevent
diseases can be
tree pests and
protect trees
spread of
information and
the spread of
reported using
diseases than a
from damaging
damaging tree
advice was
damaging tree
the Tree Alert
tree grown in
pests and
pests and
available to
pests and
website.
the UK.
diseases.
diseases.
me.
diseases
2113
2113
2113
2113
2113
2113
Unweighted Base
2113
2113
2113
2113
2113
2113
Weighted Base
493
36
8
187
49
15
Strongly disagree
(1)
23%
2%
*
9%
2%
1%
698
176
26
855
256
111
Disagree
(2)
33%
8%
1%
40%
12%
5%
246
634
202
418
348
324
Neither agree
(3)
12%
30%
10%
20%
16%
15%
or disagree
387
823
1300
438
1126
1173
Agree
(4)
18%
39%
62%
21%
53%
56%
95
184
499
50
252
391
Strongly agree
(5)
4%
9%
24%
2%
12%
18%
194
260
78
164
82
100
Don't know
9%
12%
4%
8%
4%
5%
2.423
3.508
4.107
2.646
3.627
3.901
Mean Score
1.208
0.870
0.650
1.013
0.938
0.796
Standard Deviation
482
1007
1798
489
1378
1564
AGREE
23%
48%
85%
23%
65%
74%
1191
212
35
1042
306
126
DISAGREE
56%
10%
2%
49%
14%
6%
Q.11 Do you have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last for 12 months or more? Base: All Adults 16+
GENDER
AGE
Female
Male
65+
55-64
45-54
35-44
25-34
16-24
Total
1101
1012
544
303
319
326
336
285
2113
Unweighted Base
1087
1026
410
318
344
374
369
297
2113
Weighted Base
213
198
148
92
61
40
42
26
411
Yes
20%
19%
36%
29%
18%
11%
11%
9%
19%
875
828
262
226
283
333
327
271
1702
No
80%
81%
64%
71%
82%
89%
89%
91%
81%
## Q.11 Do You Have Any Physical Or Mental Health Conditions Or Illnesses Lasting Or Expected To Last For 12 Months Or More? Base: All Adults 16+
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 1100 | 300 | 713 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 978 | 311 | 824 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 303 | 29 | 78 |
| Yes | | |
| 31% | 9% | 9% |
| 675 | 282 | 746 |
| No | | |
| 69% | 91% | 91% |
## Q.11 Do You Have Any Physical Or Mental Health Conditions Or Illnesses Lasting Or Expected To Last For 12 Months Or More? Base: All Adults 16+
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
61
181
282
245
203
115
209
153
173
229
81
181
1756
2113
Unweighted Base
48
186
294
258
206
105
194
138
185
234
85
180
1780
2113
Weighted Base
17
35
53
27
34
26
31
45
34
52
19
37
331
411
Yes
35%
19%
18%
11%
17%
24%
16%
33%
19%
22%
22%
21%
19%
19%
31
152
241
231
172
80
163
93
150
182
66
142
1449
1702
No
65%
81%
82%
89%
83%
76%
84%
67%
81%
78%
78%
79%
81%
81%
## Q.11 Do You Have Any Physical Or Mental Health Conditions Or Illnesses Lasting Or Expected To Last For 12 Months Or More? Base: All Adults 16+
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
235
1872
9
20
71
220
283
1510
603
2113
Unweighted Base
253
1855
8
21
77
239
305
1463
650
2113
Weighted Base
29
381
2
2
9
15
33
350
61
411
Yes
12%
21%
20%
7%
12%
6%
11%
24%
9%
19%
223
1474
6
19
68
224
272
1113
589
1702
No
88%
79%
80%
93%
88%
94%
89%
76%
91%
81%
## Q.11 Do You Have Any Physical Or Mental Health Conditions Or Illnesses Lasting Or Expected To Last For 12 Months Or More? Base: All Adults 16+
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 1704 | 409 | 1656 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 1725 | 388 | 1702 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 319 | 91 | - |
| Yes | | |
| 19% | 23% | |
| - | | |
| 100% | 25% | 16% |
| 1405 | 297 | 1702 |
| No | | |
| 81% | 77% | 100% |
| - | | |
| 75% | 84% | 81% |
Q.12 Does your disability affect your use of woodlands/ forests or other greenspaces? Base: All who have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last for 12 months or more Q11\1
GENDER
AGE
Female
Male
65+
55-64
45-54
35-44
25-34
16-24
Total
227
230
198
93
64
36
39
27
457
Unweighted Base
213
198
148
92
61
40
42
26
411
Weighted Base
115
85
92
45
30
14
12
6
200
Yes
54%
43%
62%
49%
49%
35%
29%
24%
49%
97
113
56
47
31
26
30
20
210
No
46%
57%
38%
51%
51%
65%
71%
76%
51%
## Q.12 Does Your Disability Affect Your Use Of Woodlands/ Forests Or Other Greenspaces? Base: All Who Have Any Physical Or Mental Health Conditions Or Illnesses Lasting Or Expected To Last For 12 Months Or More Q11\1
| WORKING STATUS | MARITAL STATUS | SOCIAL GRADE |
|------------------|------------------|----------------|
| Widow\ | Married\ | |
| Divorced\ | Living as | |
| Not working | Part time | Full time |
| 358 | 30 | 69 |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 303 | 29 | 78 |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 175 | 5 | 20 |
| Yes | | |
| 58% | 17% | 26% |
| 128 | 24 | 58 |
| No | | |
| 42% | 83% | 74% |
## Q.12 Does Your Disability Affect Your Use Of Woodlands/ Forests Or Other Greenspaces? Base: All Who Have Any Physical Or Mental Health Conditions Or Illnesses Lasting Or Expected To Last For 12 Months Or More Q11\1
GOVERNMENT REGIONS
Yorkshire
Northern
South
South
East of
West
East
and The
North
North
All
Ireland
West
East
London
England
Wales
Midlands
Midlands
Humber
West
East
Scotland
England
Total
23
38
57
27
40
29
35
52
36
57
19
44
361
457
Unweighted Base
17
35
53
27
34
26
31
45
34
52
19
37
331
411
Weighted Base
11
19
27
11
16
12
16
25
17
23
9
16
161
200
Yes
65%
54%
51%
41%
45%
47%
49%
55%
48%
44%
47%
44%
49%
49%
6
16
26
16
19
14
16
20
18
29
10
21
170
210
No
35%
46%
49%
59%
55%
53%
51%
45%
52%
56%
53%
56%
51%
51%
## Q.12 Does Your Disability Affect Your Use Of Woodlands/ Forests Or Other Greenspaces? Base: All Who Have Any Physical Or Mental Health Conditions Or Illnesses Lasting Or Expected To Last For 12 Months Or More Q11\1
CHILDREN UNDER 16 IN
ETHNIC ORIGIN
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
Minority
Ethnic
White
5+
4
3
2
1
None
Any
Total
29
428
2
2
10
15
32
396
61
457
Unweighted Base
29
381
2
2
9
15
33
350
61
411
Weighted Base
15
185
1
-
5
4
10
180
20
200
Yes
51%
49%
55%
-
51%
30%
30%
52%
33%
49%
14
196
1
2
5
11
23
170
41
210
No
49%
51%
45%
100%
49%
70%
70%
48%
67%
51%
## Q.12 Does Your Disability Affect Your Use Of Woodlands/ Forests Or Other Greenspaces? Base: All Who Have Any Physical Or Mental Health Conditions Or Illnesses Lasting Or Expected To Last For 12 Months Or More Q11\1
| INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION | DISABILITY | VISITED WOODLAND |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|
| The Rest | | |
| (Bottom 85%) | Top 15% | No |
| 350 | 107 | - |
| Unweighted Base | | |
| 319 | 91 | - |
| Weighted Base | | |
| 156 | 44 | - |
| Yes | | |
| 49% | 48% | |
| - | | |
| 49% | 57% | 40% |
| 163 | 47 | - |
| No | | |
| 51% | 52% | |
| - | | |
| 51% | 43% | 60% |
| en |
0124-pdf |
## Looked After Children In London
An analysis of changes in the numbers of Looked After Children in London
## Contents
01 introduction 2
02 quantitative analysis 3
baseline 3 period from 2007 5 unaccompanied asylum seekers 6 changes to the numbers starting and ceasing to be looked after 6 demand 8 differences between local authorities in London 8
03 qualitative analysis: key findings 10
Approach 10 Looking after the 'right' children at the right time 10 knowledge and understanding the LAC population 11 controlling entry 11 encouraging exit 12 decreasing the duration 12 alternatives to care 12 age patterns and increase in 16/17 year olds 13 early help and child protection 13
04 regional differences 14
Inner/Outer London 14 other regions in the country 15
05 conclusions 16 appendices 17
## 01 Introduction
London Councils commissioned this study to find out the factors influencing the reduction of numbers of looked after children (LAC) in London. Department for Education (DfE) figures indicate that the number of children looked after by local authorities has been rising steadily across England in recent years, but that by contrast, the number of children who were looked after in London had decreased since 2007. This trend appeared to be continuing.
The aim of the study was to develop a more detailed understanding of the reasons for the decrease of numbers of London's looked after children. The intention was to build a more nuanced picture of trends across the region, particularly with regard to an apparent disparity between Inner and Outer London, and to help share good practice.
The study incorporated:
I an analysis of the DfE quantitative data I the findings from a London wide survey (23 London boroughs returned a detailed questionnaire) I a series of in-depth interviews in nine London boroughs I and telephone interviews with senior managers in five other regions of the country.
This report outlines the findings of the study.
## 02 Quantitative Analysis
To provide a broad picture of the development of LAC services in London, and to provide background information to the detailed interviews with senior managers, we undertook an analysis of the data returns submitted by the boroughs1 to the DfE. While the figures below mask significant differences between authorities, they seek to provide this broader picture.
## Baseline
We first wanted to establish the baseline from which the decrease in numbers occurred. If that was high, then perhaps the decline was simply a return to the normal trend line.
For England as a whole, the average rate of LAC per 10,000 was rising from the late 90s. This was, at the time, a cause of some concern2. But it peaked at 55 per 10,000 in 2003, where it remained to 2007, with regions other than London ranging from the low 40s to the high 60s per 10,000.
For London, over the same period, there was a similar picture, but with a sharper rise around the millennium and starting from a higher baseline. The figure peaked at 75 LAC per 10,000 in 2004, after which the numbers began to fall. In the period up to 2004 London did indeed have a higher number of LAC per 10,000 children under 18
than other regions; but by around 2007, when other regions were once again seeing rising numbers, London figures had been relatively steady, or in the case of Inner London, had already been falling for several years.
There was, however, a significant difference between Inner and Outer London, a common theme throughout our findings. The higher rate per 10,000 children was, by and large, an Inner London feature, with Outer London largely at the same levels as the England average from about 2002, and remaining relatively steady to 2007.
Inner London, meanwhile, had a much higher rate per 10,000 but had begun to fall from 2004.
The diagram below outlines the picture up to 2007.
In absolute LAC numbers rather than rates, from 2000 to 2007, London did see a larger increase than any other region. But this was because Outer London numbers had risen during the early years of the period and remained high, while Inner London, having risen to 2004, had then begun to fall. Figure 2 below represents the numbers.
| England | 1 | 2,319 |
|--------------------------|------|---------|
| North East | 2 | -92 |
| North west | 3 | 537 |
| Yorkshire and The Humber | 4 | -90 |
| East Midlands | 5 | -418 |
| West Midlands | 6 | 870 |
| East of England | 7 | 535 |
| South East | 8 | 192 |
| South West | 9 | -70 |
| London | 10 | 895 |
| Inner London | 11 | -348 |
| Outer London | 12 | 1,238 |
One key reason for the increase in Outer London was the rise in the number of unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC). Of the 1,238 increase in Outer London LAC numbers illustrated in Figure 2, Croydon accounted for 593 and Hillingdon for 116, two boroughs which historically look after large numbers of UASC.
## Period From 2007
After the numbers of looked after children in London peaked in 2004, overall they began to fall, more sharply in the years 2007 and 2008. Numbers increased in 2010 (the year following the death of Peter Connelly) before falling back in 2011. But, as Figure 3 below shows (total number of LAC counted each year at 31 March), it is largely an Inner London story during the year from 2004-12.
For most regions the story is of a rise to around 2004, with numbers remaining relatively steady until a sustained increase from 2009-10. In London, however, the fall from the peak of 2004 rapidly accelerated around
2007 and, although seeing an increase around 2009-10, has once more fallen back.
Two key factors may well lie behind this picture: firstly, the reduction in unaccompanied asylum seekers around
2007, and secondly, that the increase following Peter Connelly's death has not continued in London, unlike in other regions.
## Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children
In March 2007 the government published a consultation document outlining fundamental changes to the support system for unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC). The main proposals were for 50-60 local authorities to take over the care of all unaccompanied asylum seeking children to relieve pressure on London and the South East, which had previously cared for most of them.
At the 31st March 2011, London was looking after 1,735 fewer children than it was at the same time in the peak year of 2004, to a significant degree because London was looking after 1,055 fewer UASC. But again there is a significant difference between Inner and Outer London. In Inner London, the largest decrease in UASC was in
2007 and 2008, and in no year did decreases in UASC account for more than about 50 per cent of the fall in LAC
numbers. While in Outer London, although achieving significant reductions in LAC numbers in 2007 and 2008
without a large fall in UASC, the decrease in UASC has been very largely felt in 2010 and 2011. Table 1 below provides the outline.
Table 1: Changes in overall LAC and UASC on the previous year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Totals
London change in LAC
-320
-150
-510
-580
20
265
-545
-1730
London change in UASC
0
-5
-90
-224
-90
-295
-345
-1049
Inner London change in LAC
-225
-220
-315
-375
-155
5
-230
-1425
Inner London change in UASC
-45
-50
-115
-179
-80
-95
-90
-654
Outer London change in LAC
-5
70
-195
-205
175
170
-315
-305
OuterLondon change in UASC
45
45
25
-45
-10
-200
-255
-395
## Changes To The Numbers Of Children Starting And Ceasing To Be Looked After
Figures 5 and 6 (over page) show that there has been no great decrease in the number of starters, comparing
2012 to 2008, but with a larger percentage 'in care', i.e. subject to a Care Order. The latter, coupled with the increased percentage of younger children (noted later in the report), implies that local authorities may be intervening earlier, for example in cases of neglect, to safegurad children.
43 41 39 37 35 33 31
29 27 25
Similarly, there was not a large change in the number of children ceasing to be looked after each year. Figure 7
(ober page) below shows the change from 2008 to 2012. The bottom two lines show the totals for Inner and Outer London.
The significance of these diagrams is that, if changes in the numbers of starters or leavers cannot explain the decrease in the LAC numbers recorded at the 31st March in a given year, then it must be that children are being looked after for a shorter duration.
## Demand
To examine whether changes in the levels of demand could account for changes in LAC numbers, we also looked at the change in the number of referrals to children's social care services, and the numbers of children subject to a child protection plan. Government figures indicate that any decrease in LAC numbers were not due to falling demand over the period. Although the number of referrals to Inner London children's social care services fell by about 5,000 per year between 2007 and 2012, the number of children who became the subject of child protection plans rose by about 500 per year. In Outer London, referrals increased by about 2,000 per year and the number subject to child protection plans rose by about 1,000 per year. See Figures 8 and 9 in Appendix 1
for details.
## Differences Between Local Authorities In London
The analysis above has provided an overview of the picture across London as a whole. However, while the broad difference between Inner and Outer London holds true, some boroughs do have a different pattern. To indicate the variation, Figure 11 below presents the difference in the numbers of children looked after at the 31st March
2012 in comparison to the same figure in 2008. The first series at the top of the diagram is for Outer London, then for Inner London and finally at the bottom of the diagram are the summary figures for London. The most significant variations from the Inner/Outer pattern are indicated.
## 03 Qualititative Analysis: Key Findings Approach
On the basis of the quantitative analysis, initial hypotheses were drawn up about reasons for an increase or decrease in numbers. A survey by questionnaire was undertaken (23 questionnaires returned) and in-depth interviews were held. We examined the understanding held by senior managers about the story in their own boroughs and any actions they had taken. The sample of boroughs where in-depth interviews were held included those who had experienced a significant rise or fall in numbers and also those where numbers had remained relatively stable. In total we interviewed assistant directors from 10 Inner and Outer London boroughs and also held telephone interviews with five senior managers from regions outside London.
The survey and individual interviews with assistant directors covered a range of areas including: understanding of the reasons for rises and falls in their LAC numbers; patterns in relation to age; proportions of accommodation and Care Orders; any correlation with the numbers of children with Child Protection plans; changes in threshold decisions; and the effectiveness of early help services in preventing children from becoming looked after.
## Looking After The 'Right' Children At The Right Time
In our discussions there was frequently talk of looking after the 'right' children at the 'right' time. This statement masks the complexity of identifying precisely who the 'right' children are in this context. In the majority of cases, thresholds and decisions about looking after children are clear, particularly those where there is compelling evidence of serious abuse and neglect. However, in situations where there is family conflict and/or teenagers who refuse to go home, the best service response is not so clear cut. In these instances, looking after a child may not be a purposeful intervention. There was recognition that threshold decisions about whether to look after children are influenced by a range of factors: the prevailing culture and direction from the government of the day; the local political context; the differing population make-up and local cultures, including differences in family and extended family patterns; and the shared value base adopted within the department.
This last factor we found to be very influential in determining the numbers of looked after children locally. While all assistant directors work in the context of the philosophical base outlined in the Children Act 1989 i.e. that children should remain with their families wherever possible, this position is held with differing conviction by local leaders. This context is important - we spoke to a number of assistant directors who were explicit and purposeful about their strategy to drive the numbers down, thus ensuring that children could remain with their families wherever possible. There were others who took a much more generalist position, believing that individual assessments of families would determine the number of children in the LAC population.
Some senior managers were highly focused on the numbers of looked after children whereas others felt that smaller or greater numbers than comparators was not a matter for concern. The former believed that the operating system was the most important factor in determining the number, while the latter believed the numbers were mainly influenced by demographic factors which were independent of organisational practice.
A wealth of information was gathered and, as is often the case, the more we asked, the more questions we had.
The LAC population in any borough includes children who are looked after for a variety of reasons and the overall numbers mask the diversity within the whole group. From this complicated picture we have attempted to distil the key findings which are outlined in the paragraphs below.
## Knowledge And Understanding Of The Lac Population
The boroughs which had experienced the greatest decrease in numbers of LAC had one overriding feature in common, which was that the senior managers had a very detailed knowledge and understanding of their LAC
population. The assistant directors we spoke to in these boroughs gave accurate information about, for example, age patterns, proportions accommodated or in care, and the impact of actions that had been taken to reduce numbers of children who they felt were either not benefitting, or not likely to benefit, from being looked after.
These senior managers were highly focused on the subject and readily provided an analysis of their own data which they regularly reviewed through various mechanisms.
In the majority of boroughs that had experienced a decrease, the senior managers had implemented a proactive strategy to manage the numbers of looked after children. These strategies comprised a combination of management action and service provision, including the following:
I a confident approach and vision about which categories of children would benefit from being looked after
and for how long;
I clear alternatives to care at the point of entry and importantly also at exit I senior management involvement in decision making about entry and exit I clear lines of accountability for decisions I a position on drift and active pursuit of extended family or other permanency options for children who were
already looked after.
The intention in these boroughs was to provide social work intervention and other services which it was believed would promote the child's welfare more effectively than being looked after by the local authority.
Two examples of good practice in ways of understanding the LAC population were:
I The assistant director in one borough held the detail about length of stay for all age groups and was able to
demonstrate a detailed analysis of patterns for the younger children in the LAC population, in order to ensure
that permanency options were vigorously pursued for this group.
I In one borough the head of service for looked after children holds a quarterly surgery that examines the plans
for every looked after child in that borough (around 500 children). All social workers attend and discuss their
plans with the head of service and a small group of key managers. The process is lengthy and detailed but is
well received by social workers.
## Controlling Entry
The quantitative analysis of the London data indicated that there has not been a huge reduction in numbers of numbers of children starting to be looked after over the last five years and that the main reason for low numbers is a shorter duration for children in the care system in London. Despite this fact, many London assistant directors focused their attention on trying to reduce the number of children who were looked after by controlling entry to care - gatekeeping was a major preoccupation.
In the main, the decision to look after a child in all boroughs was made at assistant director level and often undertaken via some kind of panel structure, which was in some cases chaired by a head of service. In one borough the director of children's services was the decision maker. This level of seniority across the board recognises the enormity of the decision to remove a child from his or her family and appropriately shares the risk with the frontline social worker. To a greater or lesser degree, this centralised decision making is used as a control mechanism for numbers entering the care system.
## Encouraging Exit
Boroughs who had successfully decreased their numbers had a clear focus on permanency plans for children who were looked after, particularly younger children. Active pursuit of Special Guardianship Orders and other long term arrangements with foster carers or extended family had led to demonstrable data about numbers of children exiting the system.
Good examples of this included one borough with a Special Guardianship team which undertakes assessments and where the breakdown rate has been very low. In another borough the assistant director has set an annual target for the number of children to leave the care system via a permanency route. The assistant director here is aiming to create a cultural change to ensure all social workers are highly focused on permanency and, to support this, he is actively involved in progress chasing such cases, gives a 'no quibble' endorsement for long term financial packages and, as a result, they have been successful in increasing the number of children in stable long term placements.
## Decreasing The Duration
Attention to the flow of children in and out of the care system was surprisingly not a key activity for many of the assistant directors across London. While the data indicates that shorter duration in care is the most likely reason for an overall reduction in numbers, in fact this was not commonly known and many London Assistant directors believed that the key reason for successful control of LAC numbers was improved gate-keeping i.e.
controlling the number of starters.
Proactive attention to decreasing the time children spend being looked after was a rare feature, but did occur in a minority of boroughs. In these instances, there was understanding of the differing groups of children within the LAC population, how long they were looked after and what the options might be to decrease that period of time. The assistant directors spoke of good social work with families to enable children to successfully return home to improved circumstances. The quality of the social work intervention in this context is a key factor. For newly looked after children, return home quickly has proven to be a highly influential determinant of how long a child remains in care and the social work undertaken with families to enable this to happen is a crucial factor.
## Alternatives To Care
The boroughs who had successfully implemented strategies to control the numbers of children who were looked after were clear that this could not be achieved without provision of substantial and purposeful alternatives to care. In most of these boroughs there was some kind of 'edge of care' type team who worked intensively with families to reduce family conflict or avoid breakdown.
These teams were of varying make-up, some predominantly social workers and others comprising more of a skill mix, including clinical practitioners and education qualified staff. Some worked to a specific methodology about which there was evidence of effectiveness, such as systemic family therapy or solution focused interventions. The common feature of these teams was a more intensive, flexible approach with agreed objectives formulated in an inclusive way with families, frequent contact, and a pattern of evening and weekend work on top of contact during working hours. A number of boroughs were in the process of commissioning evidence based programmes for children on the edge of care, particularly Multi-Systemic Treatment projects.
## Age Patterns And Increase In 16/17 Year Olds
There is a discernible trend of a reduction in the proportion of children, particularly 10-15 year-olds, who are accommodated under Section 20 agreements, and an increase in numbers of younger children who enter the care system via applications for Care Orders. It was the perception of London assistant directors that the actual age patterns, not just the proportions, within the London LAC population have altered, which receives some support from the quantative analysis:
| | Male | Female | Under 1 | 1 to 4 | 5 to 9 | 10 to 15 | 16 and over |
|-------------------|--------|----------|-----------|----------|----------|------------|---------------|
| London 2011 | 52 | 48 | 14 | 17 | 16 | 36 | 17 |
| London 2008 | 56 | 44 | 15 | 14 | 13 | 42 | 15 |
| Inner London 2011 | 52 | 48 | 16 | 16 | 17 | 36 | 15 |
| Inner London 2008 | 53 | 47 | 17 | 15 | 14 | 39 | 13 |
| Outer London 2011 | 52 | 47 | 13 | 17 | 16 | 36 | 19 |
| Outer London 2008 | 58 | 42 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 44 | 17 |
Many of the assistant directors we spoke to said they believed that social workers were intervening earlier and with younger children in neglect cases and that this was related to the aftermath of the Peter Connolly case and a national drive to be less tolerant of families where neglect is a feature. It might also be related to a greater involvement of partner agencies such as schools, children's centres etc. in provision of additional services to children which then leads to the problems faced by families being brought to the attention of children's services.
A major feature is an increase in numbers of 16/17 year-olds who are now looked after. This is likely to be partly due to the 'Southwark judgment', which determined that homeless young people in this age group should be assessed for their eligibility to be looked after by the local authority, and partly due to a change in attitude about the vulnerability of these young people. It may also be connected to the reduction in the proportion of
10-15 year-olds in the care system, with the possible consequence that the problems presented by the 10-15
year age group are averted, only to re-emerge at a slightly later age. These are hypotheses which would need further detailed study to confirm or refute.
## Early Help And Child Protection
Finally in this section, it is of interest that very few London assistant directors reported a relationship between LAC figures and the numbers of children subject to a child protection (CP) plan. While some boroughs who had experienced a rise in LAC also had evidence of a similar rise of children subject to CP plans, there were no discernible patterns in relation to reductions in numbers.
Perhaps of more interest in this study, is that there were even fewer respondents to the questionnaire who could demonstrate a correlation between increased availability of early help services and a reduction in the number of looked after children. This may be related in part to the stage of development of early help services in most boroughs, but in general London assistant directors felt that such services were targeted at a different group of families and that those where children were at risk of harm would still come to the attention of children's social care. In short, there was no evidence to suggest that such risks were being averted by earlier intervention.
## 04 Regional Differences Inner/Outer London
A striking feature of the quantitative analysis was the different patterns between Inner and Outer London, with Inner London seeing a much more marked decrease in numbers of LAC over the last five years. We discussed the possible reasons for this in our interviews but we could not find any hard evidence to explain the difference. There are, however, two well supported arguments.
Firstly, there is evidence that Inner London budgets tend to be larger than those in Outer London. While this is justified in relation to levels of deprivation, arguably larger totals enable more flexibility in prioritising spend on additional services. This makes it easier for Inner London boroughs to find funds for threshold of care type teams and also specialist posts to help establish and pay for Special Guardianship arrangements to give two examples.
These larger budgets translate to a higher rate of spend per child in Inner London boroughs. Again this can be explained by estimates of higher levels of deprivation, but the differentials per head are striking3. According to CIPFA figures published in 2011, in Outer London spending on children's social care ranged from £298 per head to £757, with the majority of boroughs falling around the three to five hundred figure. By comparison, in Inner London the range was from £718 to £1,205. This is of note given that many Inner and Outer London boroughs have similar numbers of looked after children.
To further highlight this spending differential, there is some evidence that social workers' caseloads in Inner London are smaller than those in Outer London. Routine comparative data is not collated about caseloads, but a snapshot, from data gathered in 2009, shows that indicative caseloads in Outer London were close to 21
children per social worker, while those in Inner London were closer to 17 children per social worker.
Undoubtedly, a smaller number of allocated children will contribute to social workers being more effective, both in preventing children becoming looked after and also in ensuring those that could return home safely, can do so with social work support.
Secondly, again anecdotally, it was suggested that Outer London boroughs have historically had more difficulty in filling social work vacancies. Two assistant directors from Inner London boroughs told us that they had received 60 applications for social work posts that had been advertised recently. A more stable workforce and continuity of social worker for families will be more likely to help children return home speedily. More detailed research would elicit whether there was a difference in experienced staff in Inner and Outer London, for example by comparing the numbers of Newly Qualified Social Workers in different boroughs.
## Other Regions In The Country
The quantitative analysis in Section 2 of this report demonstrated that the pattern in London is markedly different from other regions in the country. The survey and interviews with London assistant directors provided more information about the reasons why some boroughs have reduced the numbers of children who are looked after. We were not able to undertake the same level of exploration for local authorities outside London, but we undertook telephone interviews with directors and assistant directors from five regions outside London (South East, East, South West, North West, East Midlands) to get their perspective.
It is worthy of note that the patterns and trends per region hide quite considerable variation between local authorities, with some experiencing a similar decrease in numbers to those in Inner London. Furthermore, a number of those we spoke to are implementing similar strategies and focusing on entry, exit and alternatives to care in their areas. We found a similar pattern as in London i.e. that where there has been a proactive approach to reducing the numbers, with attention to different aspects of the system, the strategy to reduce numbers has been in the main successful in having an impact.
Looking at the impact of the budget available to authorities and taking one example, we looked at spend per child in the North East of England, a region where there has been an overall rise by 25 per cent in looked after children numbers over the last five years and where only one of the 11 local authorities in the region has experienced a drop in numbers. The average spend per head in this region in 2011 was £546 per child, more like the Outer London figures above than those in Inner London, where the lowest spend was £718. The range of spend per head in the North East was from £386 per head (Northumberland, which paradoxically was the only authority in the region whose numbers fell) and £842 per head (Newcastle).
The overall picture remains one of a differing pattern between Inner London and both Outer London and other regions of the country. From our telephone interviews, a few hypotheses emerged and are described below, a cautionary note being that none of these hypotheses could be confirmed by hard evidence.
Senior managers talking about authorities in their local regions commented on a direct correlation with rise of LAC numbers following either a poor inspection or a high profile Serious Case Review. These patterns appeared clear in a number of regions and were connected with an overall loss of confidence coupled with children's social care departments which had lost the trust of their safeguarding partners. Such departments might then have experienced changes in leadership and unstable staffing situations, all of which lead to a more risk averse approach and likelihood of rise in numbers.
During the period studied, London enjoyed a run of inspections with 'good' ratings from Ofsted that would have helped to build confidence in the workforce and thus maintain tighter control over rising demand and promoting a more risk management rather than risk averse approach.
One assistant director who had worked both within London and outside in a more rural setting believed that he sees a different attitude to adolescents outside London. In rural settings and smaller towns, there is possibly less tolerance of high risk situations for young people and a tendency to bring this group more readily into the care system when there is evidence of family conflict or rejection of teenagers. This hypotheses is supported by our telephone interviews, where the risks to young women and 16/17 year-olds were more frequently cited by senior managers outside London.
## 05 Conclusions
The aim of this study was to develop a more detailed understanding of the reasons for the decrease of numbers of London's looked after children, which was apparently in contrast to the trend of a rise in numbers outside London. We have explored a number of factors as described in the detail of the report above. On the basis of the evidence provided by the Department for Education statistics and the views of senior managers in and outside London, we have concluded that there are two key factors in effective management of the looked after children population.
Firstly, the need to provide sufficient resource to enable good social work to take place, and secondly, leadership in provision of a focused and nuanced approach to the flow of looked after children in and out of the system.
Looking at the overall budget for children's social care, there is a clear connection between a well resourced, stable and confident children's social care department and effective management of the number of looked after children within the authority. Within the context of the austerity measures currently facing local authorities, it is worth highlighting that a reduction in social work capacity risks producing a rise in the number of looked after children which may in fact cost more in the long run. It is not simply about having more money to spend, but spending it in a focused way on services that will benefit children, which may or may not include being in care.
Secondly, we cannot underestimate the strength of our finding that those senior managers who have paid attention to understanding the detail of their looked after children populations and then acted on that detail, have been able to reduce the numbers of looked after children. We saw evidence of the effectiveness of a proactive approach to knowing and controlling which children become looked after, how long they stay, minimising drift and ensuring that children move on to stable and permanent placements.
Our conclusion is that focused attention to the detail of the children in the system, coupled with provision of real alternatives to care will ensure that the children concerned receive services and interventions which will promote their welfare, ensure family ties are maintained where possible, and where not possible that alternative permanent routes are established quickly.
## Clare Chamberlain And David Ward Appendix 1 London Councils - Inner And Outer London
Inner London boroughs Camden Greenwich Hackney Hammersmith and Fulham Islington Kensington and Chelsea Lambeth Lewisham Southwark Tower Hamlets Wandsworth Westminster City of London*
Outer London boroughs Barking and Dagenham Barnet Bexley Brent Bromley Croydon Ealing Enfield Haringey Harrow Havering Hillingdon Hounslow Kingston upon Thames Merton Newham Redbridge Richmond upon Thames Sutton Waltham Forest
## Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Levels Of Need
Even with the reduced numbers of looked after children, London, Inner London especially, still looks after far more children per 10,000 than the average for England, and indeed more in absolute numbers than for any other region except the North West. But it is worth putting such high numbers in some context of local need, rather than against an undifferentiated child population. Child poverty is one valuable indicator of need. The Millennium Cohort Study, tracking about 19,000 children born in 2000, found a close correlation between parents out of work and multiple risk factors that other research has indicated are associated with poorer outcomes for children; and work by local authorities in the West Midlands has found a close correlation with changes in the number of claimants for Job Seekers Allowance and, 12 months later, a similar change in the numbers of children looked after.
One way of representing this is to look at a map of poverty. Figure 10 below compares London with another region with high LAC numbers, the North West. The darker colours show the areas of highest poverty in each region based upon 2011 data.
Report authored by:
Clare Chamberlain David Ward
ˇ
London Councils
591/2 Southwark Street London SE1 0AL www.londoncouncils.gov.uk
020 7934 9813
design: pinsentdesign.com images: Thinkstock publication date: February 2013 | en |
1454-pdf |
## Sir Nicholas Macpherson - Permanent Secretary, Hm Treasury
DATES
Total
Cost £
DESTINATION
PURPOSE
TRAVEL
OTHER (Including
Hospitality Given)
Air
Rail
Taxi/Car
Accommodation/ Meals
07.02.12 London
Official meeting
£31.60
£31.60
30.03.12 London
Official meeting
£50.00
£50.00
19.04.12 London
Official meetings
£24.03
£24.03
Hospitality Received
Date
Organisation Name
Type of Hospitality Received
10.04.12
Financial Times
Reception (book launch)
16.04.12
S J Berwin
Lunch
18.04.12
Rio Tinto
Dinner
27.04.12
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Lunch
09.05.12
Ernst and Young
Viewing (and spouse)
16.05.12
Daily Telegraph
Lunch
16.05.12
Confederation of British Industry (CBI)
Dinner
29.05.12
Lord Carter
Lunch
31.05.12
DeLaRue
Dinner
11.06.12
Lloyds Banking Group plc
Lunch
12.06.12
City of London Corporation
Dinner
14.06.12
The Mansion House
Dinner
19.06.12
REFORM
Lunch
## Tom Scholar - Second Permanent Secretary, Hm Treasury
DATES
Total
Cost £
DESTINATION
PURPOSE
TRAVEL
OTHER (Including
Hospitality Given)
Air
Rail
Taxi/Car
Accommodation/ Meals
26.02.10
Seoul
Official meetings
£32.00
£113.73
£157.52
£12.27
£315.52
Mexico
Official meetings
£5,948.85
£34.00
£196.69
£6,179.54
12.04.12- 14.04.12 16.04.12
Oxford
Official meetings
£24.90
£11.00
£35.90
Washington
Official meetings
£1,449.89
£34.00
£93.41
£1,577.30
20.04.12- 21.04.12
Basel
Official meetings
£226.95
£34.00
£155.08
£1.30
£417.33
26.04.12- 27.04.12
Basel
Official meetings
£162.95
£1.30
£164.25
07.05.12- 08.05.12
Montreal
Official meetings
£2,559.89
£2,559.89
14.05.12- 16.05.12
Hong Kong
Official meetings
£5,129.87
£5,129.87
27.05.12- 30.05.12
One cost above relates to a trip made in 2010.
Hospitality Received
Date
Organisation Name
Type of Hospitality Received
11.05.12
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Lunch
12.06.12
City of London Corporation
Dinner
14.06.12
The Mansion House
Dinner
20.06.12
City of London Corporation
Breakfast
## James Bowler –Director General, Strategy, Planning And Budget, Hm Treasury
DATES
Total
Cost £
DESTINATION
PURPOSE
TRAVEL
OTHER (Including
Hospitality Given)
Air
Rail
Taxi/Car
Accommodation/ Meals
19.03.12 London
Work to home
£20.00
£20.00
20.03.12 London
Work to home
£18.80
£18.80
Hospitality Received
Date
Organisation Name
Type of Hospitality Received
12.06.12
City of London Corporation
Dinner
## Michael Ellam - Director General, International And Finance, Hm Treasury
DATES
Total
Cost £
DESTINATION
PURPOSE
TRAVEL
OTHER (Including
Hospitality Given)
Air
Rail
Taxi/Car
Accommodation/ Meals
Delhi/ Dubai
Official meetings
£7,062.09
£119.17
£176.07
£0.50
£7,357.83
01.04.12- 04.04.12 10.04.12
London
Official meeting
£34.16
£136.64
£170.80
Official meetings
£3,868.42
£19.00
£148.12
£1,779.14
£2.82
£5,817.50
18.04.12-
24.04.12
Washington/New
York
Official meetings
£1,416.74
£517.57
£110.72
£282.64
£2,327.67
01.05.12- 04.05.12
Brussels/Lithuania/ Riga/Stockholm
10.05.12
Berlin
Official meetings
£473.29
£115.40
£588.69
Brussels
Official meetings
£509.39
£153.44
£662.83
14.05.12- 15.05.12 25.05.12
Berlin
Official meetings
£679.68
£111.40
£791.08
Brussels
Official meetings
£398.92
£398.92
29.05.12- 30.05.12
Brussels
Official meetings
£643.40
£643.40
11.06.12- 13.06.12
Mexico
Official meetings
£5,836.43
£12.01
£163.12
£6,011.56
14.06.12- 20.06.12
Official meetings
£1,655.22
£1,655.22
21.06.12- 22.06.12
Frankfurt/ Luxembourg
Hospitality Received
Date
Organisation Name
Type of Hospitality Received
30.04.12
Global Counsel
Lunch
## Dave Ramsden - Director General And Chief Economic Adviser, Hm Treasury
DATES
Total
Cost £
DESTINATION
PURPOSE
TRAVEL
OTHER (Including
Hospitality Given)
Air
Rail
Taxi/Car
Accommodation/ Meals
Official meetings
£1,134.96
£158.67
£70.59
£1,093.36
£1.00
£2,458.58
17.04.12- 24.04.12
Washington/ New York
Birmingham
Conference
£60.52
£60.52
10.05.12- 11.05.12
Oxford
Lecture
£25.60
£25.60
18.05.12-
19.05.12
05.06.12
London
Official meeting
£43.48
£43.48
Hospitality Received
Date
Organisation Name
Type of Hospitality Received
04.04.12
Nomura
Dinner and speaking engagement
16.04.12
Goldman Sachs
Lunch and speaking engagement
18.04.12
International Monetary Fund, Washington
Lunch
20.04.12
Observatory Group, New York
Lunch
01.05.12
Barclays
Dinner and speaking engagement
17.05.12
Government of Singapore Investment Corporation
Lunch
18.05.12-19.05.12
Tanner Lecture
Dinner, breakfast and lunch
12.06.12
City of London Corporation
Dinner
14.06.12
The Mansion House
Dinner
## Jonathan Taylor - Director General, Financial Services And Stability, Hm Treasury No Expenses Were Incurred During This Period. Hospitality Received
| Date | Organisation Name | Type of Hospitality Received |
|----------|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------|
| 23.04.12 | Hawkpoint Partners | Lunch |
| 16.05.12 | Confederation of British Industry | Dinner |
| 29.05.12 | JP Morgan | Lunch |
| 13.06.12 | The City UK | Reception |
| 14.06.12 | The Mansion House | Dinner |
| 19.06.12 | Finance and Leasing Association | Lunch |
| 25.06.12 | VocaLink Group | Lunch |
| 25.06.12 | Citibank | Reception |
## Edward Troup - Managing Director, Budget, Tax And Welfare, Hm Treasury
DATES
Total
Cost £
DESTINATION
PURPOSE
TRAVEL
OTHER (Including
Hospitality Given)
Air
Rail
Taxi
Accommodation/ Meals
16.05.12
Ottawa
Seminar
£74.66
£74.66
Hospitality Received
Date
Organisation Name
Type of Hospitality Received
16.04.12
The British Land Company
Reception
02.05.12
Ernst and Young LLP
Reception
15.05.12
The Chartered Institute of Taxation
Reception
24.05.12
Farrer and Co
Reception
29.05.12
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, Aileen Beattie Memorial
Reception
12.06.12
City of London Corporation
Dinner
14.06.12
The Mansion House
Dinner
26.06.12
The Chartered Institute of Taxation
Reception
## Sharon White - Director General, Public Services, Hm Treasury
DATES
Total
Cost £
DESTINATION
PURPOSE
TRAVEL
OTHER (Including
Hospitality Given)
Air
Rail
Taxi/Car
Accommodation/ Meals
03.04.12
Birmingham
Official meetings
£248.68
£248.68
Official meeting
£23.55
£23.55
20.04.12
London Edinburgh
Official meetings
£323.64
£323.64
25.04.12 Hospitality Received
Date
Organisation Name
Type of Hospitality Received
12.06.12
City of London Corporation
Dinner
20.06.12
Lord Carter
Lunch
## Alison Cottrell - Corporate Services Director, Hm Treasury
DATES
Total
Cost £
DESTINATION
PURPOSE
TRAVEL
OTHER (Including
Hospitality Given)
Air
Rail
Taxi/Car
Accommodation/ Meals
18.04.12 Norwich
Official meetings
£46.00
£46.00
16.05.12 Norwich
Official meetings
£46.00
£46.00
19.06.12 Norwich
Official meetings
£46.00
£46.00
Hospitality Received
Date
Organisation Name
Type of Hospitality Received
12.06.12
City of London Corporation
Dinner
## Julian Kelly - Group Director, Finance And Commercial, Hm Treasury
DATES
Total
Cost £
DESTINATION
PURPOSE
TRAVEL
OTHER (Including
Hospitality Given)
Air
Rail
Taxi/Car
Accommodation/ Meals
30.03.12 London
Official meeting
£4.30
£4.30
18.04.12 Norwich
Official meetings
£46.00
£46.00
16.05.12 Norwich
Official meetings
£46.00
£46.00
19.06.12 Norwich
Official meetings
£46.00
£46.00
Hospitality Received
Date
Organisation Name
Type of Hospitality Received
24.05.12
Collinson Grant
Dinner
12.06.12
City of London Corporation
Dinner
##
| en |
2264-pdf |
Disclosure Ref: 10 sent 24.5 Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request Number of non disclosure agreements made and reasons since 2014 Request Please can you process the following questions as a freedom of information request: A) How many non-disclosure agreements has the authority agreed in each of the calendar years of 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017? Please provide individual figures per year. Please also provide reasons for the agreements being agreed where possible (e.g. 2 whistleblower complaints). Please provide the total number of NDAs but also the different types of NDA agreements (e.g. whistleblower complaint/ / sexual harassment complaint etc.). Please make clear if the agreements concern commercial companies rather than employees. B) Please provide the total amount of financial compensation awarded as part of these agreements for the entirety of this period in £. Response In response to question A, please see the attached table which contains details of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) agreed between the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and employees; not commercial companies for the years 2014 to 2017. The data contained within the attached table for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 has been anonymised to protect the identity of those it relates to. It is necessary to anonymise this information to ensure individuals who have faced complaints or allegations of misconduct cannot be identified.
##
To disclose this type of information would be unfair to the individuals concerned; individuals have a clear and strong expectation that their personal data will be held in confidence and not disclosed to the public under the FOI Act. This is especially true of sensitive personal data as it comprises information that individuals will regard as the most private. In light of the above, the release of this information would breach the first data protection principle of fairness set out in the Data Protection Act 1998. Further information on the data protection principles is available on the following links:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/schedule/1
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/schedule/2 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/schedule/3 The types of NDAs can be found by pressing the tab entitled the same within the spreadsheet. The reasons for the NDAs are withheld from disclosure under section 40 of the FOI Act as this is sensitive, personal data of the individual/s concerned. Please see the attached section 17 notice which explains this exemption in detail. Our response to question B is contained within the attached spreadsheet. Please note the data contained within the spreadsheet should be read in conjunction with the caveats appended to the table.
Information Management Unit
020 3357 0899 IMU@cps.gov.uk | en |
1668-pdf |
## Annex B Central Government Police Revenue Funding 1995/6 - 2009/10: Technical Explanation Introduction
1. The Home Office is publishing a series of consistent police revenue
funding numbers from 1995/96-2009/10. This allows comparison of
funding levels over time. Due to changes in funding structures over this
period, we had to adjust the raw data to ensure that numbers are
directly comparable. This document explains how we made these adjustments. For a general overview and the numbers themselves,
please see separate Overview document.
## Technical Explanation
2. Over the period 1995/6-2009/10 there have been two main changes in
police revenue funding:
- a move from Regional Crime Squads (RCS) funded by contributions
from police forces to the National Crime Squad (NCS) which was
initially funded by the forces but subsequently directly funded by the Home Office
- the creation of the Pensions Top-Up Grant in 2006/07
3. In order to compare data over the whole period (i.e. to ensure that we
are comparing like with like), the raw data needs to be adjusted for these structural changes.
4. We used statistics from the Chartered Institute for Public Finance and
Accountancy (CIPFA) as a base for these adjustments (CIPFA collects
and publishes detailed data on police authority finances). Background information on the various funding streams referred to within this
document can be found in annual publications such as the Home Office Police Grant Report.
5. Over the same timescale, there were also a number of smaller changes
(e.g. removing police responsibility for dealing with stray dogs outside standard office hours). However, these changes were minor and
resulted in relatively insignificant changes in police funding. As a result,
we have made not adjustments for these minor changes.
## Correcting For The Change In Crime Squads
6. The first of these adjustments is also the simplest. CIPFA statistics
contain detailed records of the amount of funding given by forces to the
Regional Crime Squads (RCS) as direct funding, and to the National
Crime Squad (NCS) through the NCS levy. We deducted total crime squads funding from the Home Office Main Grant in those years in which the RCS and NCS were funded by forces rather than by the
Home Office. This gives us a series of numbers which is comparable in terms of crime squads funding.
## Correcting For The Change In Pensions Payments
7. The second adjustment is more complex. In 2006/07 the way police
pensions were funded changed and the Pensions Top-up Grant was
introduced. To understand how we corrected for this, we first need to understand how police pensions work and what the Pensions Top-up
Grant actually is.
## Structure Of Police Pensions
8. Police pensions are provided through an unfunded public service
scheme. The scheme is national but each police authority administers the scheme for its officers. Each authority is responsible for ensuring
that (a) serving officers pay pensions contributions and that (b) retired police officers receive their pensions.
9. Although there is no actual pension fund, the underlying actuarial
model for police pensions acts as though there were. In the actuarial model, police officers pay contributions into a notional fund. At the same time, the police authorities pay an employer contribution into the same fund for each officer. These two contributions are set at a level intended to cover the cost of providing each officer with a pension on retirement.
10.
Once the officer has retired, their pension is paid from this same
notional fund. This is shown in Figure 1 below.
11.
However, in order to reduce the amount of cash flowing through the
system each individual authority uses the money it collects from employee and employer pension contributions to help to pay for expenditure on pensions in payment (i.e. to pay the pensions of people
## Definition Of Pensions Top-Up Grant
12.
If the cash amount of employer and employee contributions is not
sufficient to pay for pensions in payment in that year, the Home Office pay the authorities a 'Pensions Top-up Grant'. The Pensions Top-up Grant is therefore equal to the difference between outgoing pension
expenditure and incoming pension contributions in a single year. This
financing arrangement protects police forces from fluctuations in the number of retirees and therefore in pension expenditure.
13.
Figure 2 shows how the Pensions Top-up Grant and force pensions
accounts fit together. (NB the diagram includes an additional box
covering other income which usually comes from transfers into the pensions scheme from other forces as officers move between forces.)
14.
Prior to 2006/07 the Pensions Top-up Grant did not exist and police
authorities did not pay an explicit employer contribution into a pensions account. Rather, the police authority paid for pensions directly from its operating account. Funding for these pensions came from the core settlement and other income sources.
## Calculation
15.
If we want to look at a long-term series of figures for police funding, we
need to make the numbers comparable. It is also most relevant to look
at funding to cover current policing costs (i.e. including employer contributions), not funding related to historic policing costs (i.e. the cost
of pensions for now-retired officers).
## 2006/07-2009/10
16.
This is straightforward for the years after 2006/07 because the Pensions Top-up Grant can simply be removed from the calculation of total core government funding. The difficulty comes in the years before this when the Top-up Grant did not exist. To produce a comparable set of figures for these years we need to calculate a notional Pensions Top-up Grant.
## 2005/06
17.
For 2005/06 (the final year before the Pensions Top-up Grant was
introduced) a notional Pensions Top-up Grant figure and an adjusted
Main Grant figure had already been calculated by the Government Actuaries Department as part of the process for creating the Pensions Top-up Grant. We used this figure in our calculations.
## 2003/04 And 2004/05
18.
For the years 2003/04 and 2004/05 CIPFA statistics do not contain
information on police force spend on pensions so we averaged the actual Pensions Top-up for the three years between 2005/06 and
2007/08. In the absence of other data, we believe that this is a reasonable assumption.
## 1995/96-2002/03
19.
For the years between 1995/96-2002/03 we needed to remove
pensions in payment and calculate an employer contribution (before
2005/06 police forces did not calculate employer contributions) in order to calculate a notional Pensions Top-up.
20.
CIPFA provides detail of the total amount of pensions paid out by the
police forces (both payments and lump sums). CIPFA also provides
detail on the payments made into police pensions through employee contributions.
21.
From Government Actuaries Department (GAD) assessments we knew that the total cost of the police pension scheme as a proportion of officer pensionable pay was 37% in 2009/10 and 32% in 1998/99 (no information on scheme cost exists for other years). The key driver of this increase over time was longevity.
22.
To estimate the scheme costs between 1998/99 and 2009/10 we used a technique known as linear interpolation. This technique divides the change from 37% to 32% equally between the 11 years to produce an
estimate of total scheme cost for each of these years.
23.
For each of the years between 1995/96-1998/99 we applied the same
annual change as used for the period 1998/99-2009/10. This is a reasonable assumption given longevity driver.
24.
This meant that we had an estimate of total scheme cost (as a percentage of officer pensionable pay) for each year. We were then
25.
CIPFA statistics contain details of the total amount (in £s) of employee
contributions to pensions for all police authorities. As we already knew
that this was worth 11% of pensionable pay, we were able to calculate
the corresponding notional employer contribution (in £s).To do this we divided the total employee contribution (in £s) by 11% (the employee contribution rate) and multiplied this by the employer contribution rate (as a percentage of office pensionable pay) in each year.
26.
The following is a worked example of this for 1998/99.
Total scheme cost = 32%
Employer contribution = total scheme cost - employee contribution: 32-11 = 21%
11% employee contribution = £336m
21% employer contribution = (336/0.11) x 0.21 = £642m
27.
To calculate a notional Pension Top-up Grant for each year we used the following formula:
Top-up = Pensions paid out (from CIPFA) - employee contribution (from CIPFA) -
employer contributions (our estimate) - transfers in/out (CIPFA)
## Adjusting The Home Office Main Grant
28.
Having calculated notional Top-up Grant levels, we then subtracted this
from the HO Main Grant for each of the years from 1995/96-2004/05. The
following is a worked example for 1998/99.
11% Employee contribution = £336m
21% Employer contribution = £642m Pensions paid out = £1,226m Notional Pensions Top-up Grant = 1226-336-642 = £248m
HO Main Grant (RCS/NCS corrected) = £3,526m HO Main Grant Final (RCS/NCS and Pensions Top-up corrected) = 3526 - 248 =
£3,278m
29.
At the end of the process we had produced a series of comparable
numbers from 1995/96 to 2009/10.
30.
Comments on, or suggested improvements to, the methodology used to adjust the raw data would be welcome.
Police Finance and Pensions Unit Home Office June 2010 | en |
4914-pdf |
## Q3 2018/19
Food Standards Agency Business Committee 13 March 2019 FSA 19-03-16 Final Version
## Contents
| Foreword | …………………………………..…………………………………………………………………… | 3 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|-------|
| Executive Summary | ……………………..…………………………………………………………………. | 4 |
| FSA Awareness and Reputation - Public Attitudes | ……………………….…..………..……. | 5 |
| Food Hygiene Rating System | …………………………………………………………………………… | 6 |
| Meat Food Business Operator Compliance | ……………………………..………………………. | 7 |
| Forward Look | ………………………………………..………………………………………………….……. | 8 |
| Delivering our Corporate Priorities | …..…………………………………………………………….. | 9-12 |
| Making the FSA a Great Place to Work - Staff Attrition & Recruitment | ….…………. | 13 |
| Making the FSA a Great Place to Work - Sickness | ……………………………………………. | 14 |
| Making the FSA a Great Place to Work - 2018 Civil Service People Survey | …..….. | 15-17 |
| Making the FSA a Great Place to Work - Diversity & Inclusion | ……….………..……... | 18-19 |
| Finance - Spend against HM Treasury Limits | …………….……………………………………. | 20 |
| Finance - Key Areas of Spend | ………………………………………………………………………… | 21 |
| Finance - Investment in the 2015-2020 Strategic Plan | ………………………….………… | 22 |
| Appendix | …………………………………………………………………………………………….………… | 23-25 |
## By Chris Hitchen, Director Of Finance And Performance
THE FSA'S PERFORMANCE IN THE 3RD QUARTER AGAINST OF **2018/19** saw good progress being made against the 3 strategic priorities set by the Board. On EU Exit, the FSA's 1st strategic priority, we continue to make good progress on delivery of our EU Exit plans which are designed to ensure food and feed safety is not compromised when the UK exits the EU under any terms of exit. We have almost completed recruitment of our enhanced workforce to increase our capacity and expertise across risk assessment, risk management, import controls, incident handling, surveillance and food crime; have secured additional office accommodation in Birmingham; and laid the necessary statutory instruments to ensure we have a functioning body of food law in the event of a no-deal scenario. The majority of our preparations are now in place in terms of day 1 readiness for a no-deal scenario. Where some risks to delivery remain, related to where the FSA is dependent on other departments, we have developed contingency plans that will be implemented in the event that any critical part of a plan does not deliver on time.
The FSA continues to work closely with other government departments and the Devolved Administrations in progressing its EU Exit delivery plans.
The FSA's 2nd strategic priority, Regulating Our Future (ROF) programme is progressing. The "Register a Food Business" (RaFB) service is live with 10 LA's as of end January. Work continues to establish a robust service management regime and drive adoption. Alternate routes to digital registration are being developed to accommodate the diversity of LA circumstances and ensure as wide and rapid adoption as possible. The phased development of the Unified View (UV) which will create the ability to list all Food and Feed Establishments known to the FSA and what we know about them, is on track to deliver Minimal Viable Product. In parallel, the team has begun the phased go live of Primary Authority national inspection strategies for food. On the FSA's 3rd Strategic priority of doing the day job exceptionally the Civil Service People Survey (Slides 15-17) shows our engagement score rose to 64%, 4% points greater than 2017, and up 23 places in the engagement rankings compared with last year. The FSA is 2% points above the Civil Service Benchmark and 2% points away from Civil Service High Performers (slide 14). Looking at our key engagement drivers from 2017 the results show that all areas have increased. All 9 themes in the survey have increased with 8 of them the highest they have ever been. Pay and Benefits is only 1% away from its highest level (slide 15). Three questions in the core survey saw a slight decrease and we will work on improving these and continue the excellent improvement which has been made this year.
Diversity and Inclusion information is included for the first time (slides 18-19). We are committed to a workforce representative of the society we serve and providing equality of opportunity. We monitor representation of protected characteristics across the department and this data is vital in measuring progress on equality. Our three overarching goals are to champion inclusivity across our leadership and management community, attract and retain a diverse workforce and develop and support staff networks, of which 4 have been established by December 2018. We also aim to increase Civil Service People Survey scores for engagement and inclusion and fair treatment to that of high performers and close the gap between FSA scores and scores for under-represented groups in these areas. The FSA is successfully managing its resources to well within all key HM treasury limits, with no overspends. Investment in, and delivery of, both EU Exit and ROF remains on track. The FSA continues to drive efficiency and to improve value for money.
5 ('very good') EXECUTIVE SUMMARYOUR PERFORMANCE IN Q3
## Fsa Awareness And Reputation - Public Attitudes
UK Public Reputation %
## Out Of Those Aware Of The Fsa % That Trust Us To Do Our Job 14Th
Public Reputation still meeting our ambition of scoring over 72%.
Out of those Aware of the FSA, "Distrust of the FSA to do its job" has remained the same (4%). Whilst "Trust" has dropped slightly to 67%.
75.9%
out of 80 government agencies for FSA's public reputation. The number of organisations has increased from 67 to 80.
FSA Trust in messaging - Out of those aware of the FSA % that trust the FSA to tell the truth in the information they provide
## Food Hygiene Rating Scheme
% of food businesses within the scope of FHRS achieving FHRS rating of '5 - very good' (England, Wales and Northern Ireland consolidated)
% of food businesses within the scope of FHRS achieving FHRS rating of 2 or lower (England, Wales and Northern Ireland consolidated)
% of food businesses within the scope of FHRS with a rating of 2 or lower as at December 31st 2018 by country
## Meat Food Business Operator (Fbo) Compliance Modern, Accountable Excellent Regulator Forward Look To 2020 (Milestones)
Deliver our EU EXIT plan and embed
•
UK exits the EU: implement FSA exit plan with functioning domestic food law
•
Ongoing implementation supporting the outcome of negotiations
EU EXIT
•
Delivery plans approved
•
Contingency plans for a "hard" EU Exit are in place
•
HMT - Funding secured
Embed our RISK ANALYSIS approach into the business
•
Make new food and feed risk analysis processes work and build capability
•
Legislate using the powers of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
•
Anticipate and bring forward priority issues driven by our new EU and global relationships
•
Commence planning for 'Enduring Regime' post exit.
Fully functioning NATIONAL FOOD CRIME Unit
•
Improved understanding of strategic threat and defined thresholds
REGULATING OUR FUTURE
•
Field trials for registration
•
Requisite platforms to support intelligence and investigative functions
•
Formal consultation for segmentation
•
Interim executive powers and progression of primary legislation
•
Define future roles of FSA, Local Authorities and private assurance
KNOWLEDGE gathering and SURVEILLANCE
•
New surveillance system embedded
•
External surv. intelligence sharing network that promotes collaboration
SURVEILLANCE
•
Prototype model for surveillance
•
Pursue food-borne allergens as 'flagship' public health/safety challenge
•
Build surveillance capability
•
A coherent, cross-FSA framework sampling strategy
Building our ENGAGEMENT capability
•
Build and maintain our external and international affairs
OUR WAYS OF WORKING
•
New London office
•
Grow influence & impact with our science
•
Improved & expanded capabilities in issuing food notification
•
Consolidated contracts for plant-based operational staff
•
Engage on a bilateral / multilateral basis on key FSA policy issues
EVOLVE IT
•
Exit from Capita contract
Regulation and its modernisation REGULATING OUR FUTURE
•
Drive adoption of Registering a Food Business across all LAs
•
FSA-owned IT model in place
•
Further develop and refine capability to support FBO Segmentation
•
Trial Primary Authority NIS and Assurance Standards
•
Design a new Food Standards delivery model
DATA & DIGITAL
•
New Food.gov.uk
•
Develop a single, coherent, Operations Transformation Delivery Plan
•
Digital Workplace
Increasing our DATA & DIGITAL capability
•
Deliver Data projects to better understand and utilise our information
PEOPLE STRATEGY
•
2020 Workforce plan
•
Deliver Digital services to meet the FSA business needs
•
Senior Leadership programme
•
New performance management scheme
•
Talent management
Our PEOPLE are supported
•
Delivering business-critical skills as part of our Strategic Capabilities Plan
•
Diversity strategy and roadmap
•
Our Fit for Change model is embedded and leadership strategies developed
•
New Pay & Reward Strategy, Embed ASPIRE values and Diversity & Inclusion strategy
Food we can trust operating outside the EU
New regulatory model launches
A robust evidence base in
our work applied and openly
communicated to protect
consumers' interests
An effective and resilient
organisation, with highly
skilled leaders enabling
the FSA to be recognised
as an excellent, accountable
modern regulator
## Delivering Our Corporate Priorities Eu Exit - Preparing For All Scenarios
| Apr - Jun 18 | Jul - Sep 18 | Oct - Dec 18 | Jan - Mar 19 |
|----------------------|----------------------|--------------------|-----------------|
| Pre- | | | |
| Notification | | | |
| Changes to | Resource available | | |
| (EU High Risk | Recruitment for | | |
| to enable ports / | | | |
| additional FSA | | | |
| Imports | | | |
| business processes | | | |
| for import controls | FSA to deliver new | | |
| products) | | | |
| principles | capacity started | | |
| identified | processes | | |
| agreed Cross- | | | |
| Government | | | |
| Recruitment | | | |
| Solution build for | Stakeholder | | |
| for additional | | | |
| handling food | strategy | | |
| Incidents | | | |
| capacity | | | |
| alerts started | implemented | | |
| started | | | |
| Fixing SI's | | | |
| Legal | | | |
| Inoperabilities | Consultations | | |
| identified | | | |
| Drafted | | | |
| (extends | started | | |
| Consequences | | | |
| through to Sep) | | | |
| Recruitment | | | |
| Additional FSA RA | | | |
| for additional | | | |
| capacity in place | | | |
| Risk Assessment | | | |
| Day 1 Lab capacity | | | |
| in place | FSA capacity | | |
| started | | | |
| Shadow | | | |
| Cross Government | Ministerial | Governance for | |
| Regulatory | | | |
| agreement to RM | response to | decision making | |
| Risk Management | | | |
| Forum | | | |
| proposals | RM proposals | developed | |
| established | | | |
| Methods & | | | |
| Surveillance | | | |
| Specific case | | | |
| studies agreed | process in place | | |
| Enhanced | | | |
| Alpha | Discovery | | |
| complete | complete | | |
| Private Beta Phase | | | |
| Registration | | | |
| NFCU | Senior | | |
| FSA Board | | | |
| Recruitment | Management | | |
| NFCU | | | |
| HMT approved | | | |
| business case | Approval | | |
| Launched | recruited | | |
| Informal | Plan in place for | | |
| consultation | listing premises | | |
| Exports | | | |
| New Health Mark | | | |
| agreed by FSA | | | |
| with industry | with EC. | | |
| Industry / Officials | | | |
| Start date for Pre- | | | |
| understand | Additional FSA | Systems and | Law is ready to |
| Notification | | | |
| changes required | imports capacity | process for MVP in | underpin import |
| confirmed by | | | |
| from Day 1 & | in place | place | control regime |
| DEFRA. | | | |
| beyond. | | | |
| Start date for Pre- | Roles and | | |
| Solution in place | Additional FSA | | |
| Notification | responsibilities | | |
| for handling food | incidents capacity | | |
| Law is ready to | | | |
| enable incident | | | |
| confirmed by | clear for incident | | |
| alerts | in place | response / action | |
| DEFRA. | handling | | |
| Law is ready to | | | |
| Consultations | | | |
| Parliamentary | underpin | | |
| complete | | | |
| Parliamentary | | | |
| process started | process complete | regulatory regime | |
| from Day 1 | | | |
| Scientific | Risk | Law is ready to | |
| Risk Assessment | | | |
| committees | Communication | underpin RA | |
| Principles in place | | | |
| expanded | methods agreed | responsibilities | |
| FSA Board | | | |
| Resources in place | Food Safety RM | Law is ready to | |
| Process for decision | Agreement to | | |
| to undertake new | Forum Operational | underpin RM | |
| making agreed | Governance & | | |
| responsibilities | (in shadow form) | responsibilities | |
| Process | | | |
| Successful | | | |
| Case studies | | | |
| outputs | | | |
| completed | | | |
| operationalised | | | |
| Enhanced | | | |
| Initial Delivery | | | |
| Registration | | | |
| Agents understand | | | |
| System in use | | | |
| requirements | | | |
| (MVP) | | | |
| Middle | Law ready to | | |
| Management | Staff Trained | | |
| Case Management | | | |
| allow full range of | | | |
| System live | | | |
| recruited | activity | | |
| Consultation on | Industry / Officials | | |
| health marks | understand | | |
| Replacement | | | |
| meat stamps | | | |
| complete | requirements | issued | |
## Delivering Our Corporate Priorities Delivering Our Corporate Priorities Delivering Our Corporate Priorities Making The Fsa A Great Place To Work - Attrition And Recruitment Headcount By Quarter Oct 2017 - Dec 2018
Of the posts accepted in Q3 were EU Exit roles Performance and resources report - Q3 2018/19 | 13
## Making The Fsa A Great Place To Work - Sickness
bring FSA sickness down and remain
below target.
% of total absence taken which were short/long term in a rolling 12 month period as submitted to Cabinet Office (Q3 reporting period Jan 2018-Dec 2018 )
increase in AWDL long term sick leave between Q2 and Q3 (Reporting on a 12 month rolling period).
## Making The Fsa A Great Place To Work - 2018 Civil Service People Survey Making The Fsa A Great Place To Work - 2018 Civil Service People Survey
People Survey 2018 - Trends in the FSA
(using the 2017 top drivers of engagements)
## Making The Fsa A Great Place To Work - 2018 Civil Service People Survey
The 2018 people survey showed increases in all survey themes with eight out of nine reaching their highest ever score. The below shows the largest increases and largest decreases in % positive scores.
## Making The Fsa A Great Place To Work - Diversity And Inclusion
Almost two-thirds of civil servants who reported their age in March 2018 were aged over 40.
In 2018 the FSA became committed to being "Disability Confident Leader" by 2020.
## Making The Fsa A Great Place To Work - Diversity And Inclusion Employment % By Gender Fsa From November 2018 Compared To Civil Service Statistics Uk 3Rd August 2018
81% of employees Last year in the FSA most grades had a gap in favour of men. In
2018 there has been a shift in most grades.
in the two most junior grades are male.
## Fsa Gender Pay Gap Report - March 2018
*A negative number indicates that women on average earn more than men.
The gender balance for roles in London is 49% to 51% in favour of women whereas outside of London it is 71% to
29% in favour of men.
## Affordability - How The Fsa Is Performing Against Hm Treasury Limits
| 2018/19 | Fav/(Adv) | Fav/(Adv) | RAG |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|---------------|-------------|--------|
| Limits | Availability | Variance | status |
| 2018/19 | | | |
| Full Year | | | |
| Forecast | | | |
| £m | £m | £m | % |
| Westminster | | | |
| (inc EU Exit) | | | |
| Net Administration Expenditure (exc dep'n) | | | |
| 43.5 | 44.3 | 0.8 | 2% |
| Net Programme Expenditure (exc dep'n) | | | |
| 38.3 | 42.4 | 4.1 | 10% |
| Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) (exc dep'n) | | | |
| 81.8 | 86.7 | 4.9 | 6% |
| Resource Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) | | | |
| 3.3 | 9.6 | 6.3 | 66% |
| | Capital (DEL) | | |
| 7.4 | 8.5 | 1.0 | 12% |
| Wales | | | |
| RDEL - of which | | | |
| 3.4 | 3.5 | 0.1 | 4% |
| CDEL Capital - IT / Accommodation | | | |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0% |
| Northern Ireland | | | |
| RDEL - of which | | | |
| 8.3 | 8.5 | 0.2 | 2% |
| CDEL Capital - IT / Accommodation | | | |
| 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 45% |
## Breakdown Of Corporate Priorities And Key Areas Of Spend
£m September Full Year Forecast 2018/19
£m December Full Year Forecast 2018/19
£m Movement Fav / (Adv)
% Movement Fav / (Adv)
EU Exit new funding
13.3
13.3
0.0
0%
EU Exit FSA
3.5
3.5
0.0
0%
ROF*
1.8
1.7
0.1
6%
Surveillance
0.0
0.0
0.0
0%
OWOW
0.2
0.2
0.0
0%
Evolve IT
0.8
0.9
(0.1)
(11%)
Science
8.4
7.6
0.8
(11%)
Field ops (inc NI)
21.3
24.0
(2.7)
(14%)
Total Priorities Spend
49.3
51.2
(1.9)
(4%)
As at end of December (Qtr 3), the above spend on key areas represents approx. 49% of the total FSA spend (inc. Capex) forecast for 2018-19. This is a similar proportion of total spend as forecast at the end of Qtr2. The forecast decrease in overall FSA spend for 2018-19, as at end of Qtr 3, is approx. 2% compared to Qtr 2 (from £108.4m to £106.7m).
*
£2.6m of the £13.3m EU Exit funding figure relates to the ROF Programme.
## Aligning Resources To Corporate Priorities 2015-19
Slide 3 - More information on the National Inspection strategy can be found on the Food Standards Agency website at: www.food.gov.uk/primary-authority-national-inspection-strategy Slide 6 - FBO compliance levels are not in direct control of the FSA, so the targets are ones that FSA can influence, but not control. FHRS is operated in partnership with local authorities who deliver the scheme locally, as an added value to their intervention programmes. Whilst LAs aim to address any food safety hazards and legal non-compliance during interventions, the relationship between FBO compliance levels and LA delivery / performance is complex. Various factors outside the remit of the LA may also influence levels of FBO compliance. FHRS based risk indicators already form part of the LA audit/ intervention selection criteria, and FHRS data is being incorporated into the Balanced Scorecard/LA Dashboard project to inform our work with under-performing LAs. The figures are for England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined. Individual country ratings differ. More information on FHRS can be found on the Food Standards Agency website at:
http://ratings.food.gov.uk/
Slide 10 - RoF - Framework for system standards in the delivery model: Delays due to resources availability, secondment from our Wales office is now in place and therefore this will be delivered by end of March 2019. Interim Operating model implementation plan: Delays due to bringing in resources after creation of Operational Transformation Team was not approved, rescheduled for Q4. Slide 11 - Data & Digital - Data storytelling workshop: Whilst the data science team have delivered a number of data stories, and worked within the team to develop a process for producing these, workshops to share the process of creating data stories more widely has been delayed to Q4. Business guidance delivered: Delays due to incorporating the new EU exit guidance for business. Delivery is on target to be delivered by the end of March 2019. Slide 12 - People Strategy - Review and evaluate new performance management & reward system: The evaluation survey has been conducted, with a full review planned in Q1 and completed by September 2019. Develop FSA talent strategy: Delays due to aligning with CS Talent Strategy and resources being redeployed to ensure EU exit recruitment was delivered. The Talent Strategy will be published by the end of Q4. Slide 18 - More information on the Civil Service Diversity and Inclusion Dashboard can be found on the Governments website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-diversity-inclusion-dashboard/civil-service-diversity-and-inclusion-dashboard Slide 19 - The median represents the middle point of a population. If you separately lined up all female employees and all male employees, the median pay gap is the difference between the hourly pay rate for the middle woman compared to that of the middle man. Civil Service Labour Market statistics UK 2018 released 3 August 2018, more information on the statistics can be found on the Office For National Statistics website:
## Reporting Frequency For Slides
| Content / Number of Slides per area | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|------|
| Human Cases of Food Borne Disease | 1 slide | | |
| x | | | |
| Food Hygiene Rating Scheme | 1 slide | | |
| x | x | x | x |
| Meat FBO compliance | 1 slide | | |
| x | x | x | x |
| Animal welfare (visiting slides) | 1 slide | | |
| x | | | |
| Bi-annual | People report following recommended food safety practices in | | |
| their home | 1 slide | | |
| x | | | |
| Confidence that food is what it says it is | 1 slide | Bi-annual | |
| x | | | |
| FSA Food Safety week (visiting slides) | 1 slide | | |
| x | | | |
| FSA Key Messages and Media Coverage (visiting slides) | 1 slide | | |
| x | | | |
| Incidents | 1 slide | | |
| x | | | |
| Recalls | 1 slide | | |
| x | | | |
| NI Business engagement with Calorie Wise and consumer | | | |
| awareness of Calories | 1 slide | | |
| x | | | |
| NI Consumer Demand for healthy Options | Bi-annual | | |
| x | | | |
| (2018/19) | | | |
| (2018/19) | | | |
| (2018/19) | | | |
## Reporting Frequency For Slides
| Content / Number of Slides per area | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 |
|--------------------------------------------|----------|-------------------------------|------|
| Public Trust and Awareness | 1 slide | | |
| x | x | | |
| Recognition and use of FHRS scheme | 1 slide | | |
| x | | | |
| People who believe and accept FSA messages | 1 slide | | |
| x | x | | |
| Health and Safety | 1 slide | | |
| x | | | |
| Diversity and Inclusion | 2 slides | | |
| x | x | | |
| Staff Attrition & Sickness | 2 slides | | |
| x | x | x | x |
| Civil Service People Survey | 3 slides | Dependent on publication date | |
| Forward Look | 1 slide | | |
| x | x | x | x |
| Delivering our Corporate Priorities | 4 slides | | |
| x | x | x | x |
| Spend against HMT Treasury Limits | 1 slide | | |
| x | x | x | x |
| Key Areas of Spend | 1 slide | | |
| x | x | x | x |
| Investment in the 2015-2020 Strategic Plan | 1 slide | | |
| x | x | x | x |
Q3 2017/18 had 19 slides, Q4 2017/18 had 18 slides, Q1 2018/19 had 21 slides, Q2 2018/19 had 19 slides and Q3 2018/19 has 25 slides encompassing the new Diversity & Inclusion slides and appendix.
x
| en |
0963-pdf |
## Northampton Borough Council Standards Committee
Your attendance is requested at a meeting to be held at This meeting will be held remotely at https://www.youtube.com/user/northamptonbcTV on Monday, 29 June 2020 at 5:00 pm.
George Candler Chief Executive
## Agenda
1.
APOLOGIES
2.
MINUTES
3.
DEPUTATIONS / PUBLIC ADDRESSES
4.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
5.
MATTERS OF URGENCY WHICH BY REASON OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE CHAIR IS OF THE OPINION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
6.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ETHICAL STANDARDS - COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE
The Committee to consider a report following the recent meeting of the Standards Working Group that considered the report "Local Government Ethical Standards - Committee on Standards in Public Life"
7.
INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT: MEMBER-OFFICER RELATIONSHIP REVIEW
The Committee to receive a briefing on the Internal Audit Report: Member-Officer Relationship Review
8.
STANDARDS COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 2019/2020
The Standards Committee to consider and approve its Annual Report 2019/2020.
9.
CODE OF CONDUCT ARRANGEMENT COMPLAINTS
The Standards Committee to consider a report regarding complaints received under the Arrangements for dealing with allegations of breaches of the Council's Code of Conduct and of Codes of Conduct adopted by Parish Councils.
## 10. Exclusion Of Public And Press
THE CHAIR TO MOVE: "THAT THE PUBLIC AND PRESS BE EXCLUDED FROM THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING ON THE GROUNDS THAT THERE IS LIKELY TO BE DISCLOSURE TO THEM OF SUCH CATEGORIES OF EXEMPT INFORMATION AS DEFINED BY SECTION 100(1) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 AS LISTED AGAINST SUCH ITEMS OF BUSINESS BY REFERENCE TO THE APPROPRIATE
PARAGRAPH OF SCHEDULE 12A TO SUCH ACT." | en |
1982-pdf |
| Civil Service People Survey 2017 | Returns : 3,969 | Response rate : 68% |
|------------------------------------|-------------------|-----------------------|
Employee engagement is shaped by experience at work, as measured by nine themes in the survey shown below.
| Engagement Index | My work |
|--------------------|--------------------|
| Organisational | |
| objectives and | |
| purpose | |
| 61 | |
| % | |
| 75 | |
| % | |
| 87 | |
| % | |
| Difference from | |
| previous survey | |
| +3 | |
| - | |
| Difference from | |
| previous survey | |
| +3 | |
| - | |
| Difference from | |
| previous survey | |
| +2 | |
| - | |
| Difference from | |
| CS2017 | |
| 0 | |
| Difference from | |
| CS2017 | |
| -1 | |
| - | |
| Difference from | |
| CS2017 | |
| +5 | |
| - | |
| -4 | |
| - | |
| -4 | |
| - | |
| Difference from CS | |
| High Performers | |
| Difference from CS | |
| High Performers | |
| Difference from CS | |
| High Performers | |
| Learning and | Inclusion and fair |
| development | treatment |
| 53 | |
| % | |
| 75 | |
| % | |
| 70 | |
| % | |
| Difference from | |
| previous survey | |
| +7 | |
| - | |
| Difference from | |
| previous survey | |
| +3 | |
| - | |
| Difference from | |
| previous survey | |
| +6 | |
| - | |
| Difference from | |
| CS2017 | |
| 0 | |
| Difference from | |
| CS2017 | |
| -2 | |
| - | |
| Difference from | |
| CS2017 | |
| -2 | |
| - | |
| -5 | |
| - | |
| -5 | |
| - | |
| Difference from CS | |
| High Performers | |
| Difference from CS | |
| High Performers | |
| Difference from CS | |
| High Performers | |
Strength of association with engagement
- Statistically significant difference from comparison
My manager
My team
69%
75%
Difference from previous survey
+4 —
Difference from previous survey
+2 —
Difference from CS2017
-1 —
Difference from CS2017
-5 —
0
-4 —
-8 —
Difference from CS High Performers
Difference from CS High Performers
Leadership and
Pay and benefits
managing change
33%
46%
Difference from previous survey
-3 —
Difference from previous survey
+3 —
Difference from CS2017
+3 —
Difference from CS2017
0
-5 —
-4 —
-5 —
Difference from CS High Performers
Difference from CS High Performers
## Returns : 3,969 Response Rate : 68% Wellbeing
| Difference |
|---------------|
| Theme |
| from | Difference | from CS |
|-------------|---------------|------------|
| Strength of | | |
| association | | |
| score % | | |
| previous | from | High |
| with | | |
| engagement | | |
| survey | CS2017 | Performers |
| Positive | | |
The table below shows how you performed on each of the nine themes ranked by the strength of association with engagement. The themes which have the strongest association with engagement should be the focus for action. See the appendix for further details.
Drivers of Engagement
Leadership and managing change
46%
+3—
0
-5—
My manager
69%
+4—
-1 —
-4—
My work
75%
+3—
-1 —
-4—
worthwhile?
Resources and workload
70%
+6—
-2 —
-5—
## Discrimination, Bullying And Harassment
Learning and development
53%
+7—
0
-5—
Pay and benefits
33%
-3—
+3 —
-4—
Organisational objectives and purpose
87%
+2—
+5 —
0
My team
75%
+2—
-5 —
-8—
Inclusion and fair treatment
75%
+3—
-2 —
-5—
| Civil Service People Survey 2017 |
|------------------------------------|
| Headline scores |
Highest positive scoring questions
Highest neutral scoring questions
for the future of the CPS
in the CPS actively role model the behaviours set out
taken on the results of the last survey
Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by the DPP, Chief Executive and Directors of Legal, Business and Corporate Services
Highest negative scoring questions
performance
organisations I feel my pay is reasonable
## Returns : 3,969 Response Rate : 68% All Questions By Theme
My work
75%
+3 —
Difference
from previous survey
Strength of
association with engagement
B01 I am interested in my work
92%
+1 —
+2 —
0
B02 I am sufficiently challenged by my work
83%
+2 —
+2 —
0
B03 My work gives me a sense of personal accomplishment
82%
+3 —
+5 —
+2 —
B04 I feel involved in the decisions that affect my work
54%
+5 —
-4 —
-10 —
B05 I have a choice in deciding how I do my work
64%
+6 —
-12 —
-16 —
## Organisational Objectives And Purpose* 87% +2 —
Difference from previous survey
Strength of association with engagement
B06 I have a clear understanding of the CPS objectives
87%
+2 —
+6 —
+1 —
B07 I understand how my work contributes to the CPS objectives
88%
+2 —
+4 —
0
- indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
% Positive
Difference
from previous
survey
Difference
from CS2017
Difference
from CS High
Performers
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly
disagree *This theme score is based on one fewer question in this year's
survey. Previous survey scores have been recalculated on this basis, to allow for the theme trend comparison
## Returns : 3,969 Response Rate : 68% All Questions By Theme
My manager
69%
+4 —
Difference
from previous survey
Strength of
association with engagement
B08 My manager motivates me to be more effective in my job
70%
+5 —
0
-5 —
B09 My manager is considerate of my life outside work
82%
+5 —
-2 —
-5 —
B10 My manager is open to my ideas
78%
+5 —
-4 —
-7 —
B11 My manager helps me to understand how I contribute to the CPS objectives
68%
+4 —
+2 —
-3 —
B12 Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by my manager
75%
+5 —
+1
-4 —
B13 My manager recognises when I have done my job well
78%
+3 —
-1 —
-4 —
B14 I receive regular feedback on my performance
66%
+3 —
-2 —
-7 —
B15 The feedback I receive helps me to improve my performance
63%
+4 —
0
-4 —
B16 I think that my performance is evaluated fairly
69%
+5 —
+3 —
-1 —
B17 Poor performance is dealt with effectively in my team
39%
+2 —
0
-4 —
- indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
% Positive
Difference
from previous
survey
Difference
from CS2017
Difference
from CS High
Performers
| Civil Service People Survey 2017 | Returns : 3,969 | Response rate : 68% |
|------------------------------------|-------------------|-----------------------|
## All Questions By Theme
My team
75%
+2 —
Difference
from previous survey
Strength of
association with engagement
B18 The people in my team can be relied upon to help when things get difficult in my
job
83%
+1
-2 —
-4 —
B19 The people in my team work together to find ways to improve the service we
provide
77%
+2 —
-5 —
-7 —
B20 The people in my team are encouraged to come up with new and better ways of
doing things
65%
+5 —
-10 —
-14 —
Learning and
development
53%
+7 —
Difference from previous survey
Strength of association with engagement
B21 I am able to access the right learning and development opportunities when I need
to
67%
+7 —
+3 —
-2 —
B22 Learning and development activities I have completed in the past 12 months have
helped to improve my performance
57%
+6 —
+5 —
-1 —
B23 There are opportunities for me to develop my career in the CPS
44%
+7 —
-3 —
-11 —
B24 Learning and development activities I have completed while working for the CPS
are helping me to develop my career
44%
+6 —
-3 —
-8 —
- indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
% Positive
Difference
from previous
survey
Difference
from CS2017
Difference
from CS High
Performers
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
| Civil Service People Survey 2017 | Returns : 3,969 | Response rate : 68% |
|------------------------------------|-------------------|-----------------------|
## All Questions By Theme
Inclusion and fair
treatment
75%
+3 —
Difference
from previous survey
Strength of
association with engagement
B25 I am treated fairly at work
78%
+3 —
-2 —
-5 —
B26 I am treated with respect by the people I work with
84%
+2 —
0
-3 —
B27 I feel valued for the work I do
64%
+5 —
-2 —
-8 —
B28 I think that the CPS respects individual differences (e.g. cultures, working styles,
backgrounds, ideas, etc)
73%
+4 —
-2 —
-6 —
Resources and workload*
70%
+6 —
Difference from previous survey
Strength of association with engagement
B29 I get the information I need to do my job well
67%
+6 —
-2 —
-7 —
B30 I have clear work objectives
80%
+4 —
+5 —
0
B31 I have the skills I need to do my job effectively
90%
+3 —
+1 —
-1 —
B32 I have the tools I need to do my job effectively
66%
+9 —
-4 —
-11 —
B33 I have an acceptable workload
56%
+6 —
-5 —
-11 —
B34 I achieve a good balance between my work life and my private life
62%
+6 —
-6 —
-12 —
- indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
% Positive
Difference
from previous
survey
Difference
from CS2017
Difference
from CS High
Performers
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly
disagree *This theme score is based on one fewer question in this year's
survey. Previous survey scores have been recalculated on this basis, to allow for the theme trend comparison
## Returns : 3,969 Response Rate : 68% All Questions By Theme
Pay and benefits
33%
-3 —
Difference
from previous survey
Strength of
association with engagement
B35 I feel that my pay adequately reflects my performance
30%
-3 —
0
-7 —
B36 I am satisfied with the total benefits package
37%
0
+3 —
-3 —
B37 Compared to people doing a similar job in other organisations I feel my pay is
reasonable
31%
-4 —
+5 —
-2 —
Leadership and
managing change*
46%
+3 —
Difference from previous survey
Strength of association with engagement
B38 My CCP, DCCP, ABM or Head of Directorate/Division in the CPS are sufficiently
visible
60%
+4 —
0
-8 —
B39 I believe the actions of my CCP, DCCP, ABM or Head of Directorate/Division are
consistent with the CPS values
62%
+4 —
+8 —
+2 —
B40 I believe that the CPS Board has a clear vision for the future of the CPS
48%
+3 —
0
-6 —
B41
Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by the DPP, Chief Executive and Directors of Legal, Business and Corporate Services
47%
+3 —
-2 —
-7 —
B42 I feel that change is managed well in the CPS
34%
+5 —
+1 —
-6 —
B43 When changes are made in the CPS they are usually for the better
31%
+3 —
-2 —
-9 —
B44 The CPS keeps me informed about matters that affect me
55%
+5 —
-3 —
-10 —
B45 I have the opportunity to contribute my views before decisions are made that
affect me
38%
-2 —
0
-9 —
B46 I think it is safe to challenge the way things are done in the CPS
41%
+3 —
-5 —
-12 —
- indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
% Positive
Difference
from previous
survey
Difference
from CS2017
Difference
from CS High
Performers
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly
disagree *This theme score is based on one fewer question in this year's
survey. Previous survey scores have been recalculated on this basis, to allow for the theme trend comparison
| Civil Service People Survey 2017 | Returns : 3,969 | Response rate : 68% |
|------------------------------------|-------------------|-----------------------|
## All Questions By Theme Engagement Strongly
B47 I am proud when I tell others I am part of the CPS
60%
+4 —
-2 —
-9 —
B48 I would recommend the CPS as a great place to work
47%
+6 —
-8 —
-16 —
B49 I feel a strong personal attachment to the CPS
59%
+3 —
+10 —
+2 —
B50 The CPS inspires me to do the best in my job
50%
+5 —
+2 —
-5 —
B51 The CPS motivates me to help it achieve its objectives
48%
+6 —
+2 —
-5 —
## Taking Action Strongly
| B52 | I believe that my CCP, DCCP, ABM or Head of Directorate/Division in the CPS |
|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| will take action on the results from this survey | |
| 52% | |
| +3 | |
| - | |
| +2 | |
| - | |
| -6 | |
| - | |
| B53 | Where I work, I think effective action has been taken on the results of the last |
| survey | |
| 41% | |
| +2 | |
| - | |
| +4 | |
| - | |
| -4 | |
| - | |
- indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
% Positive
Difference
from previous
survey
Difference
from CS2017
Difference
from CS High
Performers
agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
| Civil Service People Survey 2017 | Returns : 3,969 | Response rate : 68% |
|------------------------------------|-------------------|-----------------------|
## All Questions By Theme Organisational Culture Strongly
B54 I am trusted to carry out my job effectively
87%
+2 —
-1 —
-3 —
B55 I believe I would be supported if I try a new idea, even if it may not work
60%
+5 —
-11 —
-16 —
B56 In the CPS, people are encouraged to speak up when they identify a serious
policy or delivery risk
59%
New
-7 —
-12 —
B57 I feel able to challenge inappropriate behaviour in the workplace
61%
New
-2 —
-7 —
B58 The CPS is committed to creating a diverse and inclusive workplace
74%
New
0
-4 —
## Leadership Statement Strongly
B59
My CCP, DCCP, ABM or Head of Directorate/Division in the CPS actively role model the behaviours set out in the Civil Service Leadership Statement
54%
+5 —
+7 —
-1 —
B60 My manager actively role models the behaviours set out in the Civil Service
Leadership Statement
66%
+8 —
0
-6 —
## Civil Service Vision Strongly
B61 I am aware of the Civil Service vision for 'A Brilliant Civil Service'
39%
New
-4 —
-17 —
B62 I understand how my work contributes to helping us become 'A Brilliant Civil
Service'
38%
New
+1 —
-7 —
- indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
% Positive
Difference
from previous
survey
Difference
from CS2017
Difference
from CS High
Performers
agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
## Returns : 3,969 Response Rate : 68%
- indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
## All Questions By Theme Wellbeing
% Positive
Difference
from previous
survey
Difference
from CS2017
Difference
from CS High
Performers
Unlike the questions B01-B62 which ask people to rate their agreement from strongly agree to strongly disagree, the four wellbeing questions use a 11-point scale. The scale ranges from 0 to 10 for each question, where 0 is equivalent to 'not at all' (e.g. 'not at all satisfied' or 'not at all worthwhile') and where 10 is equivalent to 'completely' (e.g. 'completely satisfied' or 'completely anxious'). For questions W01, W02 and W03 the percent positive is the proportion answering 7, 8, 9 or 10 to each question.
W01 Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?
62%
+1
-4 —
-6 —
W02 Overall, to what extent do you feel that the things you do in your life are
worthwhile?
70%
+1
-1
-3 —
W03 Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday?
61%
-1
-2 —
-4 —
For question W04 the percent positive is the proportion answering 0, 1, 2 or 3 to the question.
W04 Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday?
47%
-1
-1 —
-4 —
## All Questions By Theme Your Plans For The Future
C01. Which of the following statements most reflects your current thoughts about working for the CPS?
I want to leave the CPS as soon as possible
9%
-1 —
0
-3 —
I want to leave the CPS within the next 12 months
9%
-1 —
-5 —
-9 —
I want to stay working for the CPS for at least the next year
24%
0
-10 —
-15 —
I want to stay working for the CPS for at least the next three years
59%
+2 —
+15 —
+6 —
## The Civil Service Code
Differences are based on '% Yes' score D01. Are you aware of the Civil Service Code?
89%
0
-3 —
-6 —
D02. Are you aware of how to raise a concern under the Civil Service Code?
65%
+2 —
-2 —
-8 —
D03. Are you confident that if you raised a concern under the Civil Service Code in the CPS it would be investigated properly?
65%
+3 —
-5 —
-11 —
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
Difference from
previous survey
Difference from
CS2017
Difference from
CS High
Performers
% Yes
%
No
% Yes
Difference from
previous survey
Difference from
CS2017
Difference from
CS High
Performers
## Returns : 3,969 Response Rate : 68% All Questions By Theme Discrimination, Harassment And Bullying
E01. During the past 12 months have you personally experienced discrimination at work?
For respondents who selected 'Yes' to question E01. E02. On which of the following grounds have you personally experienced discrimination at work in the past 12 months? (multiple selection)
| % |
|---------------------|
| % Prefer not to say |
| 2017 |
| 2016 |
| CS2017 |
E03. During the past 12 months have you personally experienced bullying or harassment at work?
2017 2016 CS2017
For respondents who selected 'Yes' to question E03. E05. Did you report the bullying and harassment you experienced?
| % |
|---------------------|
| % Prefer not to say |
| 2017 |
| 2016 |
| CS2017 |
For respondents who selected 'Yes' to question E03. E04. Who were you bullied or harassed by at work in the past 12 months? (multiple selection)
For respondents who selected 'Yes' to question E03. E06. In your opinion, has this issue been resolved?
2017 2016 CS2017
- indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
Response Count
Age
68
Caring responsibilities
68
Disability
89
Ethnic background
51
Gender
75
Gender reassignment or perceived gender
--
Grade, pay band or responsibility level
144
Main spoken/written language or language ability
15
Religion or belief
14
Sexual orientation
14
Social or educational background
27
Working location
88
Working pattern
158
Any other grounds
110
Prefer not to say
51
A colleague
148
Your manager
129
Another manager in my part of the CPS
137
Someone you manage
24
Someone who works for another part of the CPS
36
A member of the public
11
Someone else
27
Prefer not to say
59
Please note: Counts of fewer than ten responses are suppressed and replaced with '--'
## Returns : 3,969 Response Rate : 68% All Questions By Theme Crown Prosecution Service Questions Strongly
| F01 | I am committed to the CPS purpose of delivering justice |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 94% | |
| 0 | |
| F02 | |
| CPS supports the success of its people by investing in their learning and | |
| development | |
| 62% | |
| New | |
| F03 | |
| CPS ensures that the public have confidence in the decisions it makes by being | |
| open and transparent in delivering justice | |
| 73% | |
| New | |
| F04 | CPS delivers consistently high quality casework |
| 58% | |
| New | |
| F05 | CPS is continuously improving to digitise and modernise the way we work |
| 79% | |
| New | |
| F06 | I demonstrate the CPS values through my actions |
| 91% | |
| +3 | |
| - | |
| F07 | My direct line manager demonstrates the CPS values through their actions |
| 80% | |
| +5 | |
| - | |
| F08 | |
| CPS is committed to building and maintaining an inclusive workforce that treats | |
| all its employees fairly^ | |
| 68% | |
| +5 | |
| - | |
| F09 | CPS is committed to supporting my Health and Wellbeing^ |
| 58% | |
| +5 | |
| - | |
| F10 | Change is managed well in my Area/Directorate/Division |
| 44% | |
| +5 | |
| - | |
| F11 | My local Senior Management Team is sufficiently visible^ |
| 65% | |
| +9 | |
| - | |
| F12 | |
| I am kept informed of local and national news through the use of Team Talk at | |
| regular team briefings/meetings | |
| 67% | |
| +4 | |
| - | |
| F13 | CPS Conversations feedback is taken into account when decisions are made^ |
| 43% | |
| -1 | |
| - | |
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
% Positive
Difference
from previous
survey
| Civil Service People Survey 2017 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| - |
| indicates statistically significant difference from comparison |
## All Questions By Theme Crown Prosecution Service Questions Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
% Positive
Difference
from previous
survey
F14
CPS works meaningfully with the Departmental Trade Unions^
37%
0
F15
I am aware of opportunities for Smarter Working within my Area/Directorate/Division
Yes: 81% No: 19%
81%
New
| Civil Service People Survey 2017 | Returns : 3,969 | Response rate : 68% |
|------------------------------------|-------------------|-----------------------|
## Appendix Glossary Of Key Terms
| % positive | The proportion who selected either "agree" or "strongly agree" for a question (or all questions within a theme in the case of |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Theme score % positive | |
| ). | |
| Previous survey | Comparisons to the previous survey relate to the results from the 2016 Civil Service People Survey. Where a question is flagged as changed since the last |
| survey comparisons should be treated with caution as changes to wording may affect how people respond to the question. | |
| CS2017 | The CS2017 benchmark is the median percent positive across all organisations that participated in the 2017 Civil Service People Survey. |
| CS High Performers | For each question, this is the upper quartile score across all organisations that have taken part in the 2017 Civil Service People Survey. |
## Rounding
Results are presented as whole numbers for ease of reading, with rounding performed at the last stage of calculation for maximum accuracy.
## Statistical Significance: —
Statistical testing has been carried out on the comparisons between this year's results and your previous survey, CS2017 results and CS High Performers results to identify differences that are statistically significant. You can therefore be confident that the difference represents a real difference in opinion between the results.
The employee engagement index The survey includes five questions that make up the engagement index (B47-B51). The index score represents the average level of engagement in that unit and ranges from 0 to 100. An index score of 0 represents all respondents in that unit saying they strongly disagree to all five engagement questions and a score of 100 represents all respondents saying they strongly agree to all five engagement questions.
The drivers of engagement While the engagement index shows the average level of engagement, it does not show what you can do to improve engagement. Nine themes have been included in the survey to measure employees' experiences at work. A statistical technique, stepwise regression, is used to identify the extent to which each of these themes has an association with engagement. The themes identified as having an association are called the 'Drivers of engagement'. The strength of association with engagement varies by theme and is illustrated by a 4-bar icon, as shown below. Themes with a full 4-bar icon have the strongest association with engagement.
## Changes To Theme Scores In 2017
Small changes have been made to some of the headline themes in 2017. Three theme scores (Organisational objectives and purpose; Resources and workload; Leadership and managing change) are based on one fewer question in this year's survey. Previous survey scores have been recalculated on this basis, to allow for theme trend comparisons.
## Confidentiality
The survey was carried out as part of the 2017 Civil Service People Survey, which is managed by the Cabinet Office on behalf of all participating organisations. The Cabinet Office commissioned ORC International to carry out the survey. ORC International is a member of the Market Research Society, and is bound by their strict code of conduct and confidentiality rules. These rules do not allow for the breakdown of the results to the extent where the anonymity of individuals may be compromised. Groups of fewer than 10 respondents will not be reported on, however their responses do contribute to the overall scores for the unit and organisation they belong to and the overall Civil Service results. | en |
1207-pdf |
## The Affordable Rent Model
Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) have recently begun bidding for part-funding to build homes under a new model of housing finance known as the Affordable Rent Model (ARM). The model allows social landlords to charge new tenants up to 80 per cent of local market rents to help fund new building and the government believes the plan will enable 150,000 homes to be built between 2011 and 2014. This briefing explains the principles and mechanisms of the ARM and its implications for the supply of affordable homes in the capital.
## Overview
First unveiled in the October 2010 Spending Review and formally launched in February 2011, the government's Affordable Rent Model (ARM) offers social landlords access to £1.8 billion of Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) funding over the next four years. Landlords bidding for grant funding under the scheme are expected to part finance developments and will be allowed to charge higher rents for the new housing, at up to 80 per cent of local market levels. The model also expects RSLs to charge higher "affordable" rents on a proportion of existing homes when they become empty.
The ARM is being introduced against the backdrop of a huge reduction in grant funding to supply affordable housing. To put this in context, the previous Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) 2008-11 allocated £8.5 billion to fund new affordable housing through the National Affordable Housing programme, with a target of 155,000 new homes. The latest CSR (2011-15) has allocated £4.5 billion (of which £2.2 billion has already been committed) to fund a similar target of 150,000 new affordable homes. The grant element (which has to be topped up with increased rents and loans) attributes just £30,000 per housing unit, compared to the previous sum of £115,000 per unit in London. The underlying principle behind the ARM is that, at a time when less public subsidy is available, allowing landlords the flexibility to generate additional rental income will provide money to invest in building new homes.
## The London Context
London's housing supply and affordability crisis is well documented, with 36,000 households in temporary accommodation and more than 350,000 Londoners on council waiting lists. It is anticipated that this situation will be exacerbated by changes to the housing benefit system, including rent caps, potentially making parts of the capital unaffordable for those currently in the private rented sector.
Based on its current commitments, the HCA expects to be on target to deliver 150,000 homes nationally in 2010/11. But new starts are expected to drop in 2011/12 with the number of planned completions falling dramatically in 2012/13, unless the ARM proves it can deliver new homes.
The Mayor's draft replacement London Plan set an ambitious target to deliver an estimated 32,210 homes across the capital annually, of which 13,200 should be at the affordable rate. There is a commitment in the London Plan that 30 per cent of this total will be family-sized homes. The Mayor will be responsible for housing investment in London and funding new supply from RSLs after April 2012. London's local authorities are currently looking at evidence for affordability at different levels and bedroom sizes, but there is already a widespread recognition that the ARM will fail to deliver on larger sized family properties; and that, at 80 per cent of market rates, the model's maximum rent level will be unaffordable in the capital.
## Key Features Of The Arm
On 14 February 2011 the HCA published the Affordable Homes Framework prospectus setting out the new bidding process guiding investment for 2011- 2015. The HCA is seeking bids direct from RSLs that, unlike previous development bids, will establish a four-year contract based on the RSL's business plan. The HCA is looking for schemes that deliver strong value for money with a mixture of tenure that includes affordable rent and shared ownership properties. Importantly, bids must show evidence that the proposed development will meet local housing need as identified by the local authority. This approach will require RSLs to work closely with their local authority partners and develop a good understanding of local borough needs. Key features of the Affordable Rent Model include the following:
-
RSLs will be able to charge up to 80 per cent of market rent for new homes built under a much reduced grant regime
-
The cost of new homes can be supplemented by receipts from property disposals and
existing empty stock re-let at a higher 'new affordable rent' level
-
There is a presumption that RSLs will be supported/supplemented with funding from
local authorities using the New Homes Bonus1, or using free or discounted local
authority land
"
-
'Flexible' tenancies (the minimum period would be two years) are expected to apply to all new affordable rental properties or re-lets. However, tenancy strategies should be aligned with a borough and providers can offer lifetime tenancies should they wish to do so
-
At the end of the affordable rent tenancy, providers and their tenant may choose to convert it to shared ownership
-
Local authorities will also be allowed to bid for funds to build new homes using the ARM once the new self financing system for housing is implemented in April 2012.2
The closing date for bids to the HCA is 3 May 2011, with assessment and negotiation of offers taking place over May and June. The HCA London Board expects to approve the bids by early July 2011.
There is already
a widespread
recognition that
the ARM will
fail to deliver
on larger sized
family homes;
and that, at
80 per cent of
market rates,
the model's
maximum rent
level will be
unaffordable in
the capital
## "
"
## Implications For London
London Councils has expressed concerns about the practical operation of the model, the lower number of units it will deliver and the extent to which it will address the housing needs of existing tenants and homeless households.
## Key Areas Of Concern Include:
In a recent
London Councils
survey, more
than half
of London
boroughs
reported that
RSLs expected
fewer homes
would be
delivered by the
affordable rent
model.
"
- the ability to secure the required number of homes London needs - the ability to deliver family homes in London - unaffordable rents for low income working households in some parts of London
creating a benefit trap, particularly in three bedroom and larger homes.
- the impact of Universal Credit caps on high rent areas and families - the potential for the income generated by the conversion of re-lets and disposals
to be used outside London for new build elsewhere
- the very nature of the ARM will lead to a situation in London where developments
will attract less grant funding on the basis that local rents can make up any grant deficit and be an alternative source of funding
- the long term cumulative shrinkage of available social affordable rented property
in London (that is, below market rent and the new affordable rent levels)
- housing allocations will be driven by the overall cost per unit, which is high in
London - the difference between existing market and social rents being greater in London
- there will be a built-in incentive in the model for RSLs to maximise an increase
in rental income through the re-letting of property, especially in high rent areas
- there will be a lack of incentive for households on lower rents to transfer into
homes at a substantially higher rent level
- lower overall supply will lead to a lower level of nominations that boroughs will be
able to take up, this will impact on the management of homeless and high priority housing needs cases.
## Maximising The Number Of New Homes
In a recent London Councils survey, more than half of London boroughs reported that RSLs expected fewer homes would be delivered via the ARM. This will result in fewer properties being available for applicants on boroughs' housing registers, including homeless households. To maximise the supply of new homes in the capital London Councils will continue to:
-
work closely with the HCA and Greater London Authority on the development and roll-out of the ARM
-
explore if there is scope and appetite for boroughs to exploit borough resources, such as HRA surpluses, in a devolved commissioning approach working with RSL partners
-
continue to work with RSLs and local authorities and engage in proactive dialogue with each other to secure the best possible bids for the benefit of London.
The focus of our work will be to:
-
encourage the devolved delivery of the ARM in a way that works both for London, individual boroughs and RSLs
-
maximise the number of larger units provided
-
maximise the level of borough leverage (on scheme profile, rent levels, tenure approach).
## Commentary
The proposals contained within the Welfare Reform Bill3 (published on 17 February 2010)
could significantly impact on the number of new homes, particularly larger-sized properties, the ARM can deliver in the capital. While it is hoped that the Universal Credit proposals will simplify the existing benefit regime the proposed total benefit cap of £26,000 (this would include all living and housing expenses) that will be introduced from 2013 for all new claimants will fall far short of current private sector rent levels and RSL affordable rent levels in many instances in London. Research commissioned by London Councils confirms that the majority of private landlords in London are unlikely to reduce their rents, resulting in families in high cost areas having potentially to move to cheaper areas in London, or out of London.
Equally, in order to fund the contribution of new homes, RSLs will be placed in a position in many instances where the rent they will charge will exceed the £26,000 universal credit cap. London Councils is hosting a joint event with the National Housing Federation looking at Challenges and Solutions for London's Housing on 14 April 2011. The event is free and a limited number of places are still available for interested members. For more details or to book a place, click on the link below.
3 See London Councils Member Briefing No.02 for more information on the Welfare Reform Bill Author: Valerie Solomon, policy and projects manager, Housing and Planning (T: 020 7934 9507)
Click here to send a comment or query to the author
## Links:
Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) The Mayor of London's London Plan (GLA website) Welfare Reform Bill (DWP website) Survey of London landlords (London Councils' research) Challenges and Solutions for London's Housing (Event)
## This Member Briefing Has Been Circulated To:
Portfolio holders and those members who requested policy briefings in the following categories: Housing | en |
1063-pdf | প্রস্তুত এবং স্থাপন করুন
নির্দেশাবলী
শুরু করার আগে, নিশ্চিত করুন যে আপনি…
আমাদের নির্দেশাবলী ভিডিও দেখুন www.gov.uk/taking-antibody-blood-sample
এই নির্দেশনাগুল�ো সম্পূর্ণ
রূপে পড়ুনੋ�
আপনার পরীক্ষা কিভাবে করতে হয় দেখুন
www.gov.uk/taking-antibody-blood-sample দেখুন
## আপনার কিটে কী আছে?
প্রচুর পানি পান করুন
সবচেয়ে ভাল�ো যে কাজ আপনি করতে পারেন তা হচ্ছে দেহে পানির পরিমাণ বাড়ান�ো প্রস্তুত করতে - পরীক্ষার অন্তত ৩০ মিনিট আগে ২ গ্লাস পানি পান করুন।
## অ্যালক�োহল সংগ্রহের নল
প্লাস্টার x 2
ওয়াইপ
(টিউব)
শনিবার আপনার পরীক্ষা করবেন না বা আপনার পরীক্ষা প�োস্ট করবেন না - এটি প�োস্টে খুব বেশি সময় থেকে যেতে পারে। অন্য যেক�োন�ো দিন ঠিক আছে।
## প্রিপেইড খাম পরিষ্কার ল্যান্সেট X 3
করার ওয়াইপ
১. প্রস্তুত করুন
ফেরত পাঠান�োর
স্বচ্ছ প্লাস্টিকের
কার্ডব�োর্ড বাক্স
১. শুরু করার আগে পরীক্ষা করে দেখুন যে
ফর্মে
টিউব লেবেল
ব্যাগ
কিটটি **আপনার নামে পাঠান�ো** হয়েছে কি না।
২. আপনার কিট একটি নিচু টেবিলে রাখুন।
আপনি শুরু করার আগে
এক বাটি গরম পানি এবং
একটি পরিষ্কার টিস্যু নিন
৩. একটি পরিষ্কার টিস্যু এবং এক বাটি
ফেরত পাঠান�োর
গরম পানি নিন।
ফর্ম
৪. ২০ সেকেন্ডের জন্য সাবান দিয়ে হাত
ধুয়ে পরিষ্কার ত�োয়ালে দিয়ে শুকিয়ে নিন।
V2.5p - সর্ব
শেষ পর্য
ালΐোচনা নভেম্বর 2020
অন্যান্য ভাষায় প্রশ্ন বা নির্দেশনার জন্য, www.gov.uk/taking-antibody-blood-sample -তে যান
হাতে পর্য
াপ্ত সময় রাখুন
প্রস্তুতি নিতে, স্থাপন করতে এবং আপনার নমুনা সংগ্রহ করতে নিজেকে প্রায় 30 মিনিট সময় দিন - বিশেষ করে যদি এটা আপনার প্রথমবার হয়। কিছ
ু হালকা ব্যায়াম করুন
জাম্পিং জ্যাক করুন, অথবা আপনার হাত দ�োলান এবং এক মিনিটের জন্য আপনার মুষ্টি আঁকড়ে ধরুন (যদি এটি আপনার জন্য নিরাপদ হয়) - এটা আপনার রক্ত প্রবাহে সাহায্য করে।
২. স্থাপন করুন
৩. রক্ত প্রবাহিত রাখা
১. টিউব থেকে ঢাকনাটি খুলে ফেলুন।
১. আপনার পুর�ো হাত একটি বাটি গরম
২. **কার্ডব�োর্ড বাক্সের উপরের** স্লট
ব্যবহার করে টিউবটিকে স�োজা করে রাখুন।
পানিতে (গ�োসলের পানির তাপমাত্রার মতন গরম) ২ মিনিটের জন্য রাখুন। তারপর একটি পরিষ্কার টিস্যু দিয়ে আপনার হাত শুকিয়ে নিন।
৩. প্লাস্টার প্রস্তুত করুন যাতে এটি
২. পুর�ো প্রক্রিয়াব্যাপী দাঁড়ান অবস্থায় থাক
ুন
(কিন্তু যদি আপনি দুর্ব
ল ব�োধ করেন,
আপনার আঙ্গুলে লাগান�োর জন্যে প্রস্তুত থাকে।
তাহলে বসে থাক
ুন - এবং আপনি যদি
কার�ো সাথে থাকেন, তাহলে তাদের সাহায্য চান)। রক্ত প্রবাহ বজায় রাখতে আপনার হাত অবশ্যই আপনার কনুইয়ের চেয়ে
নিচুতে থাকতে হবে।
ব�োতামে
চাপ দিন
x
## ১. ল্যান্সেট ব্যবহার করুন
৩. টিউব মিশ্রণ করুন
২. টিউব পূরণ করুন
১. অ্যালক�োহল ওয়াইপ দিয়ে আপনার
৬০০ রেখা পর্য
ন্ত টিউবটি ভর্তি করুন।
১. একটি পরিষ্কার টিস্যু দিয়ে প্রথম ফ�োঁটা
আপনি যদি শুধুমাত্র ৪০০ রেখা পর্য
ন্ত পূরণ
রক্ত মুছে ফেলুন।
২. প্রতি ৩ থেকে ৪ সেকেন্ড অন্তর একটি
আঙ্গুল পরিষ্কার করুন - আপনার যে হাত কম ব্যবহার হয় সে হাতে আপনার অনামিকা (রিং) আঙ্গুল ব্যবহার করার সুপারিশ আমরা করছি।
করেন, এটা ঠিক আছে। ঢাকনাটি টিউবের উপরে রাখুন। যতক্ষণ না এটি ক্লিক করছে ততক্ষণ এটি চাপতে থাক
ুন।
২. ল্যান্সেটের নিচের প্রতিরক্ষামূলক টিপ
১. আস্তে আস্তে টিউবটি অন্তত ১০ বার
নিম্নমুখী গতিতে আপনার হাত
দৃঢ়ভাবে মালিশ করুন। হাতের তালু
থেকে শুরু করে নিচ পর্য
ন্ত আঙ্গুল
অপসারণ করতে: টিপটি (একটি পূর্ণ
পর্য
ন্ত এভাবে করুন। কিন্তু ছিদ্র জ�োরে
উল্টান। নিশ্চিত হয়ে নিন যে রক্ত যেন�ো টিউবের পাশ স্পর্শ
করে।
ম�োড়) ট
ুইস্ট করুন এবং তারপর
সেটি সম্পূর্ণ
রূপে টানুন।
টিপে দেবেন না, তাহলে তা আপনার নমুনা নষ্ট করে দিতে পারে।
২. রক্ত মিশ্রিত হবার পর তা কঠিন হয়ে
৩. আপনার হাত একটি কঠিন পৃষ্ঠে রাখুন
গেলে চিন্তা করবেন না। এটা হওয়ার কথা।
৩. যদি রক্ত প্রবাহ বন্ধ হয়ে যায়, রক্ত প্রবাহ
(টেবিলের উপরের মত)।
৩. রক্তপাত বন্ধ করতে আঙ্গুলের উপর
৪. আপনার আঙ্গুলের অগ্রভাগের বাইরের
চাপ প্রয়োগ করুন, একটি ক্লিনজি
ং
কেন্দ্রে ল্যান্সেটটি চাপুন।
ওয়াইপ দিয়ে পরিষ্কার করুন, এবং একটি প্লাস্টার প্রয়োগ করুন।
৫. একটি ক্লিক না শ�োনা পর্য
ন্ত বেগুনি
৪. রক্ত বাইরে পড়লে অবিলম্বে তা পরিষ্কার
আন্দোলিত করতে ন�োংরা আঙ্গুল মুছে ফেলার জন্য চাপ ব্যবহার করুন। যদি এটি কাজ না করে, এবং ২ মিনিটের বেশি হয়ে যায়, তাহলে আপনার হাত পুনরায় গরম করুন এবং একটি নতুন ল্যান্সেট ব্যবহার করে আরেকটি আঙ্গুলে ফ
ুট�ো করুন।
ব�োতামে **দৃঢ়ভাবে চাপুন**। আপনি
শুধুমাত্র প্রতিটি ল্যান্সেট একবার ব্যবহার করতে পারবেন।
করুন এবং আশপাশ জায়গা জীবাণুমুক্ত করুন।
লেবেল লাগান এবং প�োস্ট করুন
১
১. রিটার্ন
ফর্ম
থেকে আপনার টিউব
আপনার কিট আপনার কাছে এসেছিলΐো এবং এরপর সেটি বন্ধ করে দিন।
৪
৪. বাক্সটি প্রিপেইড খামে রাখুন
রয়েছে। ব্যাগের উপরের অংশ সমতল রেখে, স্টিকার খুলে ফেলুন এবং ঢাকনাটি ভাঁজ করুন। মাঝখান থেকে বাইরে পর্য
ন্ত চেপে ভাল করে বন্ধ করে
৫. এনএইচএস (ন্যাশনাল হেল্থ সার্ভিস)
দিন।
লেবেল খুলে ফেলুন এবং আপনার টিউবের **চারপাশে মুড়ে দিন**। নিশ্চিত হয়ে নিন যে মুদ্রিত ক�োডটি যেন�ো
দৃশ্যমান থাকে।
৩
২. 95 kPA নমুনা পরিবহন লেবেল করা
৩. আপনার ফিরত দেওয়ার ফর্মে
তারিখ এবং সময় লিখুন। ফর্ম
পরিষ্কার প্লাস্টিক ব্যাগটি নিন। টিউব এবং ল্যান্সেট স্লটের মধ্য দিয়ে রাখুন - এটি হলুদ স্টিকারের মাঝখানে
এবং পরিষ্কার প্লাস্টিক ব্যাগ (টিউব ধারণকারী) বাক্সে রাখুন যেটিতে
| এর লΐোগ�ো সহ | একটি অগ্রাধিকার |
|-----------------------------|---------------|
| প�োস্টবক্সে আপনার নমুনা প�োস্ট | |
| করুন | । |
| www.royalmail.com/services- | |
| near-you | |
| -তে আপনার নিকটতম | |
| অগ্রাধিকার প�োস্টবক্স খুঁজুন। আপনি | |
| যদি নিরাপদে একটি অগ্রাধিকার | |
| প�োস্টবক্সে যেতে না পারেন, আপনার | |
| স্থানীয় প�োস্টবক্স ব্যবহার করুন। | |
## প্রতীকসমূহ
সূর্যে
র আল�ো থেকে দূরে
ব্যবহারের জন্য পরামর্শ
রাখুন
নির্দেশাবলী ইউর�োপীয় সামঞ্জস্য
বৃষ্টি থেকে দূরে রাখুন
পুনরায় ব্যবহার করবেন না
প্রস্তুতকারক
তাপমাত্রা সীমা 25ºC
ব্যাচ ক�োড
ভিট্রো ডায়াগনস্টিক মেডিকেল ডিভাইসে
পুনরায় ব্যবহার তারিখের জন্য টিউব পরীক্ষা করুন
• এটা একটা ইন ভিট্রো ডায়াগনস্টিক মেডিকেল ডিভাইস। • শুধুমাত্র আপনার কিটে প্রদত্ত সরঞ্জাম ব্যবহার করুন। • এই পরীক্ষাটি অবশ্যই সম্পন্ন করতে হবে এবং যে ব্যক্তি
পরীক্ষার নির্দেশ দিয়েছিলেন তাকে অবশ্যই লেবেল করতে হবে।
• সংক্রমণের লক্ষণগুলΐোর প্রতি নজর রাখুন। যদি
আপনার ক্ষতস্থান লাল, গরম বা ফ�োলা হয়ে যায়, তাহলে চিকিৎসকের পরামর্শ
নিন।
• এই কিট 18 বছর বা তার বেশী বয়সী ব্যক্তিদের জন্য।
• দৃঢ় চাপ প্রয়োগ করুন এবং রক্তপাত বন্ধ না হলে হাত
উপরের দিকে উঠান। যদি এটা কাজ না করে, তাহলে চিকিৎসকের পরামর্শ
নিন।
• যদি আপনি অজ্ঞান ব�োধ করেন, তাহলে শুয়ে পড
়ুন এবং
আপনার পা উঁচু করুন। আপনি যদি ক্রমাগত অসুস্থ
ব�োধ করেন, তাহলে চিকিৎসকের পরামর্শ
নিন।
• ঘনীভূত-প্রতির�োধক (অ্যান্টিক�োয়াগুলেশন) ওষুধ খেলে
রক্তপাতের ঝ
ুঁকি বেশি।
• শিশু, পশু, সূর্য
ালΐোক, আগুন এবং ধূমপান থেকে কিট
দূরে রাখুন।
• বাইরে তাপমাত্রা ২৫ ডিগ্রি সেলসিয়াসের উপরে থাকলে
আপনার নমুনা প�োস্ট করবেন না
• এরূপ হবার সম্ভাবনা অত্যন্ত কম, কিন্তু জটিলতার
একটি ছ�োট ঝ
ুঁকি আছে - যার মধ্যে রয়েছে ক্ষত, একটি
হিমাট�োমা (রক্তপিণ্ড), স্নায়ুর ক্ষতি, এবং নেক্রোসিস (ত্বকের ক�োষের অকাল মৃত্যু)।
পর্য
াপ্ত রক্ত পাচ্ছেন না?
সাহায্যের জন্য www.gov.uk/taking-antibodyblood-sample -তে যান। যদি আপনার একটি আংশিক নমুনা ফেলার প্রয়োজন হয়, একটি স্বাভাবিক নমুনা (খাম সহ) প্যাক করার জনয়ে যে নির্দেশাবলী রয়েছে সেগুলΐো ব্যবহার করুন। তারপর সব ঘরের বর্জ্যে ফেলে দিন। | nl |
2497-pdf | Natural Resources Wales permitting decisions
Variation and consolidation of a bespoke permit We have decided to issue a Natural Resources Wales initiated variation for Aberthaw Works operated by Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited.
The variation number is EPR/BL3986ID/V013.
We consider in reaching that decision we have taken into account all relevant considerations and legal requirements and that the permit will ensure that the appropriate level of environmental protection is provided.
##
Purpose of this document
This is a decision document, which accompanies a variation notice and consolidated permit being issued following a review of the permit. It explains:
how we have carried out our statutory review of the Operator's Permit; why we have decided to vary the Permit as a result of that review; and why we have included the specific conditions in the revised Permit through the
variation notice we are issuing.
It is our record of our decision-making process, to show how we have taken into account all relevant factors in reaching our position. It explains how we have reviewed and considered the techniques used by the Operator in the operation and control of the plant and activities of the installation. This review has been undertaken with reference to the decision made by the European Commission establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions ('BAT Conclusions') for the Production of Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide, which were published as a Commission Implementing Decision (2013/163/EU) in the Official Journal of the EU on 9th April 2013. It also provides a justification for the inclusion of any specific conditions in the permit that are in addition to those included in our generic permit template. As well as considering the review of the operating techniques used by the Operator for the operation of the plant and activities of the installation, the consolidated permit takes into account and brings together in a single document all previous variations that relate to the original permit. It also modernises the entire permit to reflect the conditions contained in our current permit template, which incorporates the requirements of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). This Variation is considered to be a normal variation because along with the administrative changes i.e. consolidating previous variations and moving to the new
template, some detailed technical evaluation is required. This is a more complex variation than the norm, because it is doing three different things at the same time:
**First**, it gives effect to our decisions following the statutory review of the existing
Permit, following the implementation of the IED and the publication of BAT Conclusions covering the Production of Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide. That
is what this variation is principally about.
**Second**, it takes the opportunity to bring earlier variations into an up-to-date,
consolidated Permit. These changes have already taken place and we are not reexplaining them, but the consolidated Permit should be easier to understand and use.
**Third**, it modernises the entire Permit to reflect our current template. The template
reflects our modern regulatory permitting philosophy and was introduced because of a change in the governing legislation. This took place when the Pollution
Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 were replaced in 2008 by a new statutory regime under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 (as amended in 2013) to effectively introduce the IED.
The introduction of new IED template conditions makes the Permit consistent with our current general approach and philosophy and also with other permits issued to installations in this sector. Although the wording of some conditions has changed, while others have disappeared because of the new regulatory approach, it does not affect the level of environmental protection achieved by the Permit in any way. We therefore explain only the statutory review and our determination of substantive issues relating to the new BAT conclusions in this document. As the Variation will not have any negative effects on the environment it is not a substantial variation and so does not require external consultation. A fee for a normal variation based on the Operators OPRA score has been invoiced to the Operator.
## Structure Of This Document
Summary of our decision The legal framework
How we took our decision Key issues/Regulation 60 response Changes we have made Conclusion Annex 1 - Decision Checklist regarding relevant BAT Conclusions
## 1 Our Decision
We have issued a Variation, which will allow the Operator to operate the Installation, subject to the conditions in the varied Permit. The Variation does three things: it consolidates the original Permit to reflect changes made through earlier
variations;
it brings the Permit into line with our modern regulatory template; and it varies the Permit where appropriate to reflect the outcome of our statutory review
and incorporate Best Available Techniques (BAT) and associated Emission Limit Values (ELV's).
We consider that, in reaching this decision, we have taken into account all relevant considerations and legal requirements and that the Permit will continue to ensure that a high level of protection is provided for the environment and human health. The original Permit, issued on the 21st January 2003, ensured that the Installation, employed Best Available Techniques (BAT) and ensured a high level of protection for human health and the environment. We have updated the Permit as a result of the statutory review, and we are confident that the new requirements will deliver a superior level of protection to that which was previously achieved. 2
The legal framework The Variation and Consolidation Notice (which includes the consolidated permit as Schedule 2) will be issued under Regulation 20 of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010. The Environmental Permitting regime is a legal vehicle which delivers most of the relevant legal requirements for activities falling within its scope.
In particular, the regulated facility is:
an *installation* as described by the IED; subject to aspects of other relevant legislation which also have to be addressed. We consider that, in issuing the Variation Notice and consolidated Permit, it will ensure that the operation of the Installation complies with all relevant legal requirements and that a high level of protection will be delivered for the environment and human health. We explain how we have addressed specific statutory requirements more fully in the rest of this document. 3
How we reached our decision
Requesting information to demonstrate compliance with BAT Conclusion techniques We issued a Notice under Regulation 60(1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (a Regulation 60 Notice) on 6th March 2014 requiring the Operator to provide information to demonstrate how the operation of their installation currently meets, or will subsequently meet, the revised standards described in the relevant BAT Conclusions document.
The Regulation 60(1) notice required the operator to: Describe the techniques that will be implemented before 9th April 2017, which will
then ensure that operations meet the revised standard, or
justify why standards will not be met by 9th April 2017, and confirmation of the date
when the operation of those processes will cease within the installation or an explanation of why the revised BAT standard is not applicable to those processes,
or justify why an alternative technique will achieve the same level of environmental
protection equivalent to the revised standard described in the BAT Conclusions. Where their permitted activity involves the use, production or release of hazardous
substances, as defined in Article 3(18) of the Industrial Emissions Directive, carry out a risk assessment considering the possibility of soil and groundwater contamination at the permitted installation with such substances. Where risk of such contamination is established prepare a baseline report containing information necessary to determine the state of soil and groundwater contamination so as to make a quantified comparison with the state upon definite cessation of the activity. Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd were required to provide a copy of the risk assessment and any consequent baseline report.
The Regulation 60 Notice response from the Operator was received on 30th January 2015. However, on 26th June 2015 we subsequently requested additional information from the Operator to support their original Regulation 60(1) response. Additional information was received 30th July 2015. This additional information provided further clarification on the techniques employed in respect of the following BAT conclusions: 5(g), 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 19 and 20 (see Annex 1 Decision Checklist regarding Relevant BAT Conclusions) below. This additional information also included the operator's assessment of background (kiln) ammonia emissions and a proposal for the ammonia Emission Limit Value for emission point A1.
Upon receipt of the operator's Regulation 60(1) response and the additional information relating to BAT conclusions: 5(g), 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20 and the assessment of background ammonia emissions, we considered that the response contained sufficient information for us to commence determination of the permit review. The Operator made no claim for commercial confidentiality. We have not received any information in relation to the Regulation 60 Notice response or subsequent additional information that appears to be confidential in relation to any party.
## 4 Key Issues/Regulation 60 Response
BAT Conclusions for the Production of Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide were published as a Commission Implementing Decision (2013/163/EU) in the Official Journal of the EU on 9th April 2013. There are 29 BAT Conclusions which are relevant to the cement industry. Annex 1 provides a record of decisions made in relation to each relevant BAT Conclusion applicable to the installation. Annex 1 should be read in conjunction with the permit/variation notice issued. A detailed response was received from Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd. Where the Operator has concluded that they have achieved BAT, and we are in agreement, no further information / justification has been sought by Natural Resources Wales.
## 5.0 Changes We Have Made 5.1 Bat-Aels And Emission Limit Values (Kiln Firing)
Emission Point Reference
Description Parameter
Emission Limit Value (until 08/04/17)
Emission Limit Value (from 09/04/17)
Particulate matter
30
20
TOC
50
50
HCl
10
10
A1
Main stack on preheater tower
CO
1000*
1000*
SO2
800
400
NOx
500
500
NH3
No limit
80
Cd & Tl (total)
0.05
0.05
Hg (and
compounds)
0.05
0.05
Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni & V and their compounds (total)
0.5
0.5
Dioxins & Furans (i- TEQ)
0.1ng/Nm3
0.1ng/Nm3
Note All values expressed as mg/Nm3 unless otherwise stated.
* An ELV of 1500 mg/Nm3 applies following completion of IC3 and subsequent written approval from Natural Resources Wales.
5.1.1 Particulate Matter: The existing emission limit of 30 mg/Nm3 is reduced to 20
mg/Nm3 and as per BAT Conclusion 17. It may be reduced further pending the completion of Improvement Condition IC2. 5.1.2 Total Organic Carbon: The existing Total Organic Carbon (TOC) emission limit value has been retained at 50mg/Nm3 in accordance with Annex VI of the Industrial Emissions Directive. TOC emissions arise from the pre heating / processing of raw meal containing volatile organic compounds.
5.1.3 Hydrogen Chloride: The existing hydrogen chloride (HCl) emission limit value has been retained at 10 mg/Nm3.
5.1.4 Oxides of nitrogen (NO and NO2 **Expressed as NO**2) The NOx emission limit value has been retained at 500mg/Nm3 in accordance with the requirements of BAT Conclusion 19 for pre-heater kilns with primary NOx emissions >1000 mg/Nm3. During the 2015 background ammonia monitoring trial, the kiln was operated for an agreed period without the use NOx abatement (SNCR) and emissions with primary control techniques were shown to be >1000 mg/Nm3.
5.1.5 Carbon Monoxide: The carbon monoxide (CO) emission limit value has been retained at 1000 mg/Nm3. However, the operator has requested a future increase in the ELV to 1500 mg/Nm3. This change has been requested to allow the operator to burn more alternative raw materials and fuels in preference to fossil fuels and virgin materials so this increase is necessary for maintaining kiln stability. The increase in the CO ELV to 1500 mg/Nm3 will apply subject to the completion of IC3 and subsequent written approval by Natural Resources Wales. See **section 5.7.3** below. 5.1.6 Sulphur Dioxide: The SO2 emission limit has been reduced from 800mg/Nm3
to 400mg/Nm3 from 09/04/17 to achieve compliance with BAT Conclusion 21. The operator reports that sulphur inputs derived from raw materials will be reduced by management of quarrying operations / kiln inputs and the use of hydrated lime injection prior to the pre-heater fan. 5.1.7 Ammonia (NH3): As well as ammonia slip associated with the Selective Non-
Catalytic Reduction (SNCR), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) abatement process, ammonia releases are also associated with the use of other raw materials in the manufacturing process. The Raw Mill operation offers some abatement of these other ammonia releases when it is operational. However the Raw Mill needs to be switched off on a regular basis for maintenance and on these occasions, the abatement effect for background ammonia emissions from the process is lost. Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd have therefore completed a background NH3 emissions monitoring trial in 2015 (as agreed with Natural Resources Wales) and derived an average daily baseline NH3 emission (Raw Mill off) of 35.6mg/Nm3. On this basis, the operator proposed a daily emission limit value of between 75 - 85mg/Nm3 taking into consideration the ammonia slip BAT-AEL of 30-50 mg/Nm3. We have reviewed the results of the background NH3 assessment from the operator and have conducted our own detailed air dispersion modelling using ADMS to assess the impact (nutrient nitrogen and acidity) of NOx and NH3 emissions from emission point A1 (main stack on pre-heater tower) on sensitive habitats, vegetation and ecosystems. Based on the results of the operator's background NH3 assessment and our own detailed air dispersion modelling, we have applied an ammonia emission limit value of 80mg/Nm3 to emission point A1 (applicable from 09/04/17) to control ammonia slip from the SNCR NOx abatement system in accordance with BAT Conclusion 20. This emission limit is comprised of the daily average background NH3 release from the process, (when the Raw Mill is not operational) (around 36 mg/Nm3) and 44 mg/Nm3, to allow for the ammonia slip from the SNCR NOx abatement process. We consider that the ammonia emission limit of 80 mg/Nm3 is environmentally protective including for human health. This also represents an environmental improvement because there is currently no ammonia ELV associated with releases from emission point A1. The permit requires that ammonia emissions from the kiln are monitored continuously in accordance with relevant standards.
## 5.1.8 Metals
Cadmium & Thallium and their compounds (total) The existing Cd & Tl and their compounds (total) emission limit value has been retained at 0.05 mg/Nm3.
Mercury and its compounds The existing Hg and its compounds emission limit value has been retained at 0.05mg/Nm3.
Group III Metals and their compounds (total). The existing emission limit value for Group III Metals (Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni and V and their compounds (total)), has been retained at 0.5 mg/Nm3.
5.1.9 Dioxins and Furans (I-TEQ) - The existing emission limit value for Dioxins and Furans (I-TEQ) has been retained at 0.1 ng/Nm3. No changes have been made to the dioxin & furan monitoring requirements - these continue to be required at 6 monthly intervals in accordance with Annex VI, Part 6, Paragraph 2.1(c) of the Industrial Emissions Directive.
## 5.1.10 Dioxin-Like Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Pcbs) & Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Pahs)
Prior to this variation, the permit included the requirement to monitor PCBs and PAHs emissions from the kiln on a six monthly basis. No emission limit values were set for these parameters. Since the last permit review in 2011, Schedule 13A, paragraph 4(2)(b) of The Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) (amendment) Regulations 2013, has amended paragraph 2.1(c) of Part 6, Annex VI of the Industrial Emissions Directive. In summary paragraph 2.1(c) now requires that dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are monitored but only in the case of particular plants where the regulator can demonstrate that emissions of those additional substances are, or are likely to be, significant. We have reviewed the 6 monthly PCB and PAH emissions data supplied by the operator between 2007 and 2014. During this time alternative fuels were in regular use. We have used this data to complete detailed dispersion modelling and have concluded that PCB and PAH emissions are unlikely to be environmentally significant.
Natural Resources Wales does not therefore consider that PCB & PAH emissions from the kiln are, or are likely to be significant and has now removed the monitoring requirement from the permit with immediate effect.
## 5.2 Bat-Aels And Emission Limit Values (Cooling & Milling Processes)
BAT Conclusion 18 applies a particulate emission limit value for emission points associated with cooling and milling processes (raw meal, coal and clinker), the relevant emission points and associated emission limit values are detailed in table 2 below. Note, kiln firing has been addressed in the section above. A particulate emission limit is not applicable for clinker cooling at Aberthaw Works as a planetary cooler is utilised with exhaust gases being returned to the kiln.
Emission Point Reference
Description
Parameter
Emission Limit Value (until 08/04/17)
Emission Limit Value (from 09/04/17)
A2
Cement Mills Particulate matter
30
20*
A3
Cement Mills Particulate matter
30
20*
A4
Coal Mills 1 - 4
Particulate matter
N/A
20*
Note All values expressed as mg/Nm3
*The Emission Limit Value is set at 20mg/Nm3 for milling processes. Improvement Condition IC4 requires the operator to review the operational capability of the existing bag plants. Where a lower emission concentration is achievable the emission limit will be revised down by 09/04/17. Any substantial (future) upgrades to the bag plants shall achieve 10mg/Nm3. The operator has not applied for a derogation for particulate emissions for any emission point.
## 5.3 Emission Limit Values - Dusty Operations 5.3.1 Particulate Emission Sources >10,000 Nm3/Hr
Three existing emission points arising from the de-dusting of operations (excluding kiln firing, milling or cooling activities) have been identified with a volumetric discharge rate exceeding 10,000 Nm3/hr. These are as follows;
a) 'Primary Crusher' - new emission point reference A5 b) 'Raw material handling dust plant' - new emission point reference A6 c) 'Polychip walking floor transfer point' - new emission point reference A7
The emission points shall meet an emission limit value of 10mg/Nm3 as required by BAT Conclusion 16 by 09/04/17.
## 5.3.2 Particulate Emission Sources <10,000 Nm3 / Hr
A list of small particulate emission sources (bag filters with a volumetric flow rate less than 10,000 Nm3/hr) has been provided by the operator and incorporated into the permit (table S3.2). These sources typically include filters fitted to storage silos and conveyer change over points. The operator confirms that these emission points will be capable of meeting an emission limit value of 10mg/Nm3 as required by BAT Conclusion 16 by 09/04/17.
## 5.4 Emissions Monitoring - Air
Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMs) will be retained on all
existing emission points, periodic extractive monitoring of kiln emissions will continue to be completed on a six monthly basis.
Emissions monitoring standards within schedule 3 have been reviewed and
updated where necessary. Monitoring standard BS EN 141814 currently applies to continuous
emissions monitoring of the kiln. To ensure CEMs provide reliable monitoring data the principles of EN 14181 will also apply to CEMs installed on other sources (milling activities) from 09/04/17. A reduced number of parallel measurements may be acceptable as agreed with the site inspector. Permit condition 3.3.5(a) has been amended to include a 95% confidence
interval for ammonia. This has been set at 40% as per hydrogen chloride - both parameters are monitored using the same technique. Permit condition 3.3.5(a) has also been amended so that it references Table
S3.2 as well as S3.1. This change ensures consistency in the uncertainty
budget for particulate monitoring using CEMs. Therefore both the kiln and the cement mills have been allocated the same uncertainty budget of 30% for particulate matter based on the 95% confidence intervals of a single measured result at the daily emission limit value.
For clarity, the kiln start up and shut down definitions have been added to
Schedule 6 of the permit (previously subject to agreement in writing). The definitions may be subject to amendment (as agreed in writing with NRW) where the operator can provide suitable justification on a site specific basis.
BAT Conclusion 5 specifies either periodic or continuous monitoring for nonkiln sources and as a default the permit now requires 6 monthly extractive sampling for such sources.
From 09/04/17 emission point A4 must be monitored on a 6 monthly basis to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit value. See also section 5.7.2 below.
## 5.5 Emissions Monitoring - Water
The emissions monitoring requirements for W1 remain unchanged.
## 5.6 New Listed Activities
Table S1.1 of the permit has been updated to include the following listed activities:
Activity Reference A2: S3.1 A(2)(a), 4 lines - grinding cement clinker in
cement mills.
Activity Reference A3: S3.1 B(a), Storing, loading or unloading cement or
cement clinker in bulk prior to further transportation in bulk.
Activity Reference A4: S3.1 B(b), 2 lines - blending cement in bulk or using
cement in bulk other than at a construction site, including the bagging of cement and cement mixtures, the batching of ready-mixed concrete and the manufacture of concrete blocks and other cement products.
These activities are existing activities at the installation. However, activity A2 was previously captured within the envelope of the main S3.1A1(a) listed activity and Activities A3 and A4 previously formed a single unlisted directly associated activity covering all cement storage, blending, packing and loading. The amendment to table S1.1 has been necessary to reflect the fact that grinding cement clinker is recognised as a listed activity in its own right in the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2013. The original directly associated activity of cement storage, blending, packing and loading, has been removed and these activities have been correctly listed as individual S3.1 part B activities in line with the Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2010.
## 5.7 Improvement Conditions
Based on the information provided in the Regulation 60 response, we consider that we need to set improvement conditions. These conditions are set out below. We are using these conditions to require the operator to provide Natural Resources Wales with details that need to be established or confirmed during operations. We have also set an improvement condition in response to the operator's request to increase the existing CO ELV on emission point A1.
Particulate emission data (Continuous Emissions Monitors) for emission points A2 & A3 shall be corrected to standard reference conditions (as detailed in Schedule 6) from 09/04/17 onwards. Pre-determined correction factors for each emission point
may be acceptable as an alternative to upgraded CEMS where the operator can demonstrate that these parameters are stable and consistent, providing historical data as evidence.
In line with BS EN 15259, historic moisture and temperature measurements would need to be shown to not vary above or below 10%, (as a guide value), of the statistical mean from available data derived from periodic measurements. The Operator shall provide a report to Natural Resources Wales confirming (for agreement) how particulate emissions data will be corrected.
In accordance with the BAT Conclusions document, emissions monitoring data shall be corrected to standard conditions. The correction requirements for kiln emissions remain unchanged but as of 09/04/17 particulate emissions monitoring data from cooling and milling processes must be corrected to dry gas at a temperature of 273k, a pressure of 101.3 kPa with no correction for oxygen. We have set Improvement Condition IC1 to ensure that particulate emission data from the above non-kiln emission points is corrected to the standard reference conditions that apply from 9th April 2017. IC1 requires Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd to inform Natural Resources Wales how this emissions data will be corrected. This may include the use of predetermined 'correction factors', where conditions allow, for each respective emission point. Schedule 6 of the permit has been amended to include data correction requirements before and after 09/04/16.
The Operator's response to Improvement condition 1 is required to be submitted by
31st October 2016.
The Operator shall provide a written report detailing the proposed monitoring technique to be employed to demonstrate compliance with the particulate matter ELV
of 10 mg/Nm3 at emission points A5, A6 and A7.
If the Operator proposes the use of an alternative technique (i.e. not extractive or continuous measurement in accordance with recognised standards), then evidence must be provided to prove the technique will demonstrate compliance with the ELV to an equivalent level of certainty.
From 9th April 2017 emission points A5, A6 and A7 must be monitored to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit value of 10 mg/Nm3. BAT Conclusion 5 specifies either periodic or continuous monitoring for non-kiln sources and as a default the permit now requires 6 monthly extractive sampling. However, it is recognised that these emission points may require significant modification to reach the required standard for extractive monitoring and pose a relatively low risk to the environment.
If the operator cannot provide a suitable alternative technique, they will be required to monitor these emission points in accordance with Schedule 3(b), Table S3.2 of the permit. The Operator's response to IC2 is required to be submitted by 31st October 2016.
The operator shall assess the potential human health impact associated with the proposed new emission limit of 1500 mg/Nm3 for carbon monoxide releases from emission point A1. The assessment shall use the Environment Agency H1 Software Tool or an equivalent method. The assessment together with a written report summarising the conclusions of the assessment shall be submitted to Natural Resources Wales for approval.
We have imposed this improvement condition in response to the operator's request to increase the existing carbon monoxide emission limit on emission point A1 from 1000 mg/Nm3 to 1500 mg/m3. The change has a potential environmental benefit associated with operation of the kiln, in that it would allow the operator to use more alternative raw materials and fuels in preference to fossil fuels and virgin materials, whilst at the same time being able to maintain kiln stability. However, there is no BAT-AEL for carbon monoxide releases from cement plants in the BAT conclusions document. Therefore, this request must be assessed by comparing the predicted impact of the proposed new emission limit against the Statutory Air Quality Limit Value for CO, to ensure that no exceedance will occur. The improvement condition requires the operator to make this assessment using H1 or an equivalent method. We will then review the assessment and decide if the operator's request can be granted. The operator cannot operate at the proposed new limit of 1500 mg/Nm3, unless written approval has been given by Natural Resources Wales.
The Operator's response to IC3 is required to be submitted by 31st October 2016.
In order for Natural Resources Wales to set the appropriate emission limit values, the Operator shall submit a report detailing the operational capability (expressed as mg/Nm3 of particulate released) of each bag filter plant associated with emission points A1, A2, A3 & A4. The report shall include:
I.
A statistical analysis of at least two years of particulate monitoring data for each emission point with supporting graphs demonstrating individual values, averages and standard deviations.
II.
Design specification of each bag plant.
III.
Details on all maintenance (including filter bag changes) carried out for each bag filter plant during the monitoring period, including dates and times of each maintenance
The purpose of IC4 is as described in the section on BAT-AELS and Emission Limit Values (Cooling & Milling Processes) above.
The Operator's response to IC4 is required to be submitted by 30th November 2016.
If storing Priority Hazardous Substances on site, the Operator must carry out the following assessments with reference to the Environment Agency's guidance "How to
carry out a risk assessment if you're applying for a bespoke permit that includes
discharging hazardous pollutants to surface water":
Phase 1 Part A screening tests for mercury, cadmium, nickel, lead, benzene,
polyaromatic hydrocarbons and any other relevant priority hazardous substances. Phase 1 Part B screening tests for mercury, cadmium, polyaromatic hydrocarbons and any other relevant priority hazardous substances.
For any substance which is not screened out by the Phase 1 Part A or Part B screening tests the Operator will also need to carry out Phase 2 modelling, as described in "How to carry out a risk assessment if you're applying for a bespoke permit that includes discharging hazardous pollutants to surface water".
The Operator must provide Natural Resources Wales with the results of the emissions monitoring, the results from the screening tests and the results from any Phase 2 modelling. The Operator may use the Environment Agency's H1 electronic screening tool to present the emissions data and to carry out the Phase 1 screening tests.
Note: With regard to the Phase 1 Part A screening - a full list of priority hazardous substances is provided in the Environment Agency guidance "How to carry out a risk assessment if you're applying for a bespoke permit that includes discharging hazardous pollutants to surface water" under the section entitled "Screening test:
priority hazardous pollutants". The Operator must review the list and carry out the screening for any substances, in addition to those specified above, that may be present in the installations discharges to surface water. With regard to the Phase 1
Part B screening for priority hazardous pollutants, the section entitled "Screening test: priority hazardous pollutants" provides a full list of relevant priority hazardous substances and their associated annual significant loads.
We have set IC5 to ensure that the installation meets Water Framework Directive requirements going forward for screening dangerous substances. The Operator's response to IC5 is required to be submitted by 30th June 2017.
The Operator shall submit a report on the baseline conditions of soil and groundwater at the installation. The report shall contain the information necessary to determine the state of soil and groundwater contamination so as to make a quantified comparison with the state upon definitive cessation of activities provided for in Article 22(3) of the IED. The report shall contain information, supplementary to that already provided in
the application Site Condition Report, needed to meet the information requirements of Article 22(2) of the IED.
This improvement condition requires information supplementary to that already provided in the application site report, which is needed to meet the information requirements of Article 22(2) of IED. Specifically, any relevant hazardous substances which are used, produced or released by the installation need to be identified and additional baseline monitoring undertaken if relevant hazardous substances are associated with the installation. The Operator's response to IC6 is required to be submitted by 30th September 2017.
The Operator shall submit the written protocol referenced in condition 3.1.3 for the monitoring of soil and groundwater for approval by Natural Resources Wales. The protocol shall demonstrate how the Operator will meet the requirements of Articles 14(1) (b), 14(1) (e) and 16(2) of the IED. The procedure shall be implemented in accordance with the written approval from Natural Resources Wales.
Improvement Condition 6 has been set with the purpose of defining the procedure by which monitoring of groundwater and soil required by new permit condition 3.1.3 will be conducted. (Permit condition 3.1.3 has been added to deliver the requirements of the Industrial Emissions Directive). The written protocol developed by the Operator will be used to deliver compliance with permit condition 3.1.3 in terms of the monitoring regime to demonstrate continued protection of the soil and groundwater. The Operator's response to IC7 is required to be submitted by 31st December 2017.
## 5.8 Site Specific Updating Changes
The following changes have been made as a result of this variation:
Waste recovery code R5 "Recycling / Reclamation of other Inorganic Materials"
added to Table S1.1, Activity reference 3.1A(i)a, to reflect use of Alternative Raw Materials (ARM).
Table S2.2: title amended to "Permitted Waste Derived Fuels and Alternative
Raw Materials".
Schedule 3(b) Table S3.2 updated to capture emission points A4, A5, A6 and
A7 serving the coal mills, primary crusher, raw meal handling dust plant and polychip walking floor transfer point respectively. These are existing emission points which were captured as part of a grouping of "A4 to A18 other process vents" in the original permit. The amendment has been necessary to enable us to apply emission limits and monitoring requirements to these particular release points.
Schedule 3(b) Table S3.2 also updated to removed reference to "A4 to A18 and
A20 to A23 other process vents" and "SRF handling filter vent". This change was
necessary because with the exception of emission points A4, A5, A6 and A7, the other release points are captured by the final line in the table which has been
added to cover all other small sources of particulate matter (<10,000 Nm3/hr) from dusty operations other than cooling and the main milling processes.
Schedule 3(b) Table S3.4: parameters updated to ensure consistency of
process monitoring requirements across the sector in Wales.
Schedules 3(a) & (b) Table S3.5: Terminology changed from "process waste" to
"CKD/Bypass dust if produced"
Schedule 6, Interpretation has been updated as follows:
"Chapter IV abnormal operating conditions" definition amended to include
reference to IED, article 45 1(f);
Text on determination and reporting of toxic equivalence concentration (I- TEQ & WHO-TEQ for dioxins / furans, WHO-TEQ for dioxin-like PCBs) updated to fully reflect the interpretation text in our permit template. This
helps to add clarity on how results for dioxins / furans and dioxin-like PCBs
should be reported.
The two tables of Toxic Equivalence Factors has been updated by new
versions in line with our permit template. In the tables, the 1997/8 WHO- TEFs for humans / mammals have been replaced by the later 2005 WHO- TEFs.
Schedule 7, Site plan updated to show all permitted emission points.
## 5.9 Changes To Reporting
The tables in schedules 4(a) & (b) of the updated permit have been amended to reflect the changes in monitoring and reporting imposed by the preceding schedules of the permit.
## 6 Conclusion
We have reviewed the existing permit for the Aberthaw Works installation and we are satisfied that the operator is either currently achieving or will achieve compliance with the relevant BAT conclusions for cement by 9th April 2017. We therefore believe this permit variation provides a sound basis for ongoing regulation of the Installation. We believe that we have ensured compliance with all relevant legal requirements in carrying out this review and making our determination on the Variation.
Annex 1 - Decision Checklist regarding relevant BAT Conclusions. This checklist provides a record of decisions made in relation to each relevant BAT Conclusion applicable to the installation. This annex should be read in conjunction with the Variation Notice and Consolidated Permit. All BAT Conclusions arising are listed by number in order below.
BAT Conclusion No
Summary of BAT Conclusion requirement
Page number in Operators Regulation
60 Response
## General Bat Conclusions
The BAT mentioned in this section apply to all installations covered by these BAT conclusions (cement, lime and magnesium oxide industry).
1.
In order to improve the overall environmental performance of the plants/installations producing cement, lime and magnesium oxide, production BAT is to implement and adhere to an environmental management system (EMS) that incorporates all of the listed features
2.
In order to reduce/minimise noise emissions during the manufacturing processes for cement, lime and magnesium oxide, BAT is to use a combination of the listed techniques
## Bat Conclusions For The Cement Industry
Unless otherwise stated, the BAT conclusions presented in this section can be applied to all installations in the cement industry.
3.
In order to reduce emissions from the kiln and use
energy efficiently, BAT is to achieve a smooth and
stable kiln process, operating close to the process
parameter set points by using the listed techniques
4.
In order to prevent and/or reduce emissions, BAT is
to carry out a careful selection and control of all substances entering the kiln
BAT
is
to
carry
out
the
monitoring
and
measurements
of
process
parameters
and
5.
emissions on a regular basis and to monitor emissions in accordance with the relevant EN
Status One of the following:
Not Applicable, Currently
Compliant, Compliant in the future (within 4 years of publication of
BAT conclusions), Not Compliant
Currently Compliant
6 - 7
Currently Compliant
8 - 9
11
Currently Compliant
12
Currently Compliant
Compliant in Future
13 - 16
(plus
additional
information
Technique (g) For new emission
points A5, A6 & A7, periodic monitoring will be required by
BAT Conclusion No
Summary of BAT Conclusion requirement
Page number in Operators Regulation 60
Response
standards or, if EN standards are not available, ISO, national or other international standards that ensure the provision of data of an equivalent scientific quality, including those listed.
6.
In order to reduce energy consumption, BAT is to use a dry process kiln with multistage preheating and pre-calcination.
7.
In order to reduce/minimise thermal energy consumption, BAT is to use a combination of the listed techniques. In order to reduce primary energy consumption, BAT is to consider the reduction of the clinker content of cement and cement products
8.
In order to reduce primary energy consumption, BAT is to consider cogeneration/combined heat and power plants.
9.
10.
In order to reduce/minimise electrical energy consumption, BAT is to use one or a combination of the listed techniques.
11.
In order to guarantee the characteristics of the wastes to be used as fuels and/or raw materials in a
cement kiln and reduce emissions, BAT is to apply the listed techniques.
12.
In order to ensure appropriate treatment of the wastes used as fuel and/or raw materials in the kiln,
BAT is to use the listed techniques.
Status One of the following:
Not Applicable, Currently Compliant, Compliant in the future (within 4 years of publication of
BAT conclusions), Not Compliant
received
30/07/15)
09.04.17, subject to improvement condition IC2
Currently Compliant
17
(Note - energy consumption levels associated with this BATC relate to new plant and major upgrades only).
Currently Compliant
18 - 20
20
(plus
Currently Compliant
additional
information
received
30/07/15)
21
Currently Compliant
(plus
additional
(Considered by Operator - not
information
currently feasible).
received
30/07/15)
22 - 23
Currently Compliant
24 - 25
Currently Compliant
26
Currently Compliant
BAT Conclusion No
Summary of BAT Conclusion requirement
Page number in Operators Regulation 60
Response
13.
BAT is to apply safety management for the storage, handling and feeding of hazardous waste materials, such as using a risk-based approach according to the source and type of waste, for the labelling, checking, sampling and testing of waste to be handled.
14.
In order to minimise/prevent diffuse dust emissions from dusty operations, BAT is to use one or a combination of the listed techniques
15.
In order to minimise/prevent diffuse dust emissions from bulk storage areas, BAT is to use one or a combination of the listed techniques.
16.
In order to reduce channelled dust emissions, BAT is to apply a maintenance management system which especially addresses the performance of filters applied to dusty operations, other than those from kiln firing, cooling and main milling processes. Taking this management system into account, BAT
is to use dry flue-gas cleaning with a filter.
17.
In order to reduce dust emissions from flue-gases of kiln firing processes, BAT is to use dry flue-gas cleaning with a filter.
18.
In order to reduce dust emissions from the fluegases of cooling and milling processes, BAT is to use dry flue-gas cleaning with a filter.
Status One of the following:
Not Applicable, Currently Compliant, Compliant in the future (within 4 years of publication of
BAT conclusions), Not Compliant
26 - 27
Currently Compliant
Compliant in the Future
(Subject
to
the
completion
of
28 - 29
measures identified in the site dust management plan update submitted to NRW 27th April 2015).
30
Compliant in the Future
(plus
additional
(Subject to the completion of
information
measures identified in the site dust
received
management plan update
30/07/15)
submitted to NRW 27th April 2015).
31
Compliant in the Future
(plus
additional
information
received
(Fabric filters and maintenance system in place, BAT-AEL will be met by 09/04/17)
30/07/15)
Compliant in the Future
32
Fabric filter in use is capable of achieving
upper
BAT-AEL
of
20mg/Nm3
by
09/04/17.
Improvement Condition 2 requires
operator to assess if lower limit of 10mg/Nm3 can be achieved.
## Compliant In The Future
33
Fabric filters in use are capable of achieving
upper
BAT-AEL
of
20mg/Nm3
by
09/04/17.
Improvement Condition 2 requires operator to assess if lower limit of
BAT Conclusion No
Summary of BAT Conclusion requirement
Page number in Operators Regulation 60
Response
19.
In order to reduce the emissions of NOx from the flue gases of kiln firing and/or preheating/precalcining
processes, BAT is to use one or a combination of the following techniques.
20.
When SNCR is used, BAT is to achieve efficient NOx reduction, while keeping the ammonia slip as low as possible, by using the given technique. In order to reduce/minimise the emissions of SOx from
the
flue-gases
of
kiln
firing
and/or
21.
preheating/precalcining processes, BAT is to use one of the given techniques.
22.
In order to reduce SO 2 emissions from the kiln, BAT is to optimise the raw milling processes.
23.
In order to minimise the frequency of CO trips and
keep their total duration to below 30 minutes annually, when using electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) or hybrid filters, BAT is to use the listed techniques in combination.
24.
In order to keep the emissions of TOC from the fluegases of the kiln firing processes low, BAT is to avoid feeding raw materials with a high content of volatile organic compounds (VOC) into the kiln
system via the raw material feeding route.
25.
In order prevent/reduce the emissions of HCl from flue-gases of the kiln firing processes, BAT is to use one or a combination of the listed primary techniques.
Status One of the following:
Not Applicable, Currently Compliant, Compliant in the future (within 4 years of publication of
BAT conclusions), Not Compliant
10mg/Nm3 can be achieved for individual fabric filters.
34 - 35
Currently Compliant
(plus
additional
(existing Emission Limit Value of
information
500 mg/Nm3 retained)
received
30/07/15)
36
Compliant in the Future
(plus
additional
information
received
Ammonia Emission Limit Value of 80mg/Nm3 included in permit (kiln) to account for slip and background ammonia from process.
30/07/15)
37- 38
Compliant in the Future
(plus
additional
information
(existing Emission Limit Value of
reduced from 800 to 400mg/Nm3
received
from 09/04/17)
30/07/15)
38
Currently Compliant
Not Applicable
-
(fabric filters used)
Currently Compliant
39 - 40
Currently Compliant
40
(existing
Emission
Limit
Value
retained)
BAT Conclusion No
Summary of BAT Conclusion requirement
Page number in Operators Regulation 60
Response
26.
In order to prevent/reduce the emissions of HF from the flue-gases of the kiln firing processes, BAT is to use one or a combination of the listed primary techniques.
27.
In order to prevent emissions of PCDD/F or to keep the emissions of PCDD/F from the flue-gases of the kiln firing processes low, BAT is to use one or a combination of the listed techniques.
28.
In order to minimise the emissions of metals from the flue-gases of the kiln firing processes, BAT is to use one or a combination of the listed techniques.
In order to reduce solid waste from the cement
manufacturing process along with raw material
29.
savings, BAT is to use the techniques listed in the
table.
Status One of the following:
Not Applicable, Currently Compliant, Compliant in the future (within 4 years of publication of
BAT conclusions), Not Compliant
Currently Compliant
41
(existing
Emission
Limit
Value
retained)
Currently Compliant
41 - 42
(existing
Emission
Limit
Value
retained)
Currently Compliant
42 - 43
(existing Emission Limit Values retained)
43 - 44
Currently Compliant
| en |
1943-pdf |
##
# Council Tax And Nndr City Of York Council Internal Audit Report 2017/18
Service Manager: Head of Customer, Resident & Exchequer Services
## Summary And Overall Conclusions Introduction
Council Tax and National Non-Domestic Rates (NNDR) are key sources of funding for the provision of services by the council. For 2017/18, the council tax requirement (excluding parish precepts) was set at approximately £81 million. Projected NNDR income is approximately £100 million, of which the council will retain £49 million. In 2017/18, the council will process bills for approximately 6,600 businesses and 89,000 homes.
A council tax bill is made up of the amount levied by City of York Council, as well as precepts for the North Yorkshire Police & Crime Commissioner, the North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority and, for properties in a parished area of the city, the individual Town or Parish council. In the last 18 months, the council has introduced an online service provided by Govtech so that residents and businesses can notify the council of changes to their circumstances. The aim was to automate some processes, reducing workloads for staff and saving money for the council.
## Objectives And Scope Of The Audit
The purpose of this audit was to provide assurance to management that procedures and controls within the system will ensure that:
- The authority maintains an accurate database of taxable properties and liable persons; - Bills and demand notices are calculated and issued correctly, in a timely manner and apply legitimate discounts, exemptions, disregards
and reliefs;
- Council tax and NNDR income is correctly accounted for and income is correctly recorded; - Arrears are promptly and effectively pursued; - Refunds and write-offs are legitimate, correctly processed and authorised.
The audit has also reviewed the online forms and automated processes provided by Govtech.
## Key Findings
Maintaining an accurate database of properties and liable parties is important to ensure that the right people are billed the correct amounts. The database of taxable properties and liable persons in SX3 (the council's revenues system) is largely accurate, with only a small number of discrepancies identified. Updates are sent to and received from the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) and also received from other council departments to help ensure that the database is correct. Bills and demand notices also need to be accurate and contain relevant information, including discounts, disregards, exemptions and reliefs. It was found that bills contained relevant and correct information and were posted within a reasonable timescale. Discounts and other reductions are supported by suitable evidence or declarations and have end dates where appropriate. Discounts and other reductions should be reviewed periodically to ensure that they remain appropriate and the council is collecting any monies owed to it. Officers explained that they used to be reviewed annually, but due to reductions in resources this is no longer possible. The service now focuses on particular areas each year instead, but a review of small business rate relief had to be abandoned in 2017-18 due to other work pressures. Spot checking of discounts and other account changes is now carried out more frequently (111 accounts checked in 2017-18 against 38 in the 12 months checked during the 2016-17 audit). Long-term empty properties now have end dates entered so they will enter the 'premium' window after 2 years when an additional 50% will be added to the council tax bill. These issues were both raised in the 2016-17 audit. The council has an up to date Corporate Debt Recovery Policy (November 2016), but the Debt Recovery Procedure Notes in use by officers processing council tax and NNDR were last reviewed in August 2009. Officers felt, however, that procedures remain relevant. Analysis of accounts in recovery found that appropriate action was being taken. Accounts with Attachment of Earnings (AOE) had appropriate supporting evidence. However, not all Special Payment Arrangements (SPAs) had supporting documentation. Officers explained that the SPAs process is changing with the introduction of a new online form. Completed forms will be automatically indexed to Anite (one of the council's document management systems) thus resolving this issue. Write offs are made appropriately, for valid reasons, and receive sufficient authorisation. Review of a sample of refunds found that they had been made for valid reasons and had received suitable authorisation. There is a refunds procedure, but this does not appear to be documented. Furthermore, during the audit a fraud case involving an NNDR refund was referred to the council's counter fraud team for investigation. The refund was made back to a different bank account from that which the payment originated, which is in contravention of the usual procedure. Ensuring that there are documented procedures and guidance for refunds, that officers are trained on them, and are aware of possible fraud schemes and indicators is therefore essential to reduce the likelihood of recurrence. In August 2016, the council introduced online forms provided by Govtech. These forms enable customers to provide the council with up to date information. The forms draw upon real-time data and can be automatically processed and indexed, thus reducing the workloads of officers. A review of performance found that currently around 40% of these forms are completed automatically without intervention from officers. The other 60% require some level of manual intervention. This is partly due to officers setting tight parameters initially to ensure that data entered into SX3 is accurate. Currently, certain forms also have automatic processing disabled, but they are still included in performance figures. The introduction of the forms has had a notable impact on the Customer Centre, where the number of calls relating to council tax has dropped from over 63,000 in 2015-16 to 41,000 in 2017-18. Officers are working with Govtech to increase the automatic completion rate, whilst also ensuring that the information is accurate.
## Overall Conclusions
The arrangements for managing risk were good with few weaknesses identified. An effective control environment is in operation, but there is scope for further improvement in the areas identified. Our overall opinion of the controls within the system at the time of the audit was that they provided Substantial Assurance.
## 1 Refunds Procedure Notes & Training Issue/Control Weakness Risk
Refunds are made inappropriately or the council may lose council tax or NNDR income due to fraud.
The council was defrauded of NNDR income through a refund scam. The council does not have documented procedures and guidance for refunding council tax or NNDR.
## Findings
During the audit, it was found that there are no written procedures for refunds, although discussion with officers established that there is a process for raising and authorising them. If there is a change on an account, any credits due will be automatically calculated by SX3. A refund is raised and then authorised by an appropriate officer for payment. Payments should be made back to the originating bank account if the account details are held. In January 2018, a fraud case was reported to the council's counter fraud team in which the council had been defrauded of over £3,000 of NNDR income. The individual paid on a stolen credit card and then shortly afterwards asked for a refund to a different bank account. The bank of the stolen card blocked the initial transaction, but by the time the council was informed, the refund had been paid. The original payment of £6,000 was reversed by the bank. In the case referred to above, the individual was successful partly because the money was refunded to a different account in contravention of the usual procedure. The counter fraud team referred the case to ActionFraud and the Police and have also provided some advice to the NNDR team. Ensuring that the council has clearly documented procedures, officers are trained on them and are aware of possible fraud schemes is essential to reduce the likelihood of recurrence.
## Agreed Action 1.1
Procedure notes and guidance on refunds will be produced, approved by the Revenues & Benefits Manager, and made available to officers. Officers will also be trained on the procedures.
## 2 Reviews Of Accounts With Discounts, Disregards, Exemptions And Reliefs Issue/Control Weakness Risk
Reviews of discounts, disregards, exemptions and reliefs are carried out less frequently and have been stopped due to resource pressures.
Discounts, disregards, reliefs and exemptions may be applied for too long or inappropriately and the council may not collect all money owed to it.
## Findings
Accounts with discounts, disregards, exemptions and reliefs should be reviewed periodically to ensure that the reductions remain appropriate and are not applied for too long. A review of a sample of accounts identified two where reviews had not been followed up. One was for an NNDR exemption and the other for a special payment arrangement where the customer was paying less than the £15 minimum amount.
Discussion with officers found that reviews of council tax and NNDR discounts, disregards, reliefs and exemptions used to be carried out on an annual basis. Reductions in resources over the last few years have meant this is no longer possible. Reviews are now carried out in particular areas; for example, single person discounts are reviewed every 2 years by Datatank on the council's behalf. Officers are planning to review small business rate relief in 2018-19. This was started in 2017-18 but was not finished due to work pressures. Officers are also planning to review care home disregards for council tax in 2018-19 having reviewed accounts listed as 'deceased - awaiting probate' in 2017-18.
## Agreed Action 2.1
The new Revenues & Benefits Technical Team will run regular reports to identify discounts, disregards, exemptions and reliefs for review starting in autumn 2018. A business plan will be produced setting out targets and deadlines for each review type.
## Audit Opinions And Priorities For Actions
Audit Opinions Audit work is based on sampling transactions to test the operation of systems. It cannot guarantee the elimination of fraud or error. Our opinion is based on the risks we identify at the time of the audit. Our overall audit opinion is based on 5 grades of opinion, as set out below.
Opinion Assessment of internal control
| High Assurance |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| Substantial |
| Assurance |
| Overall, good management of risk with few weaknesses identified. An effective control environment is in |
| operation but there is scope for further improvement in the areas identified. |
| |
| Reasonable |
| Assurance |
| Overall, satisfactory management of risk with a number of weaknesses identified. An acceptable control |
| environment is in operation but there are a number of improvements that could be made. |
| Limited Assurance |
| Overall, poor management of risk with significant control weaknesses in key areas and major |
| improvements required before an effective control environment will be in operation. |
| No Assurance |
| Overall, there is a fundamental failure in control and risks are not being effectively managed. A number of |
| key areas require substantial improvement to protect the system from error and abuse. |
| |
## Priorities For Actions
Priority 1
A fundamental system weakness, which presents unacceptable risk to the system objectives and requires urgent attention by management.
Priority 2
A significant system weakness, whose impact or frequency presents risks to the system objectives, which needs to be addressed by management.
Priority 3
The system objectives are not exposed to significant risk, but the issue merits attention by management.
Where information resulting from audit work is made public or is provided to a third party by the client or by Veritau then this must be done on the understanding that any third party will rely on the information at its own risk. Veritau will not owe a duty of care or assume any responsibility towards anyone other than the client in relation to the information supplied. Equally, no third party may assert any rights or bring any claims against Veritau in connection with the information. Where information is provided to a named third party, the third party will keep the information confidential. | en |
1698-pdf |
## Forestry Statistics 2020 Chapter 9: International Forestry
Release date:
24 September 2020
Coverage:
United Kingdom Geographical breakdown:
Country
Issued by:
Forest Research 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, EH12 7AT
Enquiries:
Robert Stagg 0300 067 5238 statistics@forestresearch.gov.uk
Statistician:
Sheila Ward 0300 067 5236
Website:
www.forestresearch.gov.uk/statistics/
## Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................ 3 Key findings ........................................................................................ 4 9.1 Forest cover: international comparisons............................................. 5 9.2 Forest area by country .................................................................... 7 9.3 Annual changes in forest area .......................................................... 8
9.4 Forest carbon stocks ......................................................................
10
9.5 Wood removals
..............................................................................
12
9.6 Production of wood products ...........................................................
15
9.7 Apparent consumption of wood products
...........................................
18
9.8 World trade in forest products .........................................................
21
## Introduction
This chapter contains information about world forestry, presenting global figures by region alongside data for the UK and the EU. Topics covered include woodland area, carbon stocks, wood removals, production and apparent consumption of wood products and international trade in forest products. The data are produced by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter. All of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released by the FAO. For further details on revisions, see the International Forestry section of the Sources chapter. Data for the European Union (EU) relate to all 27 current EU members, excluding the UK, for all of the years shown. Data for Europe cover 26 of the EU members (excluding Cyprus), the Russian Federation and a number of other European countries, including Norway, Switzerland, Serbia and Ukraine. A copy of all International Forestry tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/.
## Key Findings
The main findings are:
- At around 13% forest cover in 2020, the UK is one of the least densely
forested countries in Europe. This compares with 46% for Europe as a whole and 31% worldwide.
- The global forest area reduced by around 4.7 million hectares (0.1%) per
year between 2010 and 2020.
- Carbon stocks in forest living biomass have increased in Europe, North &
Central America and Asia between 1990 and 2020, but have shown an overall decrease at a global level over this period.
- A total of 4.0 billion m3 underbark of wood was removed from global
forests in 2018, of which around one half (49%) was for use as woodfuel and the remainder was industrial roundwood (for use by wood processors).
- Global production of wood products in 2018 totalled 492 million m3 of
sawnwood, 404 million m3 of wood-based panels and 408 million tonnes of paper & paperboard.
- Europe consumed around one quarter (24%) of all sawnwood, around
one fifth (21%) of the world's wood-based panels and almost one quarter (23%) of all paper and paperboard in 2018.
- The UK was the second largest net importer (imports less exports) of
forest products in 2018, with net imports of US $8.6 billion. The largest net importer was China.
## 9.1 Forest Cover: International Comparisons
The FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) is a collation of forest data undertaken by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) at the global level every five years. The UK is one of the least densely forested countries in Europe with around 13% of its total land area covered in forest in 2020 (Figure 9.1, Table 9.1). This compares with 46% for Europe as a whole and 31% worldwide.
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
##
Total land area
Country
Forest area
(million ha)
(million ha)
Forest as %
of land area
Europe
United Kingdom
3
24
13
Denmark
1
4
15
Finland
22
30
74
France
17
55
32
Germany
11
35
33
Ireland
1
7
11
Italy
10
29
33
Spain
19
50
37
Sweden
28
41
69
Other EU
47
124
38
Total EU1
159
400
40
Russian Federation
815
1,638
50
Total Europe2
1,017
2,213
46
Africa
637
2,989
21
Asia
623
3,109
20
North & Central America
753
2,133
35
Oceania
185
849
22
South America
844
1,746
48
World
4,059
13,039
31
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. Notes:
1. The EU covers 27 member states as at September 2020. This excludes the UK. Cyprus is
included in EU total but is part of FAO's Asia region.
2. The Europe region covers 26 EU countries (excluding Cyprus), the UK, the Russian
Federation and other countries, including Norway, Switzerland, Serbia and Ukraine.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
## 9.2 Forest Area By Country
Figure 9.2 shows the countries with the largest forest areas. Around one half (49%) of the total forest area of 4,059 million hectares in 2020 is located in four countries (the Russian Federation, Brazil, Canada and the USA).
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
## 9.3 Annual Changes In Forest Area
The global forest area has reduced from around 4,128 million hectares in 1990 to 4,059 million hectares in 2020. This represents a decrease of around 7.8 million hectares (0.2%) per year between 1990 and 2000, of around 5.2 million hectares (0.1%) per year between 2000 and 2010 and of around 4.7 million hectares (0.1%) per year between 2010 and 2020 (Table 9.2). The forest area has reduced in most regions since 1990, except for Europe and Asia (where areas have increased).
percentage change in forest area
Region
1990-2000
2000-2010
2010-2020
Europe
UK
0.6
0.4
0.4
EU1
0.5
0.3
0.2
Total Europe
0.1
0.1
0.0
Africa
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
Asia
0.0
0.4
0.2
North and Central America
0.0
0.0
0.0
Oceania
-0.1
-0.1
0.2
South America
-0.5
-0.6
-0.3
World
-0.2
-0.1
-0.1
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. Notes:
1. The EU covers 27 member states as at September 2020. This excludes the UK. Cyprus is
included in EU total but is part of FAO's Asia region.
2. UK figures for 2020 are 2018-based estimates. Revised estimates (from Chapter 1)
suggest that Table 9.2 slightly under-estimates the change in forest area in the UK in the most recent time period.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
Between 2010 and 2020, the largest decrease in forest area was in Brazil (1.5 million hectares per year on average) and the largest increase was in China (1.9 million hectares per year on average) (Figure 9.3).
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. Notes:
1. Countries with changes of at least 0.3 million hectares per year only. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
## 9.4 Forest Carbon Stocks
Carbon stocks in forest living biomass have increased in Europe and North & Central America between 1990 and 2020, but have shown an overall decrease at a global level over this period (Table 9.3). The overall decrease has mainly been driven by declines in South America and Africa, where forest areas have decreased. Carbon stocks in biomass also increased slightly in Asia, where carbon sequestered in new plantations has balanced out carbon losses from areas of deforestation.
giga tonnes of carbon
Region
1990
2000
2010
2015
2020
Europe
45
48
51
53
55
Africa
59
56
54
52
51
Asia
34
35
36
37
38
North and Central America
39
40
41
41
42
Oceania
14
14
14
14
14
South America
106
102
98
97
96
World
298
296
294
295
295
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. Notes:
1. A giga tonne is a thousand million tonnes (109 tonnes). These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
## 9.5 Wood Removals
A total of 4.0 billion m3 underbark of wood was removed from global forests in 2018, of which around one half (49%) was for use as woodfuel and the remainder was industrial roundwood (for use by wood processors) (Table 9.4). North & Central America and Europe together accounted for around three fifths (59%) of all industrial roundwood removals in 2018. Globally, removals of industrial roundwood increased by 11% between 2015 and 2018, resulting from increases in all regions. Nearly three quarters (73%) of woodfuel removals in 2018 took place in Asia and Africa. Globally, removals of woodfuel increased by 2% between 2015 and 2018.
million m3 underbark
Region
1990
2000
2010
2015
2018
Industrial roundwood
Europe
UK
6
8
8
9
9
EU1
311
335
331
338
378
Total Europe
517
519
533
574
650
Africa
61
71
72
75
79
Asia
268
273
379
403
442
North & Central America
595
632
485
516
561
Oceania
34
47
57
64
77
South America
110
147
198
217
248
World
1,585
1,690
1,723
1,849
2,057
Woodfuel
Europe
UK
0
0
1
2
2
EU1
67
85
115
120
122
Total Europe
138
109
154
170
180
Africa
445
551
644
679
700
Asia
897
808
764
735
719
North & Central America
162
129
129
136
160
Oceania
9
13
11
10
10
South America
162
185
162
171
180
World
1,814
1,795
1,863
1,902
1,948
Total roundwood
Europe
UK
6
8
10
11
11
EU1
378
420
446
458
500
Total Europe
655
628
687
744
830
Africa
506
623
715
754
779
Asia
1,166
1,081
1,144
1,138
1,160
North & Central America
757
761
613
652
721
Oceania
43
60
68
74
87
South America
272
332
359
388
428
World
3,399
3,485
3,586
3,751
4,005
Source: FAO. Notes:
1. The EU covers 27 member states as at September 2020. This excludes the UK. Cyprus is
included in EU total but is part of FAO's Asia region.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
## 9.6 Production Of Wood Products
Global production of wood products in 2018 totalled 492 million m3 of sawnwood, 404 million m3 of woodbased panels and 408 million tonnes of paper & paperboard (Table 9.5). Europe produced around one third (34%) of all sawnwood in 2018 (mainly in EU countries), with over one quarter (29%) in Asia and a further quarter (27%) produced in North & Central America. Overall, sawnwood production increased by 10% between 2015 and 2018, driven by increases in most regions. Wood-based panels were more commonly produced in Asia, accounting for around three fifths (60%) of global production in 2018. Around one fifth (22%) were produced in Europe (mainly in EU countries) and 12% in North & Central America. At a global level, wood-based panel production increased by 5% between 2015 and 2018, mainly driven by an increase in Europe. Asia also accounted for almost one half (47%) of paper and paperboard production in 2018, with around one quarter (26%) in Europe and a further 21% in North & Central America. At a global level, paper and paperboard production increased slightly (by 0.4%) between 2015 and 2018.
| Region | 1990 2000 2010 2015 2018 |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| Sawnwood (million m | |
| 3 | |
| ) | |
| Europe | |
| UK | 2 |
| EU | |
| 1 | |
| | 80 |
| Total Europe | 149 |
| Africa | 8 |
| Asia | 105 |
| North and Central America | 129 |
| Oceania | 6 |
| South America | 22 |
| World | 419 |
| Wood-based panels (million m | |
| 3 | |
| ) | |
| Europe | |
| UK | 2 |
| EU | |
| 1 | |
| | 34 |
| Total Europe | 48 |
| Africa | 2 |
| Asia | 27 |
| North and Central America | 44 |
| Oceania | 2 |
| South America | 4 |
| World | 126 |
| Paper & paperboard (million | |
| tonnes) | |
| | |
| Europe | |
| UK | 5 |
| EU | |
| 1 | |
| | 59 |
| Total Europe | 74 |
Africa
3
4
4
4
3
Asia
57
95
170
192
192
North and Central America
92
111
94
89
88
Oceania
3
4
4
4
4
South America
8
11
15
15
16
World
235
325
392
407
408
Source: FAO. Notes:
1. The EU covers 27 member states as at September 2020. This excludes the UK. Cyprus is
included in EU total but is part of FAO's Asia region.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
## 9.7 Apparent Consumption Of Wood Products
Apparent consumption (defined as production + imports - exports) of wood products around the world totalled 486 million m3 sawnwood, 404 million m3 wood-based panels and 408 million tonnes of paper and paperboard in 2018 (Table 9.6). Two fifths (41%) of all sawnwood in 2018 was consumed in Asia and around one quarter each in North & Central America (26%) and in Europe (24%). Reflecting the increased production of sawnwood (see Table 9.5), apparent consumption of sawnwood increased by 10% overall between 2015 and 2018. This was driven by increases in apparent consumption in most regions. Asia consumed around three fifths (59%) of the world's wood-based panels in 2018, around one fifth (21%) was consumed in Europe and 14% in North & Central America. Apparent consumption of wood-based panels worldwide increased by 5% between 2015 and 2018, largely resulting from increased demand in Europe. Nearly one half (49%) of all paper and paperboard in 2018 was consumed in Asia, around one fifth (23%) in Europe and a further one fifth (21%) in North & Central America. At a global level, apparent consumption of paper and paperboard increased by 1% between 2015 and 2018.
| Region | 1990 2000 2010 2015 2018 |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| Sawnwood (million m | |
| 3 | |
| ) | |
| Europe | |
| UK | 13 |
| EU-28 | |
| 1 | |
| | 83 |
| Total Europe | 158 |
| Africa | 10 |
| Asia | 112 |
| North and Central America | 119 |
| Oceania | 6 |
| South America | 20 |
| World | 426 |
| Wood-based panels (million m | |
| 3 | |
| ) | |
| Europe | |
| UK | 5 |
| EU-28 | |
| 1 | |
| | 36 |
| Total Europe | 52 |
| Africa | 1 |
| Asia | 25 |
| North and Central America | 44 |
| Oceania | 2 |
| South America | 3 |
| World | 127 |
| Paper & paperboard (million | |
| tonnes) | |
| | |
| Europe | |
| UK | 9 |
| EU-28 | |
| 1 | |
| | 53 |
| Total Europe | 71 |
Africa
4
5
7
8
8
Asia
62
103
178
198
200
North and Central America
88
110
91
86
87
Oceania
3
5
5
4
4
South America
8
12
16
16
17
World
236
325
391
404
408
Source: FAO. Notes:
1. The EU covers 27 member states as at September 2020. This excludes the UK. Cyprus is
included in EU total but is part of FAO's Asia region.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
## 9.8 World Trade In Forest Products
Figures 9.6 and 9.7 show the largest net importers and exporters (by value) of forest products in 2018. This covers trade in roundwood, sawnwood, woodbased panels, wood pulp and paper and paperboard, but excludes trade in secondary processed wood (e.g. furniture made from wood). Values are expressed in US dollars (the units reported in the data published by FAO). The UK was the second largest net importer (imports less exports) of forest products in 2018, with net imports of US $8.6 billion (Figure 9.6). The largest net importer in 2018 was China (US $42.3 billion) and Japan was the third largest net importer (US $7.7 billion).
Source: FAO Notes:
1. Excludes trade in secondary wood products. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
The largest net exporters (exports less imports) of forest products in 2018 were Canada (with net exports valued at US $20.5 billion), Finland (US $13.0 billion) and Sweden (US $11.5 billion) (Figure 9.7).
Source: FAO Notes:
1. Excludes trade in secondary wood products.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. | en |
0955-pdf |
## Agency Agreement Between The Health And Safety Executive And The Office Of Rail Regulation Under Paragraph 7(2) Schedule 3 Of The Railways Act 2005 And Section 13(3) Of The Health And Safety At Work Etc Act 1974 In Connection With The Carrying Out Of Enforcement Functions Arising In Relation To Road Vehicle Incursions
This Agreement is made between (1) the Health and Safety Executive ("HSE") and (2) the Office of Rail Regulation ("ORR") under paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 3 to the Railways Act 2005 (the "2005
Act") pursuant to the authorisation of the Secretary of State given on 25 March 2015, and section 13(3) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (the "**1974 Act**").
## Whereas:
A. Regulation 3(1) of the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority for Railways and Other Guided
Transport Systems) Regulations 2006 (the "**2006 Regulations**"), made under the 1974 Act,
confers on ORR responsibility for enforcing the relevant statutory provisions to the extent that they relate to certain activities, including, the operation of a railway.
B. HSE and ORR acknowledge and agree that there is a lack of clarity over whether the 2006
Regulations include responsibility for enforcing the relevant statutory provisions where there is a
health and safety risk to the operation of a railway arising out of or in connection with an actual
or potential incursion by a vehicle from a road (a "**Road Vehicle Incursion Risk**").
C. This Agreement relates to certain functions which, to the extent they are exercisable by HSE
under the 1974 Act, ORR has agreed to perform on behalf of HSE, being enforcement functions
which the Secretary of State has considered can appropriately be carried out by ORR in
connection with the carrying out of its safety functions.
## It Is Hereby Agreed That:
1.
To the extent that the responsibility for the enforcement of the relevant statutory provisions
(the "**enforcement functions**") in relation to Road Vehicle Incursion Risks is not transferred to
ORR under the 2006 Regulations, and consequently lies with HSE under section 18(1) of the
1974 Act, HSE and ORR agree that ORR will perform HSE's enforcement functions, on behalf of
HSE, in relation to such Road Vehicle Incursion Risks.
2. ORR and HSE will each provide the other with such information as they may at any time
reasonably require in connection with the performance of the functions specified in this
Agreement.
3. In this Agreement:
(a) *"operation of a railway"*, "*railway"* and "*road"* each has the meaning set out in the 2006
Regulations; and
(b) "the *relevant statutory provisions"* has the meaning set out in section 53 of the 1974
Act.
4. HSE and ORR must regularly review the terms of this Agreement and must do so at least once
each year that this Agreement is in force from the date it comes into effect.
5. HSE and ORR must ensure that the memorandum of understanding between HSE and ORR is
amended to facilitate the performance of, and set out provision for appropriate arrangements
for implementation of, this Agreement.
6. This Agreement comes into effect on 27 April 2015 and will terminate either on a date agreed by
both HSE and ORR or on the expiry of 28 days following receipt of a written notice given by
either party to this Agreement to the other.
Signed on behalf of the Office of Rail Regulation on 27 of April 2015 and: Authorised by Ian Prosser, Chief Inspector of Railways of the Office of Rail Regulation Signature: [*IAN PROSSER*]
IN WITNESS Whereof the Common Seal of the Health and Safety Executive is affixed on 21st of April 2015 and authenticated by: [SEAL OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE] Authorised by Judith Hackitt, the Chair of the Health and Safety Executive Signature: [*JUDITH HACKITT*] | en |
4054-pdf | PLANNING COMMITTEE:
14th **June 2016**
DIRECTORATE:
Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning DIRECTOR:
Steven Boyes
APPLICATION REF:
N/2016/0214
24 Market Square
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
Change of use of 2nd floor from shop (Use Class A1) to day centre
(Use Class D1) including disabled access throughout and the
creation of a roof garden to the rear
WARD:
Castle Ward APPLICANT:
Slurp Coffee Co
AGENT:
@ architect limited REFERRED BY:
Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning
REASON:
Applicant is relative of a Council Member
| | | | |
|-----|------|-----|---------------|
DEPARTURE:
No
## Application For Determination: 1. Recommendation
1.1
APPROVAL subject to the conditions as set out below and for the following reason:
The proposed development would have a neutral impact upon visual amenity, the character and setting of the All Saints Conservation and the adjoining Grade II Listed Building and neighbour amenity. In addition, the development would contribute to the ongoing viability and vitality of the Market Square. As a consequence, the development is in conformity with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework; Policies BN5 and S10 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy; and Policies 1 and 31 of the Northampton Central Area Action Plan.
## 2. The Proposal
2.1
The applicant seeks permission to change the use of the second floor to a day centre. This would include a small roof garden on an existing flat roof to the
rear of the property. This would be
accessed via an existing entrance, which is sited adjacent to the café entrance. No alterations
are proposed to the front façade.
## 3. Site Description
3.1
The application site consists of a substantial building located on the eastern side of the Market Square. The building is currently occupied by a café, with back of house facilities being sited on the upper floors. The building is located adjacent to the southern entrance to the Market Square
and therefore occupies a prominent position. The site also forms part of the All Saints Conservation Area. The adjacent building (22 Market Square) is a Grade II Listed Building.
3.2
The building is located within an area allocated by the Central Area Action Plan (CAAP) as being
a primary retail frontage and as a consequence of this allocation, the majority of the eastern side of the Market Square is utilised for retail purposes; however, other uses are common.
## 4. Planning History
4.1
N/2012/0250 - Change of use of ground floor from shop to restaurant - Refused and dismissed on appeal. 4.2
N/2015/0750 - Change of use from retail to a café/restaurant including outdoor seating area and redecoration of shop front - Approved.
## 5. Planning Policy 5.1 Statutory Duty
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires a planning application to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan for the purposes of this application comprises the adopted West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (2014) and Northampton Central Area Action Plan (2013).
5.2
Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 require Local Planning Authorities when considering development to pay special attention to preserving a listed building or its setting and to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.
## 5.3 National Policies
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the current aims and objectives for the planning system and how these should be applied. In delivering sustainable development, decisions should have regard to the mutually dependent social, economic and environmental roles of the planning system. The NPPF should be read as one complete document. However, the following sections are of particular relevance to this application.
5.4
Paragraph 17 states that planning should take into account the various characters of differing areas and work to promote the vitality of urban areas.
5.5
Paragraph 23 is of particular relevance. This recognises the importance of town centres as the heart of a community and as a consequence, there should be a significant proportion of retailing (meeting a diverse set of demands) available. In achieving this, there should be a variety of retail units (in terms of sites) to meet this requirement. Notwithstanding this, the same paragraph recognises that there is a need to create a number of different markets within town centres in order to promote vitality.
5.6
Paragraphs 131 and 132 encourage the consideration of the impact on the significance of
heritage assets and their settings.
5.7
West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (2014)
The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) provides an up to date evidence base and considers the current Government requirements for plan making as it has been prepared in full conformity with the NPPF.
5.8
Policy N2 sets out the requirement that the predominant function of the town centre will be
retailing; however, the Central Area should also include suitable levels of leisure developments should be provided. Policy S10 states that the developments should promote a strong sense of place. Policy BN5 requires that heritage assets are conserved and enhanced in line with their significance.
## 5.9 Northampton Central Area Action Plan 2013
The Central Area Action Plan (CAAP) provides specific planning policy and guidance for the town centre and adjoining areas where significant regeneration and investment is proposed in the period up to 2026 and is in conformity with the objectives of the NPPF.
5.10
Policy 31 of the CAAP seeks to establish leisure uses within the Market Square. In addition to these factors, Policy 1 requires that new developments positively contribute towards the character of an area; that streets should be lined with active buildings and frontages; that
developments pay suitable regards to the Central Area's Conservation Areas; and that a mix of
land uses is promoted in order increase vitality and vibrancy of an area and to increase choice for visitors.
## 6. Consultations/ Representations
Comments received are summarised as follows:
6.1
Conservation (NBC) - No objections as the proposal would support the productive use of the
building and would have a neutral impact upon the character and appearance
of
the
Conservation Area and the nearby Listed Building. 6.2
Town Centre Manager (NBC) - No objections. 6.3
Town Centre Conservation Area Advisory Committee - The changes to the exterior of the
building should be sympathetic. The proposed use is welcomed.
## 7. Appraisal
7.1
The proposed development does not impact upon the use of the building on the lower floors and therefore there would not be a reduction in the level of activity at this level, notwithstanding the loss of space for back of house operations within the building. As a consequence, the introduction of a day centre on the second floor is likely to attract a greater number of people into the Market Square, which would support the viability and vitality of this part of the town centre. 7.2
By reason of the nature of the predominantly commercial buildings within the vicinity, it is considered that the proposed development would have a neutral impact upon the
amenities of surrounding properties. The arrangement of buildings within the vicinity means that
the creation of a roof garden would not cause any undue detriment arising from noise or overlooking. In order to secure a satisfactory form of development, a condition is recommended that would enable the Council to approve the details of the boundary treatment to this space. 7.3
Given that the roof garden comprises the only external alteration and this would not be visible from the any public viewpoint, the proposal would not have an impact upon the character and setting of the St Giles Conservation Area, therefore the development cannot have any particular impact upon the historic significance of the Conservation Area. Due to this arrangement, it also
means that the development would not be viewed alongside the adjacent Listed Building and therefore its setting would not be affected. The development does not require any alterations to be made to the adjacent Listed Building (which is situated outside of the application site) and therefore the fabric of this heritage asset would not be impacted by the proposal. It is also noted that no objections have been received from the Council's Conservation section. As the building is not listed, the proposed internal alterations do not require any formal consent from the Council as Local Planning Authority.
7.4
As a consequence of the development being sustainably located in the town centre, it is considered that the development would not pose an undue detrimental impact upon the highway system.
## 8. Conclusion
8.1
It is considered that the proposed development would have a neutral impact upon
neighbour amenity and the surrounding heritage assets, whilst contributing to the viability and
vitality of the Market Square. As a result, the development is considered to be in conformity with the requirements of national and local planning policies.
## 9. Conditions
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan; EX01 - Existing Plans & Elevations; and PL01 Proposed Plans, Elevations & Site Plan.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to accord with the terms of the planning application.
3. Notwithstanding the details submitted, full details of the proposed boundary treatment to the proposed roof garden shall be submitted to and approved in writing. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the details submitted, be fully implemented prior to the commencement of
the use hereby permitted and retained thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of general amenity in accordance with the requirements of Policy 1 of the Northampton Central Area Action Plan.
## 10. Background Papers
10.1
N/2016/0214.
## 11. Legal Implications
11.1
None.
## 12. Summary And Links To Corporate Plan
12.1
In reaching the attached recommendations regard has been given to securing the objectives, visions and priorities outlined in the Corporate Plan together with those of associated Frameworks and Strategies.
| en |
4940-pdf | # Education For All In Vietnam: High Enrolment, But Problems Of Quality Remain
INTRODUCTION
Vietnam recognises the need to improve both access to education and quality. It has adopted the Dakar Education for All (EFA) Framework for Action - an initiative with greater focus on quality than those set out in the Millennium Development Goals. Vietnam's National EFA Action Plan sets out a pathway to advance key components of the education system by 2015: early childhood care and pre-school, primary, lower-secondary and non-formal education. The Young Lives project - a long-term study tracking the well-being of 3,000 children in Vietnam and three other countries, over a period of 15 years - has identified challenges in improving education quality and ensuring equity. Young Lives highlights the importance of addressing the needs of children from rural areas, from ethnic minorities, those living with disabilities and those with poor nutrition. Enrolment is rising faster than quality. Without corrective action, many poor children are likely to leave primary school with inadequate numeracy or literacy skills. Vietnam has a strong political commitment to EFA. Quality of education is one of the country's key education objectives - alongside universal education up to lower secondary level, access to life-long learning, community participation and improved resource management. Vietnam has developed a rigorous programme to support disadvantaged children through, for example, building new schools, abolishing primary school fees and making textbooks available without charge for poor children in highland areas. Education expenditure as a share of total government spending is set to rise from 15 per cent in the late 1990s to 20 per cent by 2015. Public expenditure reforms hold education officials to account for progress towards achieving minimum standards of service quality. Decentralisation is in its infancy, but is creating opportunities for local educational planners to set context-appropriate priorities. Donors support the pro-poor objectives set out in Vietnam's 2006-10 Socio-Economic Development Plan and have increased support from $2.8 billion in 2004 to $4.4bn in 2007. Official figures show that some 90 per cent of teachers meet national standards.
However, enormous challenges remain. They include:
- low basic skills acquisition -
a narrow focus on scholastic achievement by teachers who have been trained using traditional
teaching methods which fail to encourage interactive learning
- over-reliance on private tuition -
under-investment in education 'software' - curricula, teacher training, classroom resources and
educational materials
- limited early child development (ECD) coverage - unequal access to education for poor, disabled and ethnic minority children - children failing to perform well due to inadequate nutrition.
Poor outcomes Y
oung Lives analysed data from basic literacy and numeracy tests taken by a sample of 1,000 eightyear-old children from five Vietnamese provinces. Researchers found that 88 per cent could read a basic sentence, 75 per cent could write a basic sentence without errors or difficulties and 86 per cent could successfully answer a simple numeracy test. There was significant variation by location. Rural children performed worse than urban children in all three tests - 95 per cent, 85 per cent and 92 per cent of urban children could successfully answer the reading, writing, and numeracy tests compared with 86 per cent, 72 per cent and 84 per cent of rural children. These variations were even more marked between socio-economic groups. They confirmed evidence from a 2002 World Bank study (quoted in Tran *et al*, 2003) that under half of the 'poorest'
children were able to write at the level expected for their age. Enrolment rates may be high, but it is clear the quality of primary education, particularly in poor areas, is unsatisfactory. Without remedial action, a large group of children appear likely to leave primary school without adequate numeracy or literacy skills. There is a significant difference between *Kinh* (the Vietnamese-speaking ethnic majority) and non- Kinh children, particularly in literacy skills. *Kinh* children are three times more likely to read Vietnamese with accuracy. All school reading materials are in Vietnamese. Ethnic minority children are unable to access education in their mother tongue and often fail to develop fluency in Vietnamese.
Narrow focus on scholastic achievement Vietnam's increasing obsession with 'good performers' contributes to neglect of the overall quality of government services. Authorities in communes - the lowest tier of the government structure - are competing to set up as many model schools or classes as possible. Little attention is being paid to improving teaching methods or the learning environment, as teachers compete to 'produce' high numbers of excellent students. Excellence is being pursued through studying old exam papers rather than by developing innovative teaching and learning methods to develop children's creative and intellectual abilities.
Emphasis on high-level achievement stems from a traditional top-down planning approach. The national government often sets targets which have to be carried out by lower tiers of government, regardless of financial or human resource capacity gaps. Reforming the planning process is crucial to ensuring that feasible and sustainable targets are set which are in children's best interests.
## Over-Reliance On Private Tuition
An increasing number of Vietnamese children attend private classes.
Young Lives found that almost half of the children sampled have a private tutor and that there are major variations in access to private tuition. Children in lowland areas of Vietnam are at least eight times more likely to receive private tuition than children from highland areas. Children from non-poor families are four times more likely to take extra classes than very poor children. Most dramatically, there was a marked difference between *Kinh* and non-*Kinh* children (2.6 per cent versus 49.7 per cent). Over 60 per cent of children receiving private tuition had been prompted to take extra classes by parents or other close relatives, with another 20 per cent persuaded by their teachers. Fewer than ten per cent of children attending extra classes for academic subjects believed that extra classes were necessary. Interviews with those children taking extra classes in arts and sport found that 17 per cent had made the decision themselves. Y
oung Lives researchers found that extra classes did not significantly increase eight-year-old children's writing and multiplication abilities. Children's psycho-social well-being and household wealth - and not extra classes - are what significantly determine academic success. Young Lives measured wellbeing using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire 25 test (SDQ 25) - an internationally standardised measure of children's mental health - and found that children with low psycho-social well-being scores are 42 - 58 per cent less likely to perform literacy and numeracy tasks correctly. Household wealth also has a significant impact on reading and numeracy skills, with children from wealthier families more likely to read and multiply correctly. Children taking extra classes after school are more than twice as likely to be able to read correctly as non-participant children, but it is their relative wealth, and not participation in private tuition, which gives them this advantage.
## Under-Investment In Education
Analysis of education expenditure confirms continued prioritisation of investment in infrastructure rather than in innovative child-friendly methodologies to foster children's cognitive, emotional and social abilities. While public investment in education as a share of total public expenditure increased modestly between 1999 and 2002 (from 15.6 to 16.9 per cent) 73 per cent was spent on recurrent costs such as teachers' salaries and building maintenance, and the remaining portion on administration. Such recurrent costs are, of course, critical to maintain teacher motivation and to attract sufficiently qualified personnel. However, a worryingly low proportion was allocated to developing teaching methods and an interactive learning environment.
Limited Early childhood development coverage ECD programmes are still scarce, leaving a large proportion of children inadequately prepared to enter primary school. In 2004, the total number of urban children with access to ECD services was about 65 per cent and that of rural children 36 per cent. Only three per cent of ECD classrooms meet Vietnam's national standard - a minimum 48m² able to accommodate between
20 and 35 children. Hardly any ECD schools employ quality teaching methods in a child-friendly learning environment.
Educational inequalities High primary enrolment rates do not guarantee equal opportunities. Children with disabilities and from the poor and ethnic minorities are the most disadvantaged. According to official statistics, there are about three million children with disabilities. UNICEF estimates that one-in-three never go to school. There are also regional differences: Young Lives found that while all eight-year-old children sampled had attended formal school in the deltas of the Red and Mekong Rivers and in the central coastal areas, five per cent of children in the highlands of northern Vietnam had never received any schooling. A new Education Law approved by Vietnam's parliament in September 2005 provides for a uniform national curriculum, but does not acknowledge children's different life experiences, language abilities and local contexts. Ethnic minority children are disadvantaged and denied access to bilingual education. When we disaggregated the analysis by *Kinh* and ethnic minority children across the five provinces in which Young Lives is tracking the progress of children, we found nine per cent of non-*Kinh* children of school age not being educated. Young Lives found that 92 per cent of children in the poorest category had attended school, whereas children from wealthier households were almost universally enrolled. National enrolment data indicates that wealth-based disparities of access are not restricted to primary education, but are even more pronounced at secondary level. In 2002, while 85.8 per cent of children in the better-off quintile attended lower secondary school, only 53.8 per cent in the poorest quintile did so. The costs involved in sending children to school - and the opportunities which poor families lose by doing so - make it difficult for poor children to regularly attend or to complete the whole academic year.
This is particularly the case at the higher secondary school level for children in the poorer quintiles. Participatory Poverty Assessments (PPAs) found that for many poor households, children's labour is much more valuable than school attendance. The long-term benefit of education is not perceived as outweighing short-term economic losses.
Nutrition and education Young Lives researchers found that 80 per cent of children with low height-for-age scores passed the numeracy test, compared to 89 per cent of children with high height-for-age scores. Seventyfour per cent of children with low height-for-age scores were able to read a sentence correctly, compared to 96 per cent of their better-nourished counterparts. When it comes to writing, test results showed a marked disparity: 57 per cent of children with low height for-age-scores could write without difficulty, compared to 92 per cent of better-nourished children.
In ultra-poor areas, where children do not have enough to eat, school feeding programmes are needed to make sure that no children go to school hungry. There is considerable international evidence of a strong correlation between additional food provision and educational achievement. School feeding programmes allow marginalised children to enrol and to stay in school during times of hunger. Meeting EFA goals will require policies to address the nutritional needs of stunted Vietnamese children.
Learning from international experience
-
Quality pre-primary education prepares children for the transition to primary education. ECD services may increase school enrolment and achievement. Studies from Brazil, Colombia and Argentina show substantial differences in progress through primary school between children who take part in ECD programmes and those who do not. In the Indian state of Haryana, a study found that subsequent drop-out rates for children from middle and lower castes who had attended ECD classes were dramatically lower. When ECD programmes include parental training, parents are more likely to go on to engage with teachers and schools throughout their child's education. Access to ECD allows older siblings (particularly girls) to attend school when they otherwise might have to take care of younger siblings.
-
Language barriers to learning faced by ethnic minority children can be overcome. Studies from Africa and Latin America show that bilingual schooling can reduce exclusion of indigenous and ethnic minority children.
-
Some international evaluations of targeted exemptions from user fees have raised concerns about high administrative costs and corruption and favouritism when exemptions are granted at the discretion of local service providers. The poor may be unaware of exemption schemes and/or not apply for fear of being stigmatised. However, there are more positive experiences.
In its first five years, a scheme in Bangladesh led to an increase of female secondary school enrolment from 27 to 44 per cent. *Progresa,* Mexico's conditional cash transfer programme, has demonstrated how targeted exemption programmes - based on strategic targeting of beneficiary households - can help reduce childhood poverty.
-
Child-sensitive pro-poor budget monitoring (CBM) is being pioneered by South Africa's Institute
for Democracy, by UNICEF Latin America and by Save the Children UK (SCUK) in parts of South Asia and Africa. It can help to verify whether policy commitments to EFA are being adequately funded at national, provincial and local levels. In Vietnam, Save the Children Sweden and Young Lives are piloting CBM models with commune and provincial partners. As the Ministry of Finance has encouraged monitoring of budget transparency, there is scope for fostering government-civil society partnerships to ensure that budget allocations are more child-sensitive.
## Policy Implications Vietnam Is Yet To Consistently Provide A Child-Friendly Education - Defined By Unicef As:
-
a quality environment that does not exclude, discriminate or stereotype on the basis of difference
-
schools that are affordable, accessible and which acknowledge children's diverse needs
- an effective-learning environment employing quality teaching methods -
a healthy environment that is protective of children, teaches life-skills and protects children from abuse and harm
-
a gender-sensitive environment in which families, communities and children are engaged in school management decisions.
School children should not simply be regarded as passive recipients of education services, but as actors with important insights into how the curriculum could be made more relevant to their lives in a rapidly changing Vietnam. Young Lives research findings suggest that it would be advisable for Vietnamese policy-makers and donors to:
-
invest more in ECD - particularly for rural, poor and ethnic minority children - and to support research to evaluate ECD impact and progress on overcoming gender-, ethnic- and incomebased disparities
-
improve education quality for poor rural and highland communities and develop contextspecific solutions to reduce achievement gaps
-
recognise that while the concept of 'socialisation' of basic services - a term used in
Vietnam to
refer to the introduction of user fees based on the ability to pay - has merits in mobilising local funds, there is a risk that achievement gaps could widen if the poor cannot afford services. To avert this danger, the very poor should be fully exempted
- train teachers to use interactive learning methods in a child-friendly learning environment -
increase contact hours and encourage all-day schooling to reduce incentives for private tuition. This will not be immediately achievable in minority areas where schools and trained teachers are in short supply, but more effort could be made to make the best use of the limited time
children spend at school
- provide teachers with incentives to work in highland areas - improve in-service training and supervision -
build on the strengths of the community boarding school programme - a model of self-financed community-based schooling that aims to encourage children from highland communes to study and stay in school overnight. Much effort is needed to tackle issues of protection, security and discrimination
-
reform student assessment methods, since the current system measures success on the basis of completion of a particular grade but fails to measure students' capacity. More appropriate assessment methods could identify a child's problems in a timely manner allowing for pragmatic adjustment
-
acknowledge the value of family and community participation in school management, curriculum design and budgeting
-
promote CBM as a tool to monitor whether a greater share of the education cake is used for teacher training
-
promote an environment and curricula encouraging creativity, rather than learning by rote.
## References
Asian Development Bank, Australian Agency for International Development, Department for International Development, German Agency for T
echnical Cooperation, Japan International Cooperation Agency, Save the Children UK, United Nations Development Programme and World Bank (2003) *Vietnam Development Report 2004: Poverty,* Joint Donor Report to the Vietnam Consultative Group Meeting, World Bank, Hanoi. At www.worldbank.org.vn/news/VDR04%20Poverty.pdf Tran, T *et al* (2003) *Young Lives Preliminary Country report: Vietnam,* Save the Children UK, London. www.younglives.org.uk/pdf/vietnampreliminaryreport.pdf World Bank and the Vietnam Government (2005) *Managing Public Expenditure for Poverty Reduction and Growth,* Financial Publishing House, Hanoi
## Further Reading
ActionAid International (2005) *People's Reflection on the Millennium Development Goals in Vietnam,* ActionAid Vietnam United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2005) User Fees, Financial Autonomy and Access to Social Services in Viet Nam UNDP Hanoi Crumpton, B Nguyen C G (2002) Can I Afford to Go to School Today? A Report on the Financing of Basic Education in Vietnam With a Focus on Lao Cai, Tra Vinh and Ha Tinh provinces, Oxfam Great Britain, Vietnam.
EFA Global Monitoring Report (2005) *Education for All: The Quality Imperative,* UNESCO. At http://portal.unesco.org/
education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=35939&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html Herz, B and Sperling, G (2004) *What Works in Girls' Education, Evidence and Policies from the Developing World,* Council on Foreign Relations. At www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Girls_Education_summary.pdf Neefjes, K (2002) Actual Situation of Child Poverty in Vietnam: Toward the Improvement of Child Rights and Child-focused Policy Analysis, report for Save the Children UK, Vietnam Santosh M (2004) 'Improving Child Well-being in Developing Countries. What Do We Know? What Can Be Done?' CHIP
Report No. 9, Childhood Poverty Research and Policy Centre, Save the Children UK, London, www.childhoodpoverty.org/index.php?action=publicationdetails&id=89 Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2003) *National Education for All Action Plan 2003-2015,* Ministry of Education, Government Document No. 872 / CP-KG, Ministry of Education and Training Hanoi Tran, T.H, Tran, T, Harpham, Pham, TL., Thach, T/D., Huttley, S, McCoy, A, (2005) 'Extra Classes and Learning Outcomes of Eight-Year Old Children in Vietnam' *Young Lives Working Paper 29.* Save the Children UK Vietnam, www.younglives.org.uk/pdf/wp29.pdf UNICEF The Children: Early Years www.unicef.org/vietnam/children_217.html This briefing was written by Pham Thi Lan and Nicola Jones with research assistance
from Nguyen Thi Thanh Thuy and Minna Lyytikainen.
Young Lives is an innovative long-term study of childhood poverty being carried out in Ethiopia, India (in the state of Andhra Pradesh), Peru and Vietnam. The main goals are to:
-
provide good quality quantitative and qualitative information about the lives of children living in poverty
- better understand the intergenerational transmission of poverty -
trace linkages between key policy changes and children's well-being
-
promote effective and sustainable pro-poor and pro-child policies.
Young Lives is using a multi-method approach to trace the lives of 12,000 children, made up of a 'younger cohort' and an 'older cohort', over a 15-year period. In each of the study countries, 2,000 children who were around the age of one in 2002, an older group of 1,000 children around the age of eight in 2002 and their primary caregivers are being surveyed every three to four years. Ongoing policy analyses and interviews with key community leaders paint a picture of the diverse contexts in which the children are growing-up and how their households and communities change over time. Qualitative sub-studies will complement the data gathered through the survey approach and will study in greater depth some of the key Young Lives themes; the relationship between poverty and:
- children's time use - children's well-being -
children's access to such key services as education and health at transitional periods in their lives.
Young Lives is a partnership between the University of Oxford, other UK universities, Save the Children UK - and several research and government institutions in the study countries. It is funded by the Department for International Development (DFID), a UK Government department working to promote sustainable development.
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Young Lives project, DFID or the partner institutions.
For further information and to download Young Lives publications, visit the project's website at
www.younglives.org.uk at email younglives@younglives.org.uk UK contact: Young Lives Department of International Development
Funded by:
University of Oxford 3 Mansfield Road Oxford, OX1 3TB, UK email: younglives@younglives.org.uk | en |
4311-pdf |
NATION..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1
Base : All respondents
REGION .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2
Base : All respondents
URBANITY .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4
Base : All respondents
CABLE AREA.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5
Base : All respondents
DEPRIVATION LEVEL...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6
Base : All respondents
SE. GENDER .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7
Base : All respondents
SF. AGE OF RESPONDENT.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8
Base : All respondents
QSEG (QZ8). What is the occupation of the main wage earner in your household. CODE SOCIAL GRADE. (SINGLE CODE) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................10
Base : All respondents
QZ6 (SG). WORKING STATUS (SINGLE CODE) .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12
Base : All respondents
QZ7 (SH). HOUSEHOLD STATUS (SINGLE CODE)................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14
Base : All respondents
SH (SI). Total number in household (including respondent and any children)............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................15
Base : All respondents
SI (SK). Household size...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................16
Base : All respondents
SJ. Total number of children in household (under 18), including respondent (if respondent is under 18) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................17
Base : All respondents
SK (SL). And are you the parent or guardian of any of the children in the household? (SINGLE CODE) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................18
Base : Those with children aged under 18 in the household
QC1. Is there a landline phone in your home that can be used to make and receive calls? (SINGLE CODE) PROMPTED....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................19
Base : All respondents
QC2 (QC2A). Do you ever use this landline phone at home yourself to make and/or receive calls, for internet access or both? (MULTI CODE) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................21
Base : Those with a landline phone at home
QC3 (QC29). Do you use a pre-payment plan for your landline where you pay 12 months line rental in advance? IF NECESSARY - Line rental would usually be charged a month in advance for those with monthly bills or a quarter in advance for those with quarterly bills. This type of pre-payment plan covers the line rental in advance for a full 12 months. (SINGLE CODE)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................22
Base : Those with a landline phone at home that can used to make and receive calls
QC4 (QC21B). SHOWCARD Which of these do you consider is your main supplier? (SINGLE CODE) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................23
Base : Those with a landline phone at home
QC5 (QC7A). SHOWCARD How likely is it that your household will get a landline phone at home in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE)........................................................................................................................................................................................................24
Base : Those without a landline phone at home
QC6 (QC7B). Why are you unlikely to get a landline phone at home in the next 12 months? (MULTI CODE) UNPROMPTED ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................25
Base : Those unlikely to get a landline phone in next 12 months
QC7 (QC6). SHOWCARD Thinking about landline phones, do you ever have/ think you might have difficulties with any of the following? (MULTI CODE)..................................................................................................................................................................................28
Base : All respondents
QD1. How many mobile phones IN TOTAL do you AND members of your household use? (SINGLE CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................30
Base : All respondents
QD2. Do you personally use a mobile phone? How many mobile phones with different telephone numbers do you use at least once a month? Please include any phones used for work or other purposes. (SINGLE CODE)....................................................................31
Base : All respondents
QD3 (QD10). Which mobile network do you use most often? (SINGLE CODE) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................33
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
QD4 (QD11). SHOWCARD Which of these best describes the mobile package you personally use most often? (SINGLE CODE) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................35
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
QD5 (QD11A). When you signed up for your current mobile contract did you get a handset with the contract or did you only get a SIM card? (SINGLE CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................36
Base : Those who use a postpay/ contract mobile phone
QD6 (QD24B). Do you personally use a smartphone? IF UNSURE - A smartphone is a phone on which you can easily access emails, download files and applications, as well as view websites and generally surf the internet. Popular brands of smartphone include BlackBerry, iPhone and Android phones such as the Samsung Galaxy.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................37
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
QD4 (QD24B). Do you personally use a smartphone? IF UNSURE - A smartphone is a phone on which you can easily access emails, download files and applications, as well as view websites and generally surf the internet. Popular brands of smartphone include
BlackBerry, iPhone and Android phones such as the Samsung Galaxy.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................38
Base : All respondents
QD7 (QD27). SHOWCARD How likely is it that you will get a smartphone in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE)..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................39
Base : Those without a smartphone
QD8 (QD38). Why are you unlikely to get a smartphone at home in the next 12 months? (MULTI CODE) UNPROMPTED ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................40
Base : Those unlikely to get a smartphone in the next 12 months
QD9 (QD28A). SHOWCARD Which if any, of the following activities, other than making and receiving voice calls, do you use your mobile for? (MULTI CODE) ........................................................................................................................................................................42
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
QD9 (QD28A). SHOWCARD Which if any, of the following activities, other than making and receiving voice calls, do you use your mobile for? (MULTI CODE) ........................................................................................................................................................................47
Base : All respondents
QD10 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................52
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
QD10 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................58
Base : All respondents
QD11 (QD6). SHOWCARD Thinking about mobile phones, do you ever have/ think you might have difficulties with any of the following? (MULTI CODE)..................................................................................................................................................................................64
Base : All respondents
QE1. Does your household have a desktop PC, laptop, netbook or tablet computer? (MULTI CODE OPTIONS 1-4 ONLY)..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................67
Base : All respondents
QE2 (QE35). How many tablet computers do you have in your household? (SINGLE CODE) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................69
Base : Those with any tablet computers in the household
QE3 (QE36). Do you personally use this/ any of these tablet computer/s? (SINGLE CODE)....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................70
Base : Those with any tablet computers in the household
QE4 (QE37). Is your tablet computer 3G enabled? This means that the tablet could be used - with a SIM card - to go online from anywhere with a signal, without the need for a Wi-Fi connection? (SINGLE CODE)..................................................................................71
Base : Those who personally use a tablet computer
QE5 (QE38). And do you have a separate mobile subscription for your tablet, which allows you to go online from anywhere with a 3G signal, without the need for a Wi-Fi connection? (SINGLE CODE)......................................................................................................72
Base : Those who use a 3G enabled tablet computer
QE6 (QE2). Do you or does anyone in your household have access to the internet/ Worldwide Web at HOME (via any device, e.g. PC, laptop, mobile phone etc)? (SINGLE CODE).....................................................................................................................................73
Base : All respondents
QE7 (IN6). SHOWCARD Do you ever go online anywhere other than in your home at all (via any device, e.g. PC, laptop, mobile phone, etc.)? IF YES: Where is that? (MULTI CODE)..................................................................................................................................74
Base : All respondents
QE8 (QE23). SHOWCARD And how often do you personally use the internet nowadays either at home or elsewhere? (SINGLE CODE)............................................................................................................................................................................................................76
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
QE9. SHOWCARD Which of these methods does your household use to connect to the internet at home? (MULTI CODE)..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................78
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
QE9. SHOWCARD Which of these methods does your household use to connect to the internet at home? (MULTI CODE)..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................81
Base : All respondents
QE10 (QE22B). You mentioned that your household has a mobile broadband connection (connecting via a USB stick or dongle, or built-in 3G connectivity in a laptop or another device). Do you personally access the internet in this way, using mobile broadband? ..84
Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband
QE10 (QE22B). You mentioned that your household has a mobile broadband connection (connecting via a USB stick or dongle, or built-in 3G connectivity in a laptop or another device). Do you personally access the internet in this way, using mobile broadband? ..85
Base : All respondents
QE11 (QE22D). SHOWCARD Which of these best describe what you use to connect to your mobile broadband service (connecting via a USB stick or dongle, or built in 3G connectivity in a laptop or another device)? (MULTI CODE)..................................................86
Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet
QE12 (QE7). Which Internet Service Provider (ISP) does your household currently use as its MAIN supplier at home? (SINGLE CODE) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................87
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
QE13 (QE3B). How many people aged 16 or over in your household (including yourself) could access the fixed broadband connection in your home if they wanted to? ..........................................................................................................................................................89
Base : Those with fixed broadband at home where there is more than one person in household
QE14 (QE3A). How many people aged 16 or over in your household (including yourself) could access the mobile broadband connection in your home if they wanted to? .......................................................................................................................................................90
Base : Those with mobile broadband at home where there is more than one person in household
QE15 (QE5A). SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these do you use the internet for? (MULTI CODE) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................91
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
QE15 (QE5A). SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these do you use the internet for? (MULTI CODE) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................97
Base : All respondents
QE16 (QE5B) SHOWCARD And, which, if any, of these activities have you used the internet for in the LAST WEEK? (MULTI CODE)..............................................................................................................................................................................................................103
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
QE16 (QE5B) SHOWCARD And, which, if any, of these activities have you used the internet for in the LAST WEEK? (MULTI CODE)..............................................................................................................................................................................................................109
Base : All respondents
QE17 (QE24). SHOWCARD How likely are you to get internet access at home in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE)...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................115
Base : Those without internet access at home
QE18A (QE25A). Why are you unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months? (MULTI CODE) UNPROMPTED.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................116
Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months
QP8 (QP5). In total, how many radio sets do you have in your home that you, or someone in your household, listen to in most weeks? (SINGLE CODE)................................................................................................................................................................................189
Base : All respondents
QP8 (QP5). In total, how many radio sets do you have in your home that you, or someone in your household, listen to in most weeks? (SINGLE CODE)................................................................................................................................................................................190
Base : Those with any 'active' radio sets in the home
QP9. You said earlier that you have (NUMBER AT QP8) radio sets in your home that someone in the household listens to in most weeks. How many of these radio sets are digital radios? READ OUT EXPLANATION IF NECESSARY (SINGLE CODE) .................191
Base : All respondents
QP9. You said earlier that you have (NUMBER AT QP8) radio sets in your home that someone in the household listens to in most weeks. How many of these radio sets are digital radios? READ OUT EXPLANATION IF NECESSARY (SINGLE CODE) .................192
Base : Those who listen to radio
QP10. In most weeks, how many motor vehicles do you personally use - as a driver or a passenger? (SINGLE CODE) .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................193
Base : All respondents
QP11. How many of these motor vehicles have a radio? (SINGLE CODE).............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................194
Base : Those who use at least one motor vehicle in most weeks
QP12/13. Is the radio in this vehicle a digital radio?/ How many of the radios in those vehicles are digital radios? READ OUT EXPLANATION IF NECESSARY (SINGLE CODE).........................................................................................................................................195
Base : Those who use at least one motor vehicle with a radio in most weeks
SUMMARY OF DIGITAL RADIO OWNERSHIP IN HOME OR IN VEHICLE ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................196
Base : All respondents
QP14 (QP13). SHOWCARD Before today, were you aware that you can listen to radio programmes as they are broadcast in these ways? (MULTI CODE) ............................................................................................................................................................................198
Base : All respondents
QP15 (QP14). SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these features did you associate with digital radio before today? (MULTI CODE) .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................200
Base : All aware of digital radio, with experience of listening to digital radio or aware of ways of listening to digital radio
QP16 (QP15). SHOWCARD As a digital radio listener, which, if any, of these features of digital radio have you had experience of when listening to digital radio? (MULTI CODE).........................................................................................................................................202
Base : All with any type of digital radio
QP17. SHOWCARD Before today, were you aware that you can listen to radio programmes after they are broadcast in these ways? 9MULTI CODE).....................................................................................................................................................................................204
Base : All respondents
QP18. SHOWCARD And do you ever listen to radio programmes after they have been broadcast in any of these ways? (MULTI CODE)..........................................................................................................................................................................................................205
Base : All respondents
QP19 (QP12). SHOWCARD How likely is it that your household will get a DAB radio in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE)..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................206
Base : Those who listen to radio and have any active radio sets but no DAB sets at home
QP20 (QJ14). Why are you unlikely to get digital radio in the next 12 months? (MULTI CODE) UNPROMPTED..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................207
Base : Those unlikely to get DAB radio in the next 12 months
QM1. Which of the following statements best describes your role when opening and sending mail in your household? (SINGLE CODE) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................209
Base : All respondents
## Qm2. Showcard Approximately How Many Letters, Cards And Small Parcels Or Packets That Would Fit Easily Through A Letterbox Did You Personally Send In The Last Month? (Exclude Any Items Sent In Connection With Running A Business From Home) (Single Code) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................210
Base : Those responsible for sending or receiving any household mail
QM3 (QM9). SHOWCARD Approximately how many parcels did you personally send in the last month, so items that wouldn't easily fit through a letterbox? (Exclude any items sent in connection with running a business from home) (SINGLE CODE).....................212
Base : Those responsible for sending or receiving any household mail
QM4 (QM5). SHOWCARD Approximately how many letters, cards and small parcels or packets that would fit easily through a letterbox did you personally receive in the last week? (Include any addressed mail, exclude unaddressed mail) (SINGLE CODE)...........214
Base : Those responsible for sending or receiving any household mail
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Nation
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
England
298
175
161
336
739
1722
207
285
**
58
118
1653
84%
83%
82%
83%
81%
82%
94%
83%
**
84%
83%
84%
f
Scotland
29
19
16
35
87
192
11
26
**
4
11
172
8%
9%
8%
9%
10%
9%
5%
8%
**
6%
8%
9%
Wales
18
11
13
24
57
111
3
22
**
5
10
93
5%
5%
7%
6%
6%
5%
1%
6%
**
7%
7%
5%
g
Northern Ireland
8
4
6
10
25
63
*
11
**
2
3
53
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
*%
3%
**
3%
2%
3%
g
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Region
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| North East | 21 | 8 | 6 |
| 6% | 4% | 3% | 4% |
| g | | | |
| North West | | | |
| 40 | 25 | 24 | 49 |
| 11% | 12% | 12% | 12% |
| g | l | | |
| Yorkshire | 32 | 16 | 16 |
| 9% | 8% | 8% | 8% |
| g | | | |
| East Midlands | 24 | 12 | 14 |
| 7% | 6% | 7% | 6% |
| West Midlands | | | |
| 35 | 23 | 18 | 41 |
| 10% | 11% | 9% | 10% |
| f | | | |
| East of England | 38 | 17 | 17 |
| 11% | 8% | 9% | 8% |
| g | k | | |
| London | 29 | 18 | 17 |
| 8% | 8% | 9% | 8% |
| f | hj | | |
| South East | 48 | 34 | 27 |
| 14% | 16% | 14% | 15% |
| South West | 31 | 23 | 22 |
| 9% | 11% | 11% | 11% |
| g | l | | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Region
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Wales
18
11
13
24
57
111
3
22
**
5
10
93
5%
5%
7%
6%
6%
5%
1%
6%
**
7%
7%
5%
g
Scotland
29
19
16
35
87
192
11
26
**
4
11
172
8%
9%
8%
9%
10%
9%
5%
8%
**
6%
8%
9%
Northern Ireland
8
4
6
10
25
63
*
11
**
2
3
53
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
*%
3%
**
3%
2%
3%
g
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Urbanity
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Urban
296
182
162
344
798
1782
217
288
**
60
117
1715
84%
86%
83%
85%
88%
85%
99%
84%
**
86%
82%
87%
f
Rural
57
28
33
61
111
306
3
55
**
10
25
257
16%
14%
17%
15%
12%
15%
1%
16%
**
14%
18%
13%
g
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Cable Area
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
TELEWEST
46
39
28
67
168
293
86
54
**
8
21
329
13%
18%
14%
16%
18%
14%
39%
16%
**
11%
15%
17%
f
NTL
113
71
57
128
295
684
72
101
**
24
42
657
32%
34%
29%
32%
32%
33%
33%
29%
**
35%
30%
33%
NEITHER
194
101
110
210
446
1112
62
189
**
37
79
986
55%
48%
56%
52%
49%
53%
28%
55%
**
54%
55%
50%
b
g
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Deprivation Level
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Low
242
140
127
267
482
1384
67
193
**
48
76
1258
68%
66%
65%
66%
53%
66%
30%
56%
**
69%
53%
64%
g
hk
hk
Medium
102
65
65
131
385
662
129
141
**
21
63
653
29%
31%
34%
32%
42%
32%
59%
41%
**
30%
44%
33%
f
jl
jl
High
10
5
3
8
41
42
24
9
**
1
4
61
3%
3%
1%
2%
5%
2%
11%
2%
**
1%
3%
3%
f
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Se. Gender
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Male
174
100
80
180
422
983
110
175
**
37
72
947
49%
48%
41%
44%
46%
47%
50%
51%
**
54%
50%
48%
c
Female
180
110
115
226
487
1105
110
168
**
32
71
1024
51%
52%
59%
56%
54%
53%
50%
49%
**
46%
50%
52%
a
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Sf. Age Of Respondent
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
16 - 17
-
-
-
-
17
54
8
5
**
*
-
59
-%
-%
-%
-%
2%
3%
4%
1%
**
*%
-%
3%
k
18 - 24
-
-
-
-
70
213
34
16
**
2
2
234
-%
-%
-%
-%
8%
10%
15%
5%
**
3%
1%
12%
f
hjk
25 - 34
-
-
-
-
118
392
66
28
**
-
9
421
-%
-%
-%
-%
13%
19%
30%
8%
**
-%
6%
21%
f
j
j
hjk
35 - 44
-
-
-
-
113
397
55
40
**
2
9
416
-%
-%
-%
-%
12%
19%
25%
12%
**
2%
6%
21%
j
hjk
45 - 54
-
-
-
-
90
309
27
49
**
7
19
281
-%
-%
-%
-%
10%
15%
12%
14%
**
10%
14%
14%
55 - 64
353
-
-
-
95
333
17
57
**
10
25
290
100%
-%
-%
-%
10%
16%
8%
17%
**
15%
17%
15%
bcd
g
65 - 74
-
211
-
211
211
224
8
65
**
18
33
177
-%
100%
-%
52%
23%
11%
4%
19%
**
25%
23%
9%
acd
ac
g
l
l
l
75+
-
-
195
195
195
165
5
84
**
30
45
95
-%
-%
100%
48%
21%
8%
2%
24%
**
44%
32%
5%
abd
ab
g
l
hl
l
AGE SUMMARY 16-24
-
-
-
-
87
267
42
21
**
2
2
293
-%
-%
-%
-%
10%
13%
19%
6%
**
3%
1%
15%
f
k
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Sf. Age Of Respondent
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
25-34
-
-
-
-
118
392
66
28
**
-
9
421
-%
-%
-%
-%
13%
19%
30%
8%
**
-%
6%
21%
f
j
j
hjk
35-54
-
-
-
-
203
707
82
89
**
9
28
697
-%
-%
-%
-%
22%
34%
37%
26%
**
12%
20%
35%
j
hjk
55-64
353
-
-
-
95
333
17
57
**
10
25
290
100%
-%
-%
-%
10%
16%
8%
17%
**
15%
17%
15%
bcd
g
65+
-
211
195
406
406
389
13
149
**
48
79
271
-%
100%
100%
100%
45%
19%
6%
43%
**
69%
55%
14%
a
a
a
g
l
hkl
hl
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QSEG (QZ8). What is the occupation of the main wage earner in your household. CODE SOCIAL GRADE. (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
A
8
9
7
16
16
49
8
9
**
1
5
47
2%
4%
4%
4%
2%
2%
4%
3%
**
2%
4%
2%
B
96
38
34
73
73
478
42
54
**
16
19
474
27%
18%
18%
18%
8%
23%
19%
16%
**
23%
14%
24%
bcd
hk
C1
95
54
47
101
101
602
80
76
**
14
36
617
27%
26%
24%
25%
11%
29%
36%
22%
**
20%
25%
31%
f
hj
C2
59
43
34
77
77
390
38
53
**
8
25
371
17%
20%
17%
19%
8%
19%
17%
16%
**
12%
18%
19%
D
48
24
23
48
307
271
30
40
**
9
11
255
13%
11%
12%
12%
34%
13%
13%
12%
**
13%
8%
13%
k
E
47
41
48
90
334
297
22
109
**
20
44
207
13%
20%
25%
22%
37%
14%
10%
32%
**
29%
31%
11%
a
a
a
l
l
l
Refused
-
1
1
2
2
2
-
2
**
1
2
1
-%
*%
1%
1%
*%
*%
-%
1%
**
1%
1%
*%
l
l
l
SOCIAL GROUP AB
105
48
41
89
89
526
50
63
**
17
24
520
30%
23%
21%
22%
10%
25%
23%
18%
**
24%
17%
26%
cd
hk
C1C2
154
97
81
178
178
992
118
129
**
22
61
988
44%
46%
41%
44%
20%
47%
54%
38%
**
32%
43%
50%
hj
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QSEG (QZ8). What is the occupation of the main wage earner in your household. CODE SOCIAL GRADE. (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| DE | 95 | 65 | 72 |
| 27% | 31% | 37% | 34% |
| a | a | l | l |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz6 (Sg). Working Status (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Base for %
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Working full time (30hrs/wk+)
127
9
1
10
125
812
100
48
**
7
10
863
36%
4%
*%
2%
14%
39%
45%
14%
**
10%
7%
44%
bcd
c
c
k
hjk
Working part time (8-29 hrs/wk)
64
11
5
16
99
350
36
31
**
4
5
346
18%
5%
2%
4%
11%
17%
17%
9%
**
6%
4%
18%
bcd
k
hjk
Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - retired
112
176
179
355
383
450
13
161
**
46
82
318
32%
84%
92%
88%
42%
22%
6%
47%
**
67%
58%
16%
a
abd
a
g
l
hl
hl
Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - unemployed (registered/ not registered but looking for work)
18
3
*
4
135
151
8
30
**
3
9
133
5%
2%
*%
1%
15%
7%
4%
9%
**
4%
6%
7%
bcd
Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - student
-
1
-
1
16
106
32
5
**
*
1
137
-%
*%
-%
*%
2%
5%
15%
1%
**
*%
1%
7%
f
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz6 (Sg). Working Status (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - housewife/ disabled/ other
32
10
8
18
149
214
31
68
**
9
34
171
9%
5%
4%
4%
16%
10%
14%
20%
**
13%
24%
9%
bcd
l
jl
Don't know
1
-
2
2
3
5
-
1
**
-
1
4
*%
-%
1%
*%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
-%
*%
*%
WORKING STATUS SUMMARY WORKING
190
20
6
26
224
1163
137
79
**
11
16
1209
54%
10%
3%
6%
25%
56%
62%
23%
**
16%
11%
61%
bcd
c
c
k
hjk
NOT WORKING
162
190
188
378
682
921
84
264
**
58
126
759
46%
90%
96%
93%
75%
44%
38%
77%
**
84%
89%
38%
a
ab
a
l
l
hl
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz7 (Sh). Household Status (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Base for %
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Being bought on mortgage
77
15
15
30
95
686
53
46
**
10
12
691
22%
7%
7%
7%
10%
33%
24%
13%
**
15%
8%
35%
bcd
g
hjk
Owned outright by household
178
136
123
259
313
560
29
122
**
37
54
478
50%
65%
63%
64%
34%
27%
13%
36%
**
54%
38%
24%
a
a
a
g
l
hkl
l
Rented from Local Authority/ Housing Association/ Trust
73
53
45
98
349
487
51
122
**
17
58
415
21%
25%
23%
24%
38%
23%
23%
36%
**
24%
40%
21%
jl
jl
Rented from Private Landlord
25
6
11
17
139
315
76
46
**
3
19
344
7%
3%
5%
4%
15%
15%
34%
13%
**
4%
13%
17%
bd
f
j
j
hj
Other
1
-
1
1
6
21
5
4
**
2
1
21
*%
-%
*%
*%
1%
1%
2%
1%
**
3%
*%
1%
Don't know
-
1
1
2
7
20
6
4
**
-
-
23
-%
*%
1%
*%
1%
1%
3%
1%
**
-%
-%
1%
f
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Sh (Si). Total Number In Household (Including Respondent And Any Children)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
1
93
53
100
153
251
390
19
124
**
29
67
294
26%
25%
51%
38%
28%
19%
9%
36%
**
42%
47%
15%
abd
ab
g
l
l
hl
2
189
133
89
222
368
709
33
125
**
31
51
624
53%
63%
46%
55%
41%
34%
15%
37%
**
44%
36%
32%
c
acd
c
g
l
3
37
20
5
25
128
391
38
45
**
4
14
384
11%
10%
3%
6%
14%
19%
17%
13%
**
6%
10%
19%
cd
c
c
hjk
4
20
3
*
4
89
409
72
29
**
3
6
445
6%
2%
*%
1%
10%
20%
33%
8%
**
5%
4%
23%
bcd
f
hjk
5+
14
1
*
1
73
189
57
20
**
2
5
225
4%
1%
*%
*%
8%
9%
26%
6%
**
3%
4%
11%
bcd
f
hjk
Mean number of people
2.1
1.9
1.5
1.7
2.4
2.7
3.7
2.1
**
1.8
1.8
2.9
bcd
cd
c
f
jk
hjk
Standard deviation
1.04
.67
.61
.67
1.36
1.33
1.51
1.22
**
1.02
1.04
1.38
Standard error
.05
.04
.03
.03
.04
.03
.10
.05
**
.10
.07
.03
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Si (Sk). Household Size
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Small (1-2 people)
282
186
189
375
619
1099
52
250
**
60
118
918
80%
88%
97%
93%
68%
53%
24%
73%
**
86%
83%
47%
a
abd
ab
g
l
hl
hl
Medium (3-4 people)
57
23
5
29
216
800
111
74
**
7
19
829
16%
11%
3%
7%
24%
38%
50%
22%
**
11%
14%
42%
cd
c
c
f
jk
hjk
Large (5+ people)
14
1
*
1
73
189
57
20
**
2
5
225
4%
1%
*%
*%
8%
9%
26%
6%
**
3%
4%
11%
bcd
f
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
SJ. Total number of children in household (under 18), including respondent (if respondent is under 18)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
None
323
208
193
401
662
1273
89
277
**
62
127
1099
91%
99%
99%
99%
73%
61%
40%
81%
**
89%
89%
56%
a
a
a
g
l
l
hl
1
21
1
2
3
98
342
41
29
**
4
5
353
6%
*%
1%
1%
11%
16%
18%
8%
**
5%
4%
18%
bcd
k
hjk
2
8
1
-
1
89
343
59
25
**
2
9
369
2%
*%
-%
*%
10%
16%
27%
7%
**
3%
7%
19%
bcd
f
hjk
3
1
1
-
1
33
89
24
9
**
2
*
104
*%
*%
-%
*%
4%
4%
11%
3%
**
3%
*%
5%
f
hk
4
1
-
*
*
14
28
5
1
**
-
1
31
*%
-%
*%
*%
2%
1%
2%
*%
**
-%
1%
2%
h
5+
-
-
-
-
12
14
3
2
**
-
-
16
-%
-%
-%
-%
1%
1%
1%
1%
**
-%
-%
1%
Mean number of children
.1
*
*
*
.5
.7
1.2
.4
**
.2
.2
.8
bcd
f
k
hjk
Standard deviation
.46
.23
.21
.22
1.08
1.05
1.21
.83
**
.63
.63
1.11
Standard error
.02
.01
.01
.01
.03
.02
.08
.04
**
.06
.04
.02
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
SK (SL). And are you the parent or guardian of any of the children in the household? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : Those with children aged under 18 in the household
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 37 | 4 | 5 | 9 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 31 | 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Total | 31 | 2 | 2 |
| Yes | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| No | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| f | | | |
| Refused | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Mean number of children | ** | ** | ** |
| f | | | |
| Standard deviation | ** | ** | ** |
| Standard error | ** | ** | ** |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QC1. Is there a landline phone in your home that can be used to make and receive calls? (SINGLE CODE) PROMPTED
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Can use to make and receive calls
322
200
183
383
709
1729
173
278
**
61
120
1633
91%
95%
94%
95%
78%
83%
79%
81%
**
88%
84%
83%
a
Can receive but not make calls/ incoming
only
2
1
*
1
7
18
6
5
**
1
1
17
1%
*%
*%
*%
1%
1%
3%
1%
**
1%
*%
1%
f
Line not working properly/ needs to be repaired
-
-
-
-
3
10
-
1
**
-
1
9
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
-%
1%
*%
No, do not have landline phone
29
10
11
21
190
331
41
59
**
8
21
312
8%
5%
6%
5%
21%
16%
19%
17%
**
11%
14%
16%
Don't know
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
**
-
-
1
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
*%
HOUSEHOLD PHONE OWNERSHIP FIXED ONLY
14
26
60
86
98
97
4
46
**
15
27
59
4%
13%
31%
21%
11%
5%
2%
13%
**
22%
19%
3%
a
abd
ab
l
hl
l
FIXED & MOBILE
310
174
124
298
621
1659
175
238
**
46
95
1600
88%
83%
64%
74%
68%
79%
79%
69%
**
67%
67%
81%
cd
cd
c
hjk
MOBILE ONLY
29
9
9
18
181
323
40
55
**
7
18
308
8%
4%
4%
4%
20%
15%
18%
16%
**
10%
13%
16%
cd
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QC1. Is there a landline phone in your home that can be used to make and receive calls? (SINGLE CODE) PROMPTED
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
ALL FIXED
324
201
184
385
719
1756
179
284
**
61
122
1659
92%
95%
94%
95%
79%
84%
81%
83%
**
89%
86%
84%
ALL MOBILE
340
184
133
316
802
1982
215
293
**
53
113
1907
96%
87%
68%
78%
88%
95%
98%
85%
**
77%
80%
97%
bcd
cd
c
hjk
NEITHER
-
1
3
3
8
8
1
4
**
1
2
5
-%
*%
1%
1%
1%
*%
*%
1%
**
1%
2%
*%
a
l
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qc2 (Qc2A). Do You Ever Use This Landline Phone At Home Yourself To Make And/Or Receive Calls, For Internet Access Or Both? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with a landline phone at home
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
398
305
361
666
1084
2236
177
439
66
104
191
1982
Effective Weighted Sample
325
241
290
521
862
1785
140
339
48
82
146
1621
Total
324
201
184
385
719
1756
179
284
44
61
122
1659
Yes to make calls
313
190
179
369
675
1639
162
269
**
57
116
1540
97%
94%
98%
96%
94%
93%
90%
95%
**
93%
95%
93%
Yes to receive calls
309
179
176
356
665
1621
164
264
**
57
113
1527
95%
89%
96%
93%
93%
92%
92%
93%
**
92%
92%
92%
b
bd
Yes for internet access
188
87
45
132
306
1022
105
124
**
24
42
1004
58%
43%
25%
34%
43%
58%
59%
44%
**
39%
35%
60%
bcd
cd
c
hjk
TOTAL PERSONALLY USE
320
194
181
375
698
1717
174
279
**
61
118
1619
99%
97%
99%
98%
97%
98%
97%
98%
**
99%
97%
98%
No do not use landline at home
3
6
3
9
19
38
4
5
**
*
4
37
1%
3%
1%
2%
3%
2%
2%
2%
**
1%
3%
2%
a
Don't know
2
1
-
1
2
1
1
-
**
-
-
2
1%
*%
-%
*%
*%
*%
*%
-%
**
-%
-%
*%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qc3 (Qc29). Do You Use A Pre-Payment Plan For Your Landline Where You Pay 12 Months Line Rental In Advance? If Necessary - Line Rental Would Usually Be Charged A Month In Advance For Those With Monthly Bills Or A Quarter In Advance For Those With Quarterly Bills. This Type Of Pre-Payment Plan Covers The Line Rental In Advance For A Full 12 Months. (Single Code)
Base : Those with a landline phone at home that can used to make and receive calls
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | 395 | 303 | 360 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | 323 | 239 | 289 |
| Total | 322 | 200 | 183 |
| Yes | 49 | 44 | 23 |
| 15% | 22% | 12% | 17% |
| ac | f | | |
| No | 259 | 149 | 154 |
| 81% | 75% | 84% | 79% |
| b | g | | |
| Don't know | 14 | 7 | 7 |
| 4% | 3% | 4% | 4% |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qc4 (Qc21B). Showcard Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Supplier? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a landline phone at home
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
398
305
361
666
1084
2236
177
439
66
104
191
1982
Effective Weighted Sample
325
241
290
521
862
1785
140
339
48
82
146
1621
Total
324
201
184
385
719
1756
179
284
44
61
122
1659
BT
157
116
122
239
367
812
76
151
**
37
65
753
48%
58%
67%
62%
51%
46%
43%
53%
**
59%
53%
45%
a
ab
a
l
l
Virgin Media (including NTL and Telewest)
61
40
15
55
129
322
38
42
**
8
19
316
19%
20%
8%
14%
18%
18%
21%
15%
**
14%
15%
19%
c
c
c
SkyTalk
36
9
11
20
81
247
33
29
**
5
11
246
11%
4%
6%
5%
11%
14%
19%
10%
**
8%
9%
15%
bcd
hk
Talk Talk/ Carphone Warehouse
39
24
13
37
80
198
25
32
**
7
16
190
12%
12%
7%
10%
11%
11%
14%
11%
**
12%
13%
11%
c
Post Office
3
3
7
10
16
22
3
5
**
*
2
20
1%
1%
4%
3%
2%
1%
2%
2%
**
1%
2%
1%
a
Kingston Communications
2
1
1
3
7
14
-
3
**
1
1
12
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
-%
1%
**
2%
1%
1%
Other
24
7
13
19
33
114
2
19
**
3
6
96
7%
3%
7%
5%
5%
6%
1%
7%
**
4%
5%
6%
b
g
Don't know
2
1
1
2
7
27
1
3
**
-
2
26
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
**
-%
2%
2%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qc5 (Qc7A). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Landline Phone At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code)
Base : Those without a landline phone at home
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 40 | 18 | 22 | 40 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 33 | 14 | 18 | 32 |
| Total | 29 | 10 | 11 |
| Certain to | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Very likely | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Likely | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| TOTAL LIKELY | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Unlikely | | | |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Very unlikely | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Certain not to | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| TOTAL UNLIKELY | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Don't know | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qc6 (Qc7B). Why Are You Unlikely To Get A Landline Phone At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get a landline phone in next 12 months
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
l
Unweighted total
37
16
21
37
209
329
32
70
4
10
27
291
Effective Weighted Sample
30
13
17
30
171
267
18
56
3
8
22
239
Total
27
9
11
20
149
258
30
47
3
8
18
239
Happy to use mobile phone instead
**
**
**
**
71
133
**
**
**
**
**
127
**
**
**
**
48%
52%
**
**
**
**
**
53%
No need
**
**
**
**
57
117
**
**
**
**
**
109
**
**
**
**
38%
46%
**
**
**
**
**
46%
Too expensive generally
**
**
**
**
36
47
**
**
**
**
**
43
**
**
**
**
24%
18%
**
**
**
**
**
18%
Line rental is too expensive
**
**
**
**
27
42
**
**
**
**
**
36
**
**
**
**
18%
16%
**
**
**
**
**
15%
Call charges are too expensive
**
**
**
**
21
29
**
**
**
**
**
23
**
**
**
**
14%
11%
**
**
**
**
**
9%
Can't afford it
**
**
**
**
21
25
**
**
**
**
**
25
**
**
**
**
14%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
10%
Connection charge is too expensive
**
**
**
**
3
6
**
**
**
**
**
6
**
**
**
**
2%
2%
**
**
**
**
**
2%
To avoid unsolicited calls
**
**
**
**
3
4
**
**
**
**
**
3
**
**
**
**
2%
2%
**
**
**
**
**
1%
Have no need to make telephone calls
**
**
**
**
4
4
**
**
**
**
**
2
**
**
**
**
3%
2%
**
**
**
**
**
1%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qc6 (Qc7B). Why Are You Unlikely To Get A Landline Phone At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get a landline phone in next 12 months
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
l
Unweighted total
37
16
21
37
209
329
32
70
4
10
27
291
Effective Weighted Sample
30
13
17
30
171
267
18
56
3
8
22
239
Total
27
9
11
20
149
258
30
47
3
8
18
239
I am renting the property and unable to get permanent landline
**
**
**
**
-
1
**
**
**
**
**
4
**
**
**
**
-%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
2%
Inconvenient/would never be at home to use
it
**
**
**
**
-
3
**
**
**
**
**
3
**
**
**
**
-%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
1%
Outstanding debt to landline supplier/ won't reconnect
**
**
**
**
1
3
**
**
**
**
**
2
**
**
**
**
1%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
1%
Complicated billing
**
**
**
**
*
2
**
**
**
**
**
2
**
**
**
**
*%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
1%
I am moving address in the near future
**
**
**
**
-
2
**
**
**
**
**
2
**
**
**
**
-%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
1%
Other
**
**
**
**
4
4
**
**
**
**
**
2
**
**
**
**
3%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
1%
ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS
**
**
**
**
68
105
**
**
**
**
**
97
**
**
**
**
45%
41%
**
**
**
**
**
41%
ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS
**
**
**
**
111
204
**
**
**
**
**
190
**
**
**
**
74%
79%
**
**
**
**
**
79%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qc6 (Qc7B). Why Are You Unlikely To Get A Landline Phone At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get a landline phone in next 12 months
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
l
Unweighted total
37
16
21
37
209
329
32
70
4
10
27
291
Effective Weighted Sample
30
13
17
30
171
267
18
56
3
8
22
239
Total
27
9
11
20
149
258
30
47
3
8
18
239
ONLY VOLUNTARY REASONS
**
**
**
**
79
151
**
**
**
**
**
140
**
**
**
**
53%
59%
**
**
**
**
**
58%
Don't know
**
**
**
**
1
1
**
**
**
**
**
1
**
**
**
**
*%
*%
**
**
**
**
**
*%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qc7 (Qc6). Showcard Thinking About Landline Phones, Do You Ever Have/ Think You Might Have Difficulties With Any Of The Following? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Hearing the person on the other end of the line in a conversation even with the volume turned up
6
6
13
19
22
29
2
21
**
16
10
11
2%
3%
7%
5%
2%
1%
1%
6%
**
23%
7%
1%
ab
a
l
hkl
l
Seeing a digital display
3
3
7
11
14
14
4
14
**
3
6
6
1%
2%
4%
3%
2%
1%
2%
4%
**
4%
4%
*%
a
l
l
l
Hearing the phone ring, even with the volume turned up
1
4
12
15
17
17
-
15
**
12
7
3
*%
2%
6%
4%
2%
1%
-%
4%
**
18%
5%
*%
ab
a
l
hkl
l
Picking up the handset when the phone rings
6
1
4
5
9
15
2
6
**
2
5
11
2%
*%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
**
3%
4%
1%
l
l
l
Holding the handset to your ear
3
1
4
5
9
9
4
4
**
1
4
9
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
*%
2%
1%
**
2%
3%
*%
f
l
Any other difficulties
5
6
11
17
22
27
7
16
**
4
11
18
1%
3%
6%
4%
2%
1%
3%
5%
**
6%
8%
1%
a
a
f
l
l
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qc7 (Qc6). Showcard Thinking About Landline Phones, Do You Ever Have/ Think You Might Have Difficulties With Any Of The Following? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| No, none | 336 | 193 | 159 |
| 95% | 92% | 81% | 87% |
| cd | cd | c | j |
| Don't know | | | |
| - | * | * | 1 |
| -% | *% | *% | *% |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QD1. How many mobile phones IN TOTAL do you AND members of your household use? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
One
(1.0)
108
70
87
157
331
503
26
122
**
29
56
415
31%
33%
45%
39%
36%
24%
12%
36%
**
42%
40%
21%
ab
a
g
l
l
l
Two
(2.0)
161
93
38
131
298
836
81
94
**
17
36
823
45%
44%
20%
32%
33%
40%
37%
27%
**
25%
25%
42%
cd
cd
c
hjk
Three
(3.0)
36
15
6
21
95
326
40
45
**
3
15
318
10%
7%
3%
5%
10%
16%
18%
13%
**
4%
10%
16%
cd
c
j
jk
Four or more
(4.0)
34
6
2
7
78
318
68
31
**
5
7
352
10%
3%
1%
2%
9%
15%
31%
9%
**
7%
5%
18%
bcd
f
hjk
None
(0.0)
14
27
62
89
106
105
5
50
**
16
29
64
4%
13%
32%
22%
12%
5%
2%
14%
**
23%
20%
3%
a
abd
ab
l
l
l
Don't know
-
-
*
*
*
*
-
*
**
-
-
-
-%
-%
*%
*%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
-%
-%
-%
Mean mobiles in household
1.9
1.5
1.0
1.3
1.7
2.1
2.6
1.7
**
1.3
1.4
2.2
bcd
cd
c
f
jk
hjk
Standard deviation
.97
.90
.84
.92
1.09
1.09
1.11
1.15
**
1.08
1.07
1.08
Standard error
.05
.05
.04
.03
.03
.02
.07
.05
**
.10
.07
.02
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QD2. Do you personally use a mobile phone? How many mobile phones with different telephone numbers do you use at least once a month? Please include any phones used for work or other purposes. (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
No
(0.0)
13
15
12
28
38
47
3
15
**
6
8
35
4%
7%
6%
7%
4%
2%
1%
5%
**
9%
6%
2%
a
l
l
l
1
(1.0)
293
161
117
278
721
1786
187
254
**
44
92
1722
83%
76%
60%
69%
79%
86%
85%
74%
**
64%
65%
87%
bcd
cd
c
k
hjk
2
(2.0)
27
7
3
10
34
125
22
20
**
2
9
127
8%
3%
2%
2%
4%
6%
10%
6%
**
3%
6%
6%
bcd
f
3
(3.0)
3
1
-
1
4
12
2
1
**
1
1
13
1%
*%
-%
*%
*%
1%
1%
*%
**
1%
1%
1%
4 or more
(4.0)
3
-
-
-
5
13
1
3
**
-
3
10
1%
-%
-%
-%
1%
1%
*%
1%
**
-%
2%
1%
d
l
No mobiles in household
(0.0)
14
27
62
89
107
106
5
50
**
16
29
64
4%
13%
32%
22%
12%
5%
2%
15%
**
23%
20%
3%
a
abd
ab
l
l
l
Mean mobiles used
1.0
.8
.6
.7
.9
1.0
1.1
.9
**
.7
.9
1.0
bcd
cd
c
f
j
hjk
Standard deviation
.51
.47
.52
.50
.51
.46
.45
.57
**
.56
.72
.43
Standard error
.02
.03
.03
.02
.01
.01
.03
.02
**
.05
.05
.01
PERSONALLY USE MOBILE Yes
327
168
120
288
764
1935
212
278
**
47
105
1872
92%
80%
62%
71%
84%
93%
96%
81%
**
68%
74%
95%
bcd
cd
c
j
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd2. Do You Personally Use A Mobile Phone? How Many Mobile Phones With Different Telephone Numbers Do You Use At Least Once A Month? Please Include Any Phones Used For Work Or Other Purposes. (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| No | | | |
| 27 | 42 | 74 | 117 |
| 8% | 20% | 38% | 29% |
| a | abd | ab | l |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd3 (Qd10). Which Mobile Network Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
402
261
231
492
1092
2382
206
398
49
72
153
2197
Effective Weighted Sample
329
205
183
383
879
1928
155
312
37
56
120
1810
Total
327
168
120
288
764
1935
212
278
37
47
105
1872
O2
60
33
21
54
165
460
37
65
**
**
22
434
18%
20%
18%
19%
22%
24%
17%
23%
**
**
21%
23%
Vodafone
72
32
18
49
141
388
30
52
**
**
20
363
22%
19%
15%
17%
18%
20%
14%
19%
**
**
19%
19%
c
Orange
66
47
29
76
161
393
20
58
**
**
23
357
20%
28%
24%
26%
21%
20%
9%
21%
**
**
21%
19%
a
g
TMobile
39
21
10
32
99
205
64
32
**
**
13
240
12%
13%
9%
11%
13%
11%
30%
11%
**
**
12%
13%
f
'3'
17
5
4
9
58
151
40
14
**
**
6
172
5%
3%
3%
3%
8%
8%
19%
5%
**
**
5%
9%
f
h
Virgin Media/ Any Virgin
30
11
10
20
48
120
3
20
**
**
10
104
9%
6%
8%
7%
6%
6%
2%
7%
**
**
9%
6%
g
Tesco
21
10
6
16
40
104
8
15
**
**
5
95
7%
6%
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
5%
**
**
4%
5%
EE/ Everything Everywhere
7
2
5
6
15
47
3
8
**
**
3
44
2%
1%
4%
2%
2%
2%
1%
3%
**
**
3%
2%
Other
10
3
3
6
15
44
5
6
**
**
1
44
3%
2%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
**
**
1%
2%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd3 (Qd10). Which Mobile Network Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 402 | 261 | 231 | 492 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 329 | 205 | 183 | 383 |
| Total | 327 | 168 | 120 |
| Don't know | 5 | 5 | 15 |
| 2% | 3% | 12% | 7% |
| abd | a | l | l |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QD4 (QD11). SHOWCARD Which of these best describes the mobile package you personally use most often? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
402
261
231
492
1092
2382
206
398
49
72
153
2197
Effective Weighted Sample
329
205
183
383
879
1928
155
312
37
56
120
1810
Total
327
168
120
288
764
1935
212
278
37
47
105
1872
Prepay/ Pay as you go
160
115
105
220
459
739
67
174
**
**
70
644
49%
68%
88%
76%
60%
38%
31%
62%
**
**
67%
34%
a
abd
ab
l
l
Postpay/ monthly contract
166
53
14
68
304
1190
145
104
**
**
35
1221
51%
32%
12%
23%
40%
61%
68%
38%
**
**
33%
65%
bcd
cd
c
hk
Other
1
-
-
-
-
4
1
-
**
**
-
5
*%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
*%
-%
**
**
-%
*%
Don't know
-
*
*
1
1
2
-
-
**
**
-
2
-%
*%
*%
*%
*%
*%
-%
-%
**
**
-%
*%
## Contract Type
Subsidised handset
127
43
10
52
248
1006
132
82
**
**
25
1047
39%
25%
8%
18%
32%
52%
62%
29%
**
**
24%
56%
bcd
cd
c
f
hk
SIM only
31
10
4
15
48
159
13
20
**
**
9
152
9%
6%
4%
5%
6%
8%
6%
7%
**
**
8%
8%
cd
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd5 (Qd11A). When You Signed Up For Your Current Mobile Contract Did You Get A Handset With The Contract Or Did You Only Get A Sim Card? (Single Code)
Base : Those who use a postpay/ contract mobile phone
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 186 | 83 | 26 | 109 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 155 | 67 | 20 | 87 |
| Total | 166 | 53 | 14 |
| Handset and contract | 127 | ** | ** |
| 76% | ** | ** | 78% |
| h | | | |
| SIM card only | | | |
| 31 | ** | ** | 15 |
| 18% | ** | ** | 21% |
| l | | | |
| Don't know | 8 | ** | ** |
| 5% | ** | ** | 1% |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd6 (Qd24B). Do You Personally Use A Smartphone? If Unsure - A Smartphone Is A Phone On Which You Can Easily Access Emails, Download Files And Applications, As Well As View Websites And Generally Surf The Internet. Popular Brands Of Smartphone Include Blackberry, Iphone And Android Phones Such As The Samsung Galaxy.
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | 402 | 261 | 231 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | 329 | 205 | 183 |
| Total | 327 | 168 | 120 |
| Yes | 117 | 36 | 8 |
| 36% | 21% | 7% | 15% |
| bcd | c | c | f |
| No | 208 | 131 | 110 |
| 64% | 78% | 92% | 84% |
| a | abd | a | g |
| Don't know | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| *% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| l | | | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd4 (Qd24B). Do You Personally Use A Smartphone? If Unsure - A Smartphone Is A Phone On Which You Can Easily Access Emails, Download Files And Applications, As Well As View Websites And Generally Surf The Internet. Popular Brands Of Smartphone Include Blackberry, Iphone And Android Phones Such As The Samsung Galaxy.
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|--------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | 438 | 323 | 383 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | 358 | 255 | 308 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| Yes | 117 | 36 | 8 |
| 33% | 17% | 4% | 11% |
| bcd | cd | c | f |
| No | 208 | 131 | 110 |
| 59% | 62% | 57% | 60% |
| g | l | l | l |
| Don't know | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| *% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| l | l | | |
| DO NOT PERSONALLY USE A MOBILE | | | |
| PHONE | 27 | 42 | 75 |
| 8% | 20% | 38% | 29% |
| a | abd | ab | l |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd7 (Qd27). Showcard How Likely Is It That You Will Get A Smartphone In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code)
Base : Those without a smartphone
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
~g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
261
202
211
413
686
1073
74
255
33
54
101
894
Effective Weighted Sample
213
157
166
319
543
858
60
202
26
41
79
728
Total
208
131
110
241
454
780
62
164
24
35
68
684
Certain to
2
4
1
5
12
18
**
1
**
**
*
23
1%
3%
1%
2%
3%
2%
**
1%
**
**
1%
3%
Very likely
3
2
*
2
10
17
**
5
**
**
1
15
1%
1%
*%
1%
2%
2%
**
3%
**
**
2%
2%
Likely
10
1
3
4
25
65
**
8
**
**
2
65
5%
1%
2%
2%
5%
8%
**
5%
**
**
2%
9%
bd
hk
TOTAL LIKELY
14
7
4
11
48
101
**
15
**
**
3
102
7%
5%
3%
4%
11%
13%
**
9%
**
**
5%
15%
hk
Unlikely
42
21
8
29
56
131
**
19
**
**
10
120
20%
16%
7%
12%
12%
17%
**
12%
**
**
15%
18%
cd
c
h
Very unlikely
43
40
33
73
118
182
**
40
**
**
18
152
21%
30%
30%
30%
26%
23%
**
25%
**
**
26%
22%
a
a
a
Certain not to
88
61
58
119
186
276
**
76
**
**
33
219
42%
47%
52%
49%
41%
35%
**
47%
**
**
48%
32%
a
l
l
TOTAL UNLIKELY
173
121
99
221
359
588
**
136
**
**
60
491
83%
93%
90%
91%
79%
75%
**
83%
**
**
89%
72%
a
a
l
l
Don't know
21
3
8
10
47
91
**
14
**
**
4
91
10%
2%
7%
4%
10%
12%
**
8%
**
**
6%
13%
bd
b
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd8 (Qd38). Why Are You Unlikely To Get A Smartphone At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get a smartphone in the next 12 months
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
~g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
Unweighted total
220
187
188
375
555
829
42
212
28
50
88
661
Effective Weighted Sample
177
145
149
290
438
658
31
166
23
38
69
533
Total
173
121
99
221
359
588
33
136
21
32
60
491
No need
117
96
83
179
256
403
**
97
**
**
**
333
68%
79%
84%
81%
71%
69%
**
72%
**
**
**
68%
a
a
a
Satisfied with using home phones/ other
mobile phones
33
21
13
35
54
107
**
20
**
**
**
89
19%
18%
14%
16%
15%
18%
**
15%
**
**
**
18%
Don't know how you use smartphones
31
22
22
44
58
87
**
26
**
**
**
65
18%
18%
22%
20%
16%
15%
**
19%
**
**
**
13%
Can't afford it
16
6
5
11
52
70
**
16
**
**
**
60
9%
5%
5%
5%
15%
12%
**
12%
**
**
**
12%
Too expensive to set up/ buy
12
8
3
11
30
45
**
10
**
**
**
41
7%
6%
3%
5%
8%
8%
**
7%
**
**
**
8%
Contracts are too expensive
4
1
4
5
15
23
**
4
**
**
**
21
3%
1%
4%
2%
4%
4%
**
3%
**
**
**
4%
Calls are too expensive
2
-
1
1
5
6
**
1
**
**
**
6
1%
-%
1%
1%
1%
1%
**
1%
**
**
**
1%
Other
3
2
5
6
7
15
**
4
**
**
**
11
2%
1%
5%
3%
2%
2%
**
3%
**
**
**
2%
ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS
59
34
28
63
133
197
**
50
**
**
**
164
34%
28%
29%
28%
37%
34%
**
37%
**
**
**
33%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd8 (Qd38). Why Are You Unlikely To Get A Smartphone At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get a smartphone in the next 12 months
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
~g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
Unweighted total
220
187
188
375
555
829
42
212
28
50
88
661
Effective Weighted Sample
177
145
149
290
438
658
31
166
23
38
69
533
Total
173
121
99
221
359
588
33
136
21
32
60
491
ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS
133
106
87
192
279
462
**
107
**
**
**
383
77%
87%
87%
87%
78%
79%
**
79%
**
**
**
78%
a
a
a
ONLY VOLUNTARY REASONS
112
86
70
156
223
380
**
84
**
**
**
317
65%
71%
71%
71%
62%
65%
**
62%
**
**
**
65%
Don't know
1
1
1
2
4
6
**
1
**
**
**
6
*%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
**
1%
**
**
**
1%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd9 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
402
261
231
492
1092
2382
206
398
49
72
153
2197
Effective Weighted Sample
329
205
183
383
879
1928
155
312
37
56
120
1810
Total
327
168
120
288
764
1935
212
278
37
47
105
1872
Send/ receive text messages (SMS)
274
125
62
188
621
1716
199
206
**
**
73
1705
84%
74%
52%
65%
81%
89%
94%
74%
**
**
69%
91%
bcd
cd
c
hk
Use your phone as a camera
147
50
21
71
356
1191
147
118
**
**
40
1213
45%
30%
17%
25%
47%
62%
69%
43%
**
**
38%
65%
bcd
c
hk
Accessing the internet
84
18
5
23
222
924
122
79
**
**
22
961
26%
11%
4%
8%
29%
48%
58%
28%
**
**
21%
51%
bcd
c
f
hk
Send/ receive messages with pictures/ images
77
23
4
27
186
786
103
66
**
**
24
822
23%
14%
3%
9%
24%
41%
48%
24%
**
**
23%
44%
bcd
c
c
hk
Send/ receive emails (not SMS)
67
10
3
14
150
701
113
62
**
**
18
747
21%
6%
3%
5%
20%
36%
53%
22%
**
**
17%
40%
bcd
f
hk
Visiting social networking sites e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn
35
2
1
4
181
705
91
63
**
**
19
725
11%
1%
1%
1%
24%
36%
43%
23%
**
**
18%
39%
bcd
hk
Play games
40
8
1
9
181
618
115
55
**
**
15
667
12%
5%
1%
3%
24%
32%
54%
20%
**
**
14%
36%
bcd
c
f
hk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd9 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
402
261
231
492
1092
2382
206
398
49
72
153
2197
Effective Weighted Sample
329
205
183
383
879
1928
155
312
37
56
120
1810
Total
327
168
120
288
764
1935
212
278
37
47
105
1872
Download apps or programs directly to your phone
47
9
2
11
145
578
84
56
**
**
15
599
14%
5%
2%
4%
19%
30%
39%
20%
**
**
14%
32%
bcd
f
hk
Record video clips using the phone
39
9
3
13
145
563
90
56
**
**
19
591
12%
6%
3%
4%
19%
29%
42%
20%
**
**
18%
32%
bcd
f
hk
Use IM/ Instant Messaging (e.g. BlackBerry Messenger/ BBM, Apple iMessage, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger)
40
3
2
5
125
563
80
50
**
**
17
593
12%
2%
2%
2%
16%
29%
37%
18%
**
**
17%
32%
bcd
f
hk
Listen to music using MP3 function
19
4
2
6
109
391
79
37
**
**
10
428
6%
3%
1%
2%
14%
20%
37%
13%
**
**
10%
23%
cd
f
hk
Send/ receive video clips
27
3
2
5
94
388
73
35
**
**
14
425
8%
2%
2%
2%
12%
20%
34%
13%
**
**
13%
23%
bcd
f
hk
Accessing/ receiving news
24
7
1
8
79
379
74
36
**
**
11
413
7%
4%
1%
3%
10%
20%
35%
13%
**
**
10%
22%
cd
c
f
hk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd9 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
402
261
231
492
1092
2382
206
398
49
72
153
2197
Effective Weighted Sample
329
205
183
383
879
1928
155
312
37
56
120
1810
Total
327
168
120
288
764
1935
212
278
37
47
105
1872
Video streaming e.g. via YouTube
15
1
*
2
80
355
78
26
**
**
8
402
5%
1%
*%
1%
11%
18%
37%
10%
**
**
7%
21%
bcd
f
hk
'Check-in' and share your location on social
networking sites (e.g. Facebook, Foursquare)
11
2
1
3
74
328
50
26
**
**
4
350
3%
1%
1%
1%
10%
17%
24%
9%
**
**
3%
19%
cd
f
k
hk
Use your handset to help you shop e.g. compare prices online, read internet reviews, take photos of products
18
1
*
1
70
315
42
27
**
**
7
330
5%
*%
*%
*%
9%
16%
20%
10%
**
**
6%
18%
bcd
hk
Accessing/ receiving sports/ team news/ scores
21
3
1
4
52
274
51
28
**
**
8
297
6%
2%
1%
1%
7%
14%
24%
10%
**
**
7%
16%
bcd
f
hk
Listen to FM radio
23
6
2
9
81
275
42
27
**
**
6
293
7%
4%
2%
3%
11%
14%
20%
10%
**
**
6%
16%
cd
hk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd9 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
402
261
231
492
1092
2382
206
398
49
72
153
2197
Effective Weighted Sample
329
205
183
383
879
1928
155
312
37
56
120
1810
Total
327
168
120
288
764
1935
212
278
37
47
105
1872
Sending a tweet on Twitter (through a text, an app, the browser, or phone's built-in feature)
6
-
*
*
50
244
40
22
**
**
5
262
2%
-%
*%
*%
7%
13%
19%
8%
**
**
4%
14%
bd
f
hk
Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Skype
13
2
1
2
40
205
52
17
**
**
4
236
4%
1%
1%
1%
5%
11%
24%
6%
**
**
4%
13%
bcd
f
hk
TV streaming (e.g. BBC iPlayer, Sky Go)
12
1
*
1
42
197
35
18
**
**
2
214
4%
1%
*%
*%
5%
10%
16%
6%
**
**
2%
11%
bcd
f
hk
Video calling e.g. via Facetime
8
1
*
1
45
193
35
15
**
**
2
212
2%
1%
*%
*%
6%
10%
16%
6%
**
**
2%
11%
d
f
hk
Download a new video clip
11
1
*
1
46
173
36
15
**
**
2
194
3%
1%
*%
*%
6%
9%
17%
5%
**
**
2%
10%
bcd
f
hk
Download TV programmes e.g. via BBC iPlayer
6
-
-
-
31
135
32
12
**
**
2
155
2%
-%
-%
-%
4%
7%
15%
4%
**
**
2%
8%
d
f
hk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QD9 (QD28A). SHOWCARD Which if any, of the following activities, other than making and receiving voice calls, do you use your mobile for? (MULTI CODE)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
402
261
231
492
1092
2382
206
398
49
72
153
2197
Effective Weighted Sample
329
205
183
383
879
1928
155
312
37
56
120
1810
Total
327
168
120
288
764
1935
212
278
37
47
105
1872
Listen to Podcasts
3
-
*
*
17
103
16
14
**
**
3
106
1%
-%
*%
*%
2%
5%
7%
5%
**
**
3%
6%
Other
2
4
4
8
8
11
-
4
**
**
1
7
1%
2%
3%
3%
1%
1%
-%
1%
**
**
*%
*%
a
a
l
WEB/ DATA ACCESS
103
22
5
28
273
1075
144
94
**
**
27
1118
31%
13%
4%
10%
36%
56%
68%
34%
**
**
26%
60%
bcd
c
c
f
hk
LISTEN TO AUDIO CONTENT
37
10
4
14
146
518
91
52
**
**
14
553
11%
6%
3%
5%
19%
27%
43%
19%
**
**
14%
30%
bcd
f
hk
WATCHING AV CONTENT
28
2
*
3
102
436
82
32
**
**
9
481
9%
1%
*%
1%
13%
23%
39%
12%
**
**
8%
26%
bcd
f
hk
None of these
33
33
49
82
108
122
5
53
**
**
26
79
10%
19%
41%
28%
14%
6%
2%
19%
**
**
24%
4%
a
abd
ab
l
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd9 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Send/ receive text messages (SMS)
274
125
62
188
621
1716
199
206
**
31
73
1705
78%
59%
32%
46%
68%
82%
90%
60%
**
46%
51%
86%
bcd
cd
c
f
jk
hjk
Use your phone as a camera
147
50
21
71
356
1191
147
118
**
16
40
1213
42%
24%
11%
17%
39%
57%
67%
34%
**
23%
28%
62%
bcd
cd
c
f
j
hjk
Accessing the internet
84
18
5
23
222
924
122
79
**
7
22
961
24%
9%
2%
6%
24%
44%
56%
23%
**
11%
16%
49%
bcd
c
c
f
jk
hjk
Send/ receive messages with pictures/ images
77
23
4
27
186
786
103
66
**
9
24
822
22%
11%
2%
7%
20%
38%
47%
19%
**
13%
17%
42%
bcd
cd
c
f
hjk
Send/ receive emails (not SMS)
67
10
3
14
150
701
113
62
**
7
18
747
19%
5%
2%
3%
16%
34%
51%
18%
**
10%
12%
38%
bcd
c
f
hjk
Visiting social networking sites e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn
35
2
1
4
181
705
91
63
**
6
19
725
10%
1%
1%
1%
20%
34%
41%
18%
**
8%
13%
37%
bcd
j
hjk
Play games
40
8
1
9
181
618
115
55
**
10
15
667
11%
4%
*%
2%
20%
30%
52%
16%
**
15%
10%
34%
bcd
c
c
f
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd9 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Download apps or programs directly to your phone
47
9
2
11
145
578
84
56
**
6
15
599
13%
4%
1%
3%
16%
28%
38%
16%
**
8%
10%
30%
bcd
c
f
hjk
Record video clips using the phone
39
9
3
13
145
563
90
56
**
6
19
591
11%
4%
2%
3%
16%
27%
41%
16%
**
9%
13%
30%
bcd
c
f
hjk
Use IM/ Instant Messaging (e.g. BlackBerry Messenger/ BBM, Apple iMessage, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger)
40
3
2
5
125
563
80
50
**
5
17
593
11%
1%
1%
1%
14%
27%
36%
15%
**
8%
12%
30%
bcd
f
hjk
Listen to music using MP3 function
19
4
2
6
109
391
79
37
**
3
10
428
5%
2%
1%
1%
12%
19%
36%
11%
**
5%
7%
22%
bcd
f
hjk
Send/ receive video clips
27
3
2
5
94
388
73
35
**
4
14
425
8%
1%
1%
1%
10%
19%
33%
10%
**
6%
10%
22%
bcd
f
hjk
Accessing/ receiving news
24
7
1
8
79
379
74
36
**
2
11
413
7%
3%
1%
2%
9%
18%
34%
11%
**
4%
8%
21%
cd
c
f
j
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd9 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Video streaming e.g. via YouTube
15
1
*
2
80
355
78
26
**
3
8
402
4%
1%
*%
*%
9%
17%
35%
8%
**
4%
5%
20%
bcd
f
hjk
'Check-in' and share your location on social
networking sites (e.g. Facebook, Foursquare)
11
2
1
3
74
328
50
26
**
1
4
350
3%
1%
*%
1%
8%
16%
23%
8%
**
1%
2%
18%
cd
f
jk
hjk
Use your handset to help you shop e.g. compare prices online, read internet reviews, take photos of products
18
1
*
1
70
315
42
27
**
4
7
330
5%
*%
*%
*%
8%
15%
19%
8%
**
6%
5%
17%
bcd
hjk
Accessing/ receiving sports/ team news/ scores
21
3
1
4
52
274
51
28
**
2
8
297
6%
2%
*%
1%
6%
13%
23%
8%
**
3%
5%
15%
bcd
f
hjk
Listen to FM radio
23
6
2
9
81
275
42
27
**
3
6
293
6%
3%
1%
2%
9%
13%
19%
8%
**
4%
4%
15%
cd
f
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd9 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Sending a tweet on Twitter (through a text, an app, the browser, or phone's built-in feature)
6
-
*
*
50
244
40
22
**
2
5
262
2%
-%
*%
*%
6%
12%
18%
7%
**
3%
3%
13%
bcd
f
hjk
Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Skype
13
2
1
2
40
205
52
17
**
1
4
236
4%
1%
*%
1%
4%
10%
24%
5%
**
1%
3%
12%
bcd
f
hjk
TV streaming (e.g. BBC iPlayer, Sky Go)
12
1
*
1
42
197
35
18
**
2
2
214
3%
*%
*%
*%
5%
9%
16%
5%
**
3%
2%
11%
bcd
f
hjk
Video calling e.g. via Facetime
8
1
*
1
45
193
35
15
**
2
2
212
2%
*%
*%
*%
5%
9%
16%
4%
**
3%
1%
11%
cd
f
k
hjk
Download a new video clip
11
1
*
1
46
173
36
15
**
1
2
194
3%
*%
*%
*%
5%
8%
17%
4%
**
2%
1%
10%
bcd
f
hjk
Download TV programmes e.g. via BBC iPlayer
6
-
-
-
31
135
32
12
**
1
2
155
2%
-%
-%
-%
3%
6%
15%
4%
**
2%
1%
8%
bcd
f
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QD9 (QD28A). SHOWCARD Which if any, of the following activities, other than making and receiving voice calls, do you use your mobile for? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Listen to Podcasts
3
-
*
*
17
103
16
14
**
2
3
106
1%
-%
*%
*%
2%
5%
7%
4%
**
3%
2%
5%
Other
2
4
4
8
8
11
-
4
**
1
1
7
1%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
-%
1%
**
2%
*%
*%
l
WEB/ DATA ACCESS
103
22
5
28
273
1075
144
94
**
9
27
1118
29%
11%
3%
7%
30%
51%
65%
28%
**
14%
19%
57%
bcd
c
c
f
jk
hjk
LISTEN TO AUDIO CONTENT
37
10
4
14
146
518
91
52
**
5
14
553
11%
5%
2%
3%
16%
25%
41%
15%
**
7%
10%
28%
bcd
c
f
j
hjk
WATCHING AV CONTENT
28
2
*
3
102
436
82
32
**
3
9
481
8%
1%
*%
1%
11%
21%
37%
9%
**
5%
6%
24%
bcd
f
hjk
None of these
33
33
49
82
108
122
5
53
**
13
26
79
9%
15%
25%
20%
12%
6%
2%
15%
**
19%
18%
4%
a
ab
a
l
l
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd10 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
402
261
231
492
1092
2382
206
398
49
72
153
2197
Effective Weighted Sample
329
205
183
383
879
1928
155
312
37
56
120
1810
Total
327
168
120
288
764
1935
212
278
37
47
105
1872
Send/ receive text messages (SMS)
246
105
45
150
553
1582
188
179
**
**
62
1586
75%
62%
38%
52%
72%
82%
89%
65%
**
**
58%
85%
bcd
cd
c
f
hk
Accessing the internet
66
9
4
13
171
768
98
63
**
**
19
797
20%
6%
3%
4%
22%
40%
46%
23%
**
**
18%
43%
bcd
hk
Use your phone as a camera
74
19
7
26
203
733
91
71
**
**
20
750
23%
11%
6%
9%
27%
38%
43%
25%
**
**
19%
40%
bcd
hk
Visiting social networking sites e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn
25
1
1
3
147
584
74
51
**
**
14
600
8%
1%
1%
1%
19%
30%
35%
18%
**
**
13%
32%
bcd
hk
Send/ receive emails (not SMS)
51
8
1
9
112
551
84
46
**
**
12
583
16%
5%
1%
3%
15%
28%
39%
17%
**
**
11%
31%
bcd
c
f
hk
Use IM/ Instant Messaging (e.g. BlackBerry Messenger/ BBM, Apple iMessage, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger)
31
2
1
3
100
470
65
40
**
**
11
497
9%
1%
1%
1%
13%
24%
31%
14%
**
**
10%
27%
bcd
hk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd10 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
402
261
231
492
1092
2382
206
398
49
72
153
2197
Effective Weighted Sample
329
205
183
383
879
1928
155
312
37
56
120
1810
Total
327
168
120
288
764
1935
212
278
37
47
105
1872
Send/ receive messages with pictures/ images
45
12
3
15
113
453
58
44
**
**
14
464
14%
7%
3%
5%
15%
23%
27%
16%
**
**
14%
25%
bcd
c
hk
Play games
22
5
1
6
134
425
75
43
**
**
10
448
7%
3%
1%
2%
18%
22%
36%
15%
**
**
10%
24%
cd
f
hk
Download apps or programs directly to your phone
16
2
1
3
87
324
48
38
**
**
8
331
5%
1%
1%
1%
11%
17%
23%
14%
**
**
8%
18%
bcd
k
Listen to music using MP3 function
11
2
1
3
85
298
45
27
**
**
3
316
3%
1%
1%
1%
11%
15%
21%
10%
**
**
2%
17%
d
k
hk
Record video clips using the phone
18
2
1
3
76
290
42
28
**
**
6
298
6%
1%
1%
1%
10%
15%
20%
10%
**
**
5%
16%
bcd
hk
Accessing/ receiving news
11
4
*
4
48
255
45
30
**
**
8
267
3%
2%
*%
1%
6%
13%
21%
11%
**
**
8%
14%
c
f
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd10 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
402
261
231
492
1092
2382
206
398
49
72
153
2197
Effective Weighted Sample
329
205
183
383
879
1928
155
312
37
56
120
1810
Total
327
168
120
288
764
1935
212
278
37
47
105
1872
'Check-in' and share your location on social networking sites (e.g. Facebook, Foursquare)
8
1
*
1
55
246
38
21
**
**
2
261
2%
1%
*%
*%
7%
13%
18%
8%
**
**
2%
14%
d
k
hk
Video streaming e.g. via YouTube
2
1
-
1
54
211
57
21
**
**
7
240
1%
*%
-%
*%
7%
11%
27%
7%
**
**
6%
13%
f
hk
Accessing/ receiving sports/ team news/ scores
8
3
-
3
30
179
32
16
**
**
1
197
3%
2%
-%
1%
4%
9%
15%
6%
**
**
1%
11%
c
f
hk
Use your handset to help you shop e.g. compare prices online, read internet reviews, take photos of products
7
1
-
1
39
186
22
17
**
**
2
192
2%
*%
-%
*%
5%
10%
10%
6%
**
**
2%
10%
cd
hk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QD10 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
402
261
231
492
1092
2382
206
398
49
72
153
2197
Effective Weighted Sample
329
205
183
383
879
1928
155
312
37
56
120
1810
Total
327
168
120
288
764
1935
212
278
37
47
105
1872
Sending a tweet on Twitter (through a text, an app, the browser, or phone's built-in feature)
2
-
*
*
31
184
22
19
**
**
3
190
*%
-%
*%
*%
4%
10%
10%
7%
**
**
3%
10%
k
Send/ receive video clips
10
2
1
3
45
169
32
18
**
**
6
181
3%
1%
1%
1%
6%
9%
15%
6%
**
**
6%
10%
d
f
Listen to FM radio
9
3
1
4
55
169
25
17
**
**
3
180
3%
2%
1%
1%
7%
9%
12%
6%
**
**
3%
10%
hk
Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Skype
8
-
1
1
26
129
34
8
**
**
1
149
2%
-%
1%
*%
3%
7%
16%
3%
**
**
1%
8%
bd
f
hk
Video calling e.g. via Facetime
1
-
-
-
28
117
26
12
**
**
2
129
*%
-%
-%
-%
4%
6%
12%
4%
**
**
2%
7%
f
k
TV streaming (e.g. BBC iPlayer, Sky Go)
7
-
-
-
24
114
17
14
**
**
2
117
2%
-%
-%
-%
3%
6%
8%
5%
**
**
2%
6%
bd
k
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QD10 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
402
261
231
492
1092
2382
206
398
49
72
153
2197
Effective Weighted Sample
329
205
183
383
879
1928
155
312
37
56
120
1810
Total
327
168
120
288
764
1935
212
278
37
47
105
1872
Download a new video clip
2
-
-
-
24
87
21
12
**
**
2
95
1%
-%
-%
-%
3%
5%
10%
4%
**
**
2%
5%
f
Download TV programmes e.g. via BBC
iPlayer
-
-
-
-
17
70
16
8
**
**
2
80
-%
-%
-%
-%
2%
4%
8%
3%
**
**
2%
4%
f
Listen to Podcasts
3
-
-
-
10
61
7
10
**
**
*
61
1%
-%
-%
-%
1%
3%
3%
4%
**
**
*%
3%
WEB/ DATA ACCESS
88
13
5
17
235
981
136
81
**
**
24
1029
27%
7%
4%
6%
31%
51%
64%
29%
**
**
23%
55%
bcd
f
hk
LISTEN TO AUDIO CONTENT
20
5
2
7
111
384
57
35
**
**
5
406
6%
3%
2%
2%
15%
20%
27%
13%
**
**
5%
22%
cd
f
k
hk
WATCHING AV CONTENT
10
1
-
1
68
271
61
25
**
**
7
300
3%
*%
-%
*%
9%
14%
29%
9%
**
**
6%
16%
bcd
f
hk
None of these
58
54
69
123
166
206
6
76
**
**
35
140
18%
32%
57%
43%
22%
11%
3%
27%
**
**
33%
7%
a
abd
ab
g
l
l
Other
3
4
3
6
7
11
-
2
**
**
1
9
1%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
-%
1%
**
**
*%
*%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd10 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 402 | 261 | 231 | 492 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 329 | 205 | 183 | 383 |
| Total | 327 | 168 | 120 |
| Don't know | 1 | * | * |
| *% | *% | *% | *% |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd10 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Send/ receive text messages (SMS)
246
105
45
150
553
1582
188
179
**
25
62
1586
70%
50%
23%
37%
61%
76%
85%
52%
**
36%
43%
80%
bcd
cd
c
f
jk
hjk
Accessing the internet
66
9
4
13
171
768
98
63
**
5
19
797
19%
4%
2%
3%
19%
37%
45%
18%
**
8%
13%
40%
bcd
f
j
hjk
Use your phone as a camera
74
19
7
26
203
733
91
71
**
10
20
750
21%
9%
4%
6%
22%
35%
41%
21%
**
15%
14%
38%
bcd
c
hjk
Visiting social networking sites e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn
25
1
1
3
147
584
74
51
**
5
14
600
7%
1%
1%
1%
16%
28%
33%
15%
**
7%
10%
30%
bcd
hjk
Send/ receive emails (not SMS)
51
8
1
9
112
551
84
46
**
5
12
583
15%
4%
1%
2%
12%
26%
38%
14%
**
7%
8%
30%
bcd
c
f
hjk
Use IM/ Instant Messaging (e.g. BlackBerry Messenger/ BBM, Apple iMessage, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger)
31
2
1
3
100
470
65
40
**
4
11
497
9%
1%
*%
1%
11%
23%
30%
12%
**
5%
7%
25%
bcd
f
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QD10 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Send/ receive messages with pictures/ images
45
12
3
15
113
453
58
44
**
5
14
464
13%
6%
2%
4%
12%
22%
26%
13%
**
8%
10%
24%
bcd
c
hjk
Play games
22
5
1
6
134
425
75
43
**
9
10
448
6%
2%
*%
1%
15%
20%
34%
13%
**
14%
7%
23%
bcd
c
f
hjk
Download apps or programs directly to your phone
16
2
1
3
87
324
48
38
**
4
8
331
5%
1%
1%
1%
10%
16%
22%
11%
**
5%
6%
17%
bcd
f
hjk
Listen to music using MP3 function
11
2
1
3
85
298
45
27
**
3
3
316
3%
1%
1%
1%
9%
14%
21%
8%
**
5%
2%
16%
cd
f
k
hjk
Record video clips using the phone
18
2
1
3
76
290
42
28
**
2
6
298
5%
1%
*%
1%
8%
14%
19%
8%
**
3%
4%
15%
bcd
hjk
Accessing/ receiving news
11
4
*
4
48
255
45
30
**
1
8
267
3%
2%
*%
1%
5%
12%
20%
9%
**
2%
6%
14%
cd
c
f
j
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QD10 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
'Check-in' and share your location on social networking sites (e.g. Facebook, Foursquare)
8
1
*
1
55
246
38
21
**
-
2
261
2%
*%
*%
*%
6%
12%
17%
6%
**
-%
1%
13%
cd
f
jk
hjk
Video streaming e.g. via YouTube
2
1
-
1
54
211
57
21
**
2
7
240
1%
*%
-%
*%
6%
10%
26%
6%
**
3%
5%
12%
f
hjk
Accessing/ receiving sports/ team news/ scores
8
3
-
3
30
179
32
16
**
1
1
197
2%
1%
-%
1%
3%
9%
15%
5%
**
2%
1%
10%
cd
c
f
k
hjk
Use your handset to help you shop e.g. compare prices online, read internet reviews, take photos of products
7
1
-
1
39
186
22
17
**
2
2
192
2%
*%
-%
*%
4%
9%
10%
5%
**
3%
2%
10%
cd
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QD10 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Sending a tweet on Twitter (through a text, an app, the browser, or phone's built-in feature)
2
-
*
*
31
184
22
19
**
1
3
190
*%
-%
*%
*%
3%
9%
10%
6%
**
2%
2%
10%
hjk
Send/ receive video clips
10
2
1
3
45
169
32
18
**
1
6
181
3%
1%
1%
1%
5%
8%
15%
5%
**
2%
4%
9%
cd
f
hjk
Listen to FM radio
9
3
1
4
55
169
25
17
**
1
3
180
3%
2%
*%
1%
6%
8%
11%
5%
**
2%
2%
9%
cd
hjk
Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Skype
8
-
1
1
26
129
34
8
**
-
1
149
2%
-%
*%
*%
3%
6%
15%
2%
**
-%
1%
8%
bd
f
hjk
Video calling e.g. via Facetime
1
-
-
-
28
117
26
12
**
1
2
129
*%
-%
-%
-%
3%
6%
12%
3%
**
2%
1%
7%
f
hk
TV streaming (e.g. BBC iPlayer, Sky Go)
7
-
-
-
24
114
17
14
**
2
2
117
2%
-%
-%
-%
3%
5%
8%
4%
**
3%
1%
6%
bcd
k
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QD10 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Download a new video clip
2
-
-
-
24
87
21
12
**
1
2
95
1%
-%
-%
-%
3%
4%
9%
3%
**
2%
1%
5%
f
k
Download TV programmes e.g. via BBC
iPlayer
-
-
-
-
17
70
16
8
**
1
2
80
-%
-%
-%
-%
2%
3%
7%
2%
**
2%
1%
4%
f
Listen to Podcasts
3
-
-
-
10
61
7
10
**
2
*
61
1%
-%
-%
-%
1%
3%
3%
3%
**
3%
*%
3%
d
k
k
WEB/ DATA ACCESS
88
13
5
17
235
981
136
81
**
8
24
1029
25%
6%
2%
4%
26%
47%
62%
24%
**
11%
17%
52%
bcd
c
f
j
hjk
LISTEN TO AUDIO CONTENT
20
5
2
7
111
384
57
35
**
3
5
406
6%
2%
1%
2%
12%
18%
26%
10%
**
5%
3%
21%
bcd
f
k
hjk
WATCHING AV CONTENT
10
1
-
1
68
271
61
25
**
3
7
300
3%
*%
-%
*%
7%
13%
28%
7%
**
4%
5%
15%
bcd
f
hjk
None of these
58
54
69
123
166
206
6
76
**
20
35
140
17%
26%
35%
30%
18%
10%
3%
22%
**
29%
24%
7%
a
ab
a
g
l
l
l
Other
3
4
3
6
7
11
-
2
**
-
1
9
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
-%
1%
**
-%
*%
*%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QD10 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| Don't know | 1 | * | * |
| *% | *% | *% | *% |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd11 (Qd6). Showcard Thinking About Mobile Phones, Do You Ever Have/ Think You Might Have Difficulties With Any Of The Following? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Navigating the phone's menu system to use the different features on your phone
10
13
15
28
33
57
3
28
**
8
15
32
3%
6%
8%
7%
4%
3%
1%
8%
**
11%
11%
2%
a
a
a
l
l
l
Writing text messages
14
11
20
31
45
54
1
28
**
11
19
28
4%
5%
10%
8%
5%
3%
*%
8%
**
16%
13%
1%
ab
a
l
hl
l
Pressing the buttons on your mobile phone
9
3
12
15
22
31
1
20
**
7
13
14
3%
1%
6%
4%
2%
1%
1%
6%
**
10%
9%
1%
ab
l
l
l
Hearing the person on the other end of the line in a conversation, even with the volume turned up
3
2
14
16
22
28
3
22
**
18
11
10
1%
1%
7%
4%
2%
1%
1%
6%
**
26%
8%
1%
ab
ab
l
hkl
l
Seeing and being able to read the digital display
6
2
11
13
20
30
-
19
**
7
8
10
2%
1%
5%
3%
2%
1%
-%
6%
**
11%
6%
*%
ab
l
l
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd11 (Qd6). Showcard Thinking About Mobile Phones, Do You Ever Have/ Think You Might Have Difficulties With Any Of The Following? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Seeing the numbers used to dial with
6
6
9
15
20
24
1
16
**
7
7
9
2%
3%
5%
4%
2%
1%
*%
5%
**
10%
5%
*%
a
l
l
l
Using touch to open, close or move within the
screen
3
1
10
11
14
19
1
11
**
6
8
10
1%
1%
5%
3%
2%
1%
*%
3%
**
9%
5%
1%
ab
b
l
hl
l
Hearing the phone ring, even with the volume turned up
7
3
7
10
14
18
1
11
**
9
7
8
2%
1%
4%
2%
2%
1%
*%
3%
**
13%
5%
*%
l
hkl
l
Using the letters displayed on the on-screen keyboard
2
2
8
10
13
16
2
10
**
4
7
9
1%
1%
4%
2%
1%
1%
1%
3%
**
6%
5%
*%
ab
a
l
l
l
Picking up the handset when your mobile rings
3
1
4
4
9
12
1
9
**
3
6
5
1%
*%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
**
5%
4%
*%
l
l
l
Holding the mobile phone to your ear
4
1
3
3
7
10
2
8
**
3
7
6
1%
*%
1%
1%
1%
*%
1%
2%
**
5%
5%
*%
l
l
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qd11 (Qd6). Showcard Thinking About Mobile Phones, Do You Ever Have/ Think You Might Have Difficulties With Any Of The Following? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| Any other difficulties | 13 | 7 | 14 |
| 4% | 3% | 7% | 5% |
| ab | f | l | hl |
| No, none | | | |
| 300 | 169 | 121 | 290 |
| 85% | 80% | 62% | 72% |
| cd | cd | c | j |
| Don't know | 5 | 9 | 19 |
| 2% | 4% | 10% | 7% |
| a | ab | a | l |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QE1. Does your household have a desktop PC, laptop, netbook or tablet computer? (MULTI CODE OPTIONS 1-4 ONLY)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Yes - desktop PC
152
72
34
106
241
729
87
102
**
15
41
720
43%
34%
17%
26%
26%
35%
39%
30%
**
22%
29%
37%
bcd
cd
c
hjk
Yes - laptop
219
99
43
142
406
1366
164
162
**
28
60
1363
62%
47%
22%
35%
45%
65%
75%
47%
**
41%
42%
69%
bcd
cd
c
f
hjk
Yes - netbook
24
5
1
6
27
166
19
17
**
3
5
165
7%
2%
*%
1%
3%
8%
8%
5%
**
4%
4%
8%
bcd
hk
Yes - tablet computer - e.g. iPad
72
30
13
44
125
603
68
55
**
10
11
607
20%
14%
7%
11%
14%
29%
31%
16%
**
14%
8%
31%
cd
c
k
hjk
TOTAL YES
283
139
69
208
552
1660
198
212
**
36
75
1643
80%
66%
35%
51%
61%
79%
90%
62%
**
52%
53%
83%
bcd
cd
c
f
k
hjk
DESKTOP PC ONLY
47
28
19
47
100
170
20
35
**
6
13
160
13%
13%
10%
12%
11%
8%
9%
10%
**
9%
9%
8%
LAPTOP ONLY
96
53
29
82
237
611
74
85
**
15
28
600
27%
25%
15%
20%
26%
29%
34%
25%
**
22%
20%
30%
cd
c
hk
TABLET ONLY
4
3
3
5
13
48
2
2
**
-
-
49
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
*%
**
-%
-%
2%
hk
No
70
72
125
197
356
428
22
131
**
33
68
328
20%
34%
64%
48%
39%
20%
10%
38%
**
47%
47%
17%
a
abd
ab
g
l
l
hl
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QE1. Does your household have a desktop PC, laptop, netbook or tablet computer? (MULTI CODE OPTIONS 1-4 ONLY)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Don't know
-
-
1
1
1
1
-
*
**
*
-
*
-%
-%
1%
*%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
1%
-%
*%
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QE2 (QE35). How many tablet computers do you have in your household? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : Those with any tablet computers in the household
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 91 | 51 | 25 | 76 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 75 | 43 | 19 | 62 |
| Total | 72 | 30 | 13 |
| One | (1.0) | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Two | (2.0) | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Three | (3.0) | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Four | (4.0) | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Five or more | | | |
| (5.0) | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Don't know | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Mean number | ** | ** | ** |
| Standard deviation | ** | ** | ** |
| Standard error | ** | ** | ** |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe3 (Qe36). Do You Personally Use This/ Any Of These Tablet Computer/S? (Single Code)
Base : Those with any tablet computers in the household
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 91 | 51 | 25 | 76 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 75 | 43 | 19 | 62 |
| Total | 72 | 30 | 13 |
| Yes | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| No | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe4 (Qe37). Is Your Tablet Computer 3G Enabled? This Means That The Tablet Could Be Used - With A Sim Card - To Go Online From Anywhere With A Signal, Without The Need For A Wi-Fi Connection? (Single Code)
Base : Those who personally use a tablet computer
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 65 | 37 | 17 | 54 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 53 | 31 | 12 | 44 |
| Total | 50 | 23 | 8 |
| Yes | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| No | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Don't know | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe5 (Qe38). And Do You Have A Separate Mobile Subscription For Your Tablet, Which Allows You To Go Online From Anywhere With A 3G Signal, Without The Need For A Wi-Fi Connection? (Single Code)
Base : Those who use a 3G enabled tablet computer
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 31 | 13 | 7 | 20 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 26 | 12 | 6 | 18 |
| Total | 26 | 8 | 4 |
| Yes | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| No | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Don't know | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QE6 (QE2). Do you or does anyone in your household have access to the internet/ Worldwide Web at HOME (via any device, e.g. PC, laptop, mobile phone etc)? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Yes - have access and use at home
274
127
58
186
543
1652
192
202
**
34
70
1639
77%
60%
30%
46%
60%
79%
87%
59%
**
49%
49%
83%
bcd
cd
c
f
k
hjk
Yes - have access but don't use at home
11
11
7
18
26
48
6
13
**
3
5
43
3%
5%
4%
4%
3%
2%
3%
4%
**
5%
4%
2%
No do not have access at home
67
73
128
201
335
384
20
126
**
32
66
284
19%
35%
66%
49%
37%
18%
9%
37%
**
46%
47%
14%
a
abd
ab
g
l
l
hl
Don't know
1
-
1
1
5
5
2
2
**
-
1
5
*%
-%
1%
*%
1%
*%
1%
1%
**
-%
*%
*%
INTERNET ACCESS AT HOME YES
285
138
66
204
569
1700
199
215
**
37
76
1682
81%
65%
34%
50%
63%
81%
90%
63%
**
54%
53%
85%
bcd
cd
c
f
k
hjk
NO
67
73
128
201
335
384
20
126
**
32
66
284
19%
35%
66%
49%
37%
18%
9%
37%
**
46%
47%
14%
a
abd
ab
g
l
l
hl
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QE7 (IN6). SHOWCARD Do you ever go online anywhere other than in your home at all (via any device, e.g. PC, laptop, mobile phone, etc.)? IF YES: Where is that? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| Your workplace | 78 | 9 | - |
| 22% | 4% | -% | 2% |
| bcd | c | c | j |
| In someone else's home | | | |
| 34 | 14 | 8 | 22 |
| 10% | 7% | 4% | 5% |
| cd | hk | | |
| School/ college | 4 | - | - |
| 1% | -% | -% | -% |
| d | f | k | |
| Library | 12 | 4 | 2 |
| 3% | 2% | 1% | 1% |
| cd | f | | |
| Internet café | 7 | 2 | 1 |
| 2% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| f | | | |
| University | 3 | - | - |
| 1% | -% | -% | -% |
| d | f | k | |
| Other | 27 | 9 | 4 |
| 8% | 4% | 2% | 3% |
| cd | hjk | | |
| No, do not | 227 | 179 | 182 |
| 64% | 85% | 93% | 89% |
| a | abd | a | g |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QE7 (IN6). SHOWCARD Do you ever go online anywhere other than in your home at all (via any device, e.g. PC, laptop, mobile phone, etc.)? IF YES: Where is that? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| EVER USE INTERNET AT HOME OR | | | |
| ELSEWHERE | 287 | 128 | 62 |
| 81% | 61% | 32% | 47% |
| bcd | cd | c | f |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe8 (Qe23). Showcard And How Often Do You Personally Use The Internet Nowadays Either At Home Or Elsewhere? (Single Code)
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|----------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 346 | 193 | 121 | 314 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 285 | 155 | 99 | 249 |
| Total | 287 | 128 | 62 |
| Every day | 179 | 67 | 26 |
| 62% | 52% | 42% | 49% |
| bcd | hk | | |
| Several times a week | | | |
| 58 | 29 | 15 | 45 |
| 20% | 23% | 25% | 24% |
| At least once a week | 20 | 13 | 7 |
| 7% | 10% | 11% | 11% |
| l | | | |
| At least once a month | 7 | 6 | 3 |
| 2% | 4% | 5% | 5% |
| A few times a year | 6 | 2 | 1 |
| 2% | 2% | 1% | 1% |
| Less than once a year | * | * | 1 |
| *% | *% | 1% | 1% |
| l | l | | |
| Never | 15 | 9 | 9 |
| 5% | 7% | 14% | 9% |
| a | l | l | |
| TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK | 258 | 110 | 48 |
| 90% | 86% | 79% | 83% |
| cd | hk | | |
| TOTAL EVER | 271 | 118 | 53 |
| 94% | 92% | 86% | 90% |
| c | hk | | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe8 (Qe23). Showcard And How Often Do You Personally Use The Internet Nowadays Either At Home Or Elsewhere? (Single Code)
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
346
193
121
314
803
2061
183
288
33
54
105
1962
Effective Weighted Sample
285
155
99
249
654
1683
141
227
23
44
82
1627
Total
287
128
62
190
580
1730
199
210
24
35
74
1715
Don't know
2
1
-
1
2
4
-
2
**
**
1
2
1%
1%
-%
*%
*%
*%
-%
1%
**
**
1%
*%
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe9. Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
349
206
125
331
792
2034
185
295
37
56
107
1931
Effective Weighted Sample
286
165
101
262
645
1659
141
232
26
45
82
1600
Total
285
138
66
204
569
1700
199
215
26
37
76
1682
Ordinary phone line - dialup access
2
-
1
1
4
13
1
1
**
**
-
13
1%
-%
2%
1%
1%
1%
*%
*%
**
**
-%
1%
Fixed Broadband ADSL through a phone line
or cable service - perhaps using a Wi-Fi
router. This would include superfast broadband services.
269
130
58
188
484
1521
185
184
**
**
65
1518
94%
94%
88%
93%
85%
89%
93%
86%
**
**
86%
90%
c
h
Mobile Broadband from a mobile network - connecting via a USB stick or dongle, or built in connectivity in a laptop or netbook or tablet computer with a SIM card
19
5
3
8
55
179
14
25
**
**
9
165
7%
4%
5%
4%
10%
11%
7%
12%
**
**
12%
10%
Access to the internet using a mobile phone or smartphone - through a Wi-Fi network or your phone's mobile network
46
14
2
16
123
503
50
50
**
**
16
505
16%
10%
3%
8%
22%
30%
25%
23%
**
**
21%
30%
cd
c
h
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe9. Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
349
206
125
331
792
2034
185
295
37
56
107
1931
Effective Weighted Sample
286
165
101
262
645
1659
141
232
26
45
82
1600
Total
285
138
66
204
569
1700
199
215
26
37
76
1682
Accessing the internet on a device such as a laptop or tablet using your mobile phone's internet connection - known as tethering
6
-
*
*
7
38
5
3
**
**
*
43
2%
-%
1%
*%
1%
2%
3%
2%
**
**
*%
3%
d
TOTAL BROADBAND (INC. USING MOBILE PHONE)
282
134
60
194
558
1683
197
209
**
**
72
1668
99%
97%
91%
95%
98%
99%
99%
97%
**
**
95%
99%
cd
c
hk
TOTAL BROADBAND (EXC. USING MOBILE PHONE)
278
133
59
192
519
1607
189
198
**
**
69
1594
98%
96%
90%
94%
91%
95%
95%
92%
**
**
91%
95%
cd
c
MOBILE BROADBAND ONLY, NOT FIXED OR NARROWBAND
10
2
1
4
33
82
4
14
**
**
4
72
3%
2%
2%
2%
6%
5%
2%
6%
**
**
6%
4%
SMARTPHONE ACCESS ONLY, NOT FIXED OR NARROWBAND OR MOBILE BROADBAND
3
1
*
2
37
69
6
10
**
**
3
67
1%
1%
1%
1%
6%
4%
3%
5%
**
**
4%
4%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe9. Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
349
206
125
331
792
2034
185
295
37
56
107
1931
Effective Weighted Sample
286
165
101
262
645
1659
141
232
26
45
82
1600
Total
285
138
66
204
569
1700
199
215
26
37
76
1682
ONLY MOBILE ACCESS, NOT FIXED OR NARROWBAND
13
4
2
5
72
157
11
24
**
**
7
146
5%
3%
2%
3%
13%
9%
6%
11%
**
**
10%
9%
Other
-
1
*
1
2
3
-
1
**
**
1
3
-%
1%
1%
1%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
**
1%
*%
Don't know
1
3
4
7
9
8
1
5
**
**
3
5
*%
2%
6%
3%
2%
*%
1%
2%
**
**
4%
*%
a
a
l
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe9. Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Ordinary phone line - dialup access
2
-
1
1
4
13
1
1
**
*
-
13
1%
-%
1%
*%
*%
1%
*%
*%
**
1%
-%
1%
Fixed Broadband ADSL through a phone line
or cable service - perhaps using a Wi-Fi
router. This would include superfast broadband services.
269
130
58
188
484
1521
185
184
**
35
65
1518
76%
62%
30%
46%
53%
73%
84%
54%
**
51%
45%
77%
bcd
cd
c
f
hjk
Mobile Broadband from a mobile network - connecting via a USB stick or dongle, or built in connectivity in a laptop or netbook or tablet computer with a SIM card
19
5
3
8
55
179
14
25
**
-
9
165
5%
2%
2%
2%
6%
9%
6%
7%
**
-%
6%
8%
cd
j
j
j
Access to the internet using a mobile phone or smartphone - through a Wi-Fi network or your phone's mobile network
46
14
2
16
123
503
50
50
**
3
16
505
13%
7%
1%
4%
14%
24%
23%
15%
**
5%
11%
26%
bcd
c
c
j
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe9. Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Accessing the internet on a device such as a laptop or tablet using your mobile phone's internet connection - known as tethering
6
-
*
*
7
38
5
3
**
-
*
43
2%
-%
*%
*%
1%
2%
2%
1%
**
-%
*%
2%
bd
TOTAL BROADBAND (INC. USING MOBILE PHONE)
282
134
60
194
558
1683
197
209
**
36
72
1668
80%
64%
31%
48%
61%
81%
89%
61%
**
52%
51%
85%
bcd
cd
c
f
k
hjk
TOTAL BROADBAND (EXC. USING MOBILE PHONE)
278
133
59
192
519
1607
189
198
**
35
69
1594
79%
63%
30%
47%
57%
77%
86%
58%
**
51%
48%
81%
bcd
cd
c
f
k
hjk
MOBILE BROADBAND ONLY, NOT FIXED OR NARROWBAND
10
2
1
4
33
82
4
14
**
-
4
72
3%
1%
1%
1%
4%
4%
2%
4%
**
-%
3%
4%
cd
SMARTPHONE ACCESS ONLY, NOT FIXED OR NARROWBAND OR MOBILE BROADBAND
3
1
*
2
37
69
6
10
**
*
3
67
1%
1%
*%
*%
4%
3%
3%
3%
**
*%
2%
3%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QE9. SHOWCARD Which of these methods does your household use to connect to the internet at home? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
ONLY MOBILE ACCESS, NOT FIXED OR NARROWBAND
13
4
2
5
72
157
11
24
**
*
7
146
4%
2%
1%
1%
8%
8%
5%
7%
**
*%
5%
7%
cd
j
j
Other
-
1
*
1
2
3
-
1
**
1
1
3
-%
*%
*%
*%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
1%
1%
*%
l
Don't know
1
3
4
7
9
8
1
5
**
*
3
5
*%
1%
2%
2%
1%
*%
1%
1%
**
1%
2%
*%
a
a
l
l
No internet access at home
67
73
128
201
335
384
20
126
**
32
66
284
19%
35%
66%
49%
37%
18%
9%
37%
**
46%
47%
14%
a
abd
ab
g
l
l
hl
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe10 (Qe22B). You Mentioned That Your Household Has A Mobile Broadband Connection (Connecting Via A Usb Stick Or Dongle, Or Built-In 3G Connectivity In A Laptop Or Another Device). Do You Personally Access The Internet In This Way, Using Mobile Broadband?
Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | MOBI- | | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | 23 | 9 | 7 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | 18 | 8 | 6 |
| Total | 19 | 5 | 3 |
| Yes | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| No | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Don't know | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe10 (Qe22B). You Mentioned That Your Household Has A Mobile Broadband Connection (Connecting Via A Usb Stick Or Dongle, Or Built-In 3G Connectivity In A Laptop Or Another Device). Do You Personally Access The Internet In This Way, Using Mobile Broadband?
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | 438 | 323 | 383 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | 358 | 255 | 308 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| Yes | 15 | 4 | 3 |
| 4% | 2% | 2% | 2% |
| d | j | j | j |
| No | 4 | 1 | - |
| 1% | *% | -% | *% |
| Don't know | | | |
| - | 1 | - | 1 |
| -% | *% | -% | *% |
| DO NOT HAVE MOBILE BROADBAND | | | |
| CONNECTION IN HOUSEHOLD | 335 | 206 | 192 |
| 95% | 98% | 98% | 98% |
| a | a | hkl | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe11 (Qe22D). Showcard Which Of These Best Describe What You Use To Connect To Your Mobile Broadband Service (Connecting Via A Usb Stick Or Dongle, Or Built In 3G Connectivity In A Laptop Or Another Device)? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|------------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | MOBI- | | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 19 | 7 | 7 | 14 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 15 | 6 | 6 | 12 |
| Total | 15 | 4 | 3 |
| We have a dongle or USB stick that plugs | | | |
| into a computer or tablet to connect to mobile | | | |
| broadband | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Our computer or tablet has a SIM card built in | | | |
| that connects to mobile broadband | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| We have a standalone mobile broadband | | | |
| modem (MiFi) | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Don't know | | | |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QE12 (QE7). Which Internet Service Provider (ISP) does your household currently use as its MAIN supplier at home? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
349
206
125
331
792
2034
185
295
37
56
107
1931
Effective Weighted Sample
286
165
101
262
645
1659
141
232
26
45
82
1600
Total
285
138
66
204
569
1700
199
215
26
37
76
1682
Virgin Media (NTL/ Telewest/ Blueyonder)
55
36
6
42
123
347
48
42
**
**
17
348
19%
26%
10%
21%
22%
20%
24%
20%
**
**
23%
21%
c
c
c
BT Total Broadband/ BT Yahoo/ BT
Openworld
69
33
19
52
91
317
34
41
**
**
13
313
24%
24%
29%
25%
16%
19%
17%
19%
**
**
17%
19%
Sky
43
13
9
21
97
303
44
38
**
**
11
304
15%
9%
13%
11%
17%
18%
22%
18%
**
**
14%
18%
Talk Talk (Carphone Warehouse)
40
22
9
31
82
212
26
30
**
**
13
209
14%
16%
14%
15%
14%
12%
13%
14%
**
**
17%
12%
BT Infinity
11
5
3
8
22
107
8
10
**
**
*
107
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
6%
4%
5%
**
**
*%
6%
k
BT (other/ unspecified)
15
7
3
10
20
71
7
7
**
**
2
71
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
**
**
2%
4%
Orange
8
3
*
3
12
57
2
5
**
**
1
55
3%
2%
1%
2%
2%
3%
1%
2%
**
**
2%
3%
O2
1
1
1
1
19
42
2
4
**
**
3
42
*%
*%
1%
1%
3%
2%
1%
2%
**
**
3%
2%
AOL
9
3
2
5
14
35
4
8
**
**
6
31
3%
2%
3%
2%
3%
2%
2%
4%
**
**
8%
2%
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QE12 (QE7). Which Internet Service Provider (ISP) does your household currently use as its MAIN supplier at home? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : Those with access to the internet at home
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
349
206
125
331
792
2034
185
295
37
56
107
1931
Effective Weighted Sample
286
165
101
262
645
1659
141
232
26
45
82
1600
Total
285
138
66
204
569
1700
199
215
26
37
76
1682
'3'
3
*
-
*
17
33
5
6
**
**
3
33
1%
*%
-%
*%
3%
2%
2%
3%
**
**
4%
2%
Plusnet
4
2
3
5
12
26
3
3
**
**
1
25
1%
2%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
**
**
1%
1%
T-Mobile
2
1
-
1
6
13
3
-
**
**
-
17
1%
1%
-%
*%
1%
1%
2%
-%
**
**
-%
1%
Vodafone
*
1
-
1
6
13
2
3
**
**
-
12
*%
1%
-%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
**
**
-%
1%
Post Office
1
2
2
4
6
9
2
2
**
**
-
9
*%
1%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
**
**
-%
1%
a
Other
15
5
3
8
21
72
3
12
**
**
4
63
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
1%
6%
**
**
6%
4%
TOTAL BT
96
45
25
70
133
494
49
59
**
**
15
491
34%
33%
38%
34%
23%
29%
25%
27%
**
**
20%
29%
Don't know
9
5
6
11
21
43
5
4
**
**
2
45
3%
4%
8%
5%
4%
3%
2%
2%
**
**
2%
3%
a
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe13 (Qe3B). How Many People Aged 16 Or Over In Your Household (Including Yourself) Could Access The Fixed Broadband Connection In Your Home If They Wanted To?
Base : Those with fixed broadband at home where there is more than one person in household
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 269 | 145 | 72 | 217 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 219 | 119 | 58 | 175 |
| Total | 218 | 107 | 42 |
| 1 | 19 | 17 | ** |
| 9% | 16% | ** | 16% |
| a | a | l | |
| 2 | | | |
| 142 | 74 | ** | 107 |
| 65% | 69% | ** | 72% |
| g | | | |
| 3 | 31 | 12 | ** |
| 14% | 11% | ** | 9% |
| 4 | 17 | 3 | ** |
| 8% | 3% | ** | 2% |
| d | f | | |
| 5 or more | | | |
| 7 | - | ** | - |
| 3% | -% | ** | -% |
| bd | f | | |
| Don't know | 3 | 1 | ** |
| 1% | 1% | ** | 1% |
| Mean number of people | 2.3 | 2.0 | ** |
| bd | f | | |
| Standard deviation | .91 | .66 | ** |
| Standard error | .06 | .05 | ** |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe14 (Qe3A). How Many People Aged 16 Or Over In Your Household (Including Yourself) Could Access The Mobile Broadband Connection In Your Home If They Wanted To?
Base : Those with mobile broadband at home where there is more than one person in household
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | MOBI- | | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 18 | 8 | 5 | 13 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 14 | 7 | 4 | 12 |
| Total | 15 | 5 | 3 |
| 1 | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| 2 | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| 3 | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| 4 | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| 5 or more | | | |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Don't know | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Mean number of people | ** | ** | ** |
| Standard deviation | ** | ** | ** |
| Standard error | ** | ** | ** |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
346
193
121
314
803
2061
183
288
33
54
105
1962
Effective Weighted Sample
285
155
99
249
654
1683
141
227
23
44
82
1627
Total
287
128
62
190
580
1730
199
210
24
35
74
1715
General surfing/ browsing the internet
233
98
46
144
448
1488
159
169
**
**
61
1476
81%
77%
74%
76%
77%
86%
80%
80%
**
**
82%
86%
h
Sending and receiving e-mail
236
96
43
139
420
1439
170
164
**
**
58
1441
82%
75%
70%
73%
72%
83%
86%
78%
**
**
78%
84%
cd
h
Purchasing goods/services/ tickets etc.
178
73
32
105
298
1171
112
130
**
**
50
1152
62%
57%
52%
55%
51%
68%
57%
62%
**
**
68%
67%
g
Banking
151
59
17
75
241
1064
100
102
**
**
37
1058
53%
46%
27%
40%
42%
61%
50%
49%
**
**
50%
62%
cd
c
c
g
hk
Using social networking sites (such as Facebook, LinkedIn or Bebo)
89
23
8
31
237
921
109
98
**
**
34
925
31%
18%
13%
16%
41%
53%
55%
47%
**
**
46%
54%
bcd
h
Communicating via instant messaging e.g. Facebook Chat, MSN Messenger, Skype Chat
80
32
8
40
212
801
121
94
**
**
32
820
28%
25%
13%
21%
37%
46%
61%
45%
**
**
43%
48%
c
c
f
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
346
193
121
314
803
2061
183
288
33
54
105
1962
Effective Weighted Sample
285
155
99
249
654
1683
141
227
23
44
82
1627
Total
287
128
62
190
580
1730
199
210
24
35
74
1715
Finding/ downloading information for work/ business
100
29
10
39
144
730
104
64
**
**
24
766
35%
22%
16%
20%
25%
42%
52%
31%
**
**
33%
45%
bcd
f
hk
Watching video clips/ webcasts (e.g. YouTube or X Factor)
68
22
7
29
161
651
93
74
**
**
25
673
24%
17%
11%
15%
28%
38%
47%
35%
**
**
34%
39%
cd
f
To find information on health related issues e.g. NHS Direct/ NHS 24
91
35
16
51
163
617
87
86
**
**
36
616
32%
27%
26%
27%
28%
36%
44%
41%
**
**
48%
36%
f
l
Watching catch-up TV (such as BBC iPlayer, Sky Player, ITV Player)
69
32
15
47
145
623
67
73
**
**
20
621
24%
25%
24%
25%
25%
36%
34%
35%
**
**
27%
36%
Using local council/ Government sites, e.g. to find information, to complete processes such as tax returns, to contact local MP
93
39
13
53
137
619
75
72
**
**
27
618
32%
31%
22%
28%
24%
36%
38%
34%
**
**
37%
36%
c
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
346
193
121
314
803
2061
183
288
33
54
105
1962
Effective Weighted Sample
285
155
99
249
654
1683
141
227
23
44
82
1627
Total
287
128
62
190
580
1730
199
210
24
35
74
1715
Playing games online/ interactively
58
30
10
40
198
615
79
81
**
**
19
606
20%
23%
16%
21%
34%
36%
40%
39%
**
**
26%
35%
k
Downloading music files, movies or video
clips
52
12
8
20
127
572
92
71
**
**
20
594
18%
9%
13%
11%
22%
33%
46%
34%
**
**
27%
35%
bd
f
Finding/ downloading information for school/ college/ university/ homework
53
12
2
14
103
515
88
59
**
**
18
547
19%
9%
4%
7%
18%
30%
45%
28%
**
**
25%
32%
bcd
f
Watching live TV programmes
51
13
8
21
115
469
73
53
**
**
14
486
18%
10%
12%
11%
20%
27%
37%
25%
**
**
19%
28%
bd
f
Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Skype
51
25
11
36
104
407
82
46
**
**
20
438
18%
20%
18%
19%
18%
24%
41%
22%
**
**
27%
26%
f
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
346
193
121
314
803
2061
183
288
33
54
105
1962
Effective Weighted Sample
285
155
99
249
654
1683
141
227
23
44
82
1627
Total
287
128
62
190
580
1730
199
210
24
35
74
1715
Uploading/ adding content to the internet e.g. photos, videos, blog posts
47
13
7
19
99
431
51
58
**
**
19
423
16%
10%
11%
10%
17%
25%
26%
28%
**
**
26%
25%
d
Listening to radio
49
11
7
18
74
345
38
43
**
**
17
342
17%
9%
11%
9%
13%
20%
19%
20%
**
**
23%
20%
bd
Using Twitter (browsing/ reading site)
23
3
1
4
66
333
41
35
**
**
12
339
8%
2%
2%
2%
11%
19%
21%
17%
**
**
17%
20%
bcd
Real time gambling/ trading/ auctions
33
7
4
11
57
310
23
28
**
**
10
307
11%
6%
6%
6%
10%
18%
11%
13%
**
**
14%
18%
d
g
Downloading films (Video on Demand) e.g. LoveFilm, Netflix
9
2
2
4
48
216
37
31
**
**
7
219
3%
1%
3%
2%
8%
12%
19%
15%
**
**
10%
13%
f
Using Twitter (account holder, posting on site)
10
2
*
2
46
207
30
23
**
**
6
209
3%
2%
*%
1%
8%
12%
15%
11%
**
**
8%
12%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
346
193
121
314
803
2061
183
288
33
54
105
1962
Effective Weighted Sample
285
155
99
249
654
1683
141
227
23
44
82
1627
Total
287
128
62
190
580
1730
199
210
24
35
74
1715
Streamed audio services (free)
12
1
*
2
35
169
39
26
**
**
9
182
4%
1%
1%
1%
6%
10%
19%
12%
**
**
13%
11%
d
f
Communicating via chat rooms e.g. virtual
assistance on a website, chatting on online dating sites
17
1
1
2
51
148
46
19
**
**
9
173
6%
*%
2%
1%
9%
9%
23%
9%
**
**
13%
10%
bd
f
Streamed audio services (subscription)
5
1
*
1
20
69
22
10
**
**
5
80
2%
*%
*%
*%
3%
4%
11%
5%
**
**
6%
5%
f
Other
8
2
4
6
17
29
2
7
**
**
2
23
3%
2%
7%
3%
3%
2%
1%
4%
**
**
3%
1%
l
USE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES
93
24
8
33
249
966
113
101
**
**
34
972
33%
19%
13%
17%
43%
56%
57%
48%
**
**
46%
57%
bcd
h
TV/ VIDEO VIEWING
108
42
20
62
226
886
118
103
**
**
33
900
37%
33%
32%
32%
39%
51%
59%
49%
**
**
44%
52%
USE TWITTER
23
4
1
5
73
349
45
36
**
**
12
357
8%
3%
2%
3%
13%
20%
23%
17%
**
**
17%
21%
bcd
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
346
193
121
314
803
2061
183
288
33
54
105
1962
Effective Weighted Sample
285
155
99
249
654
1683
141
227
23
44
82
1627
Total
287
128
62
190
580
1730
199
210
24
35
74
1715
STREAMED AUDIO SERVICES
12
2
*
2
40
181
40
27
**
**
10
194
4%
2%
1%
1%
7%
10%
20%
13%
**
**
14%
11%
d
f
None of these
11
9
6
16
31
40
6
7
**
**
3
38
4%
7%
10%
8%
5%
2%
3%
4%
**
**
3%
2%
a
a
Don't know
5
*
1
2
5
9
-
2
**
**
-
7
2%
*%
2%
1%
1%
1%
-%
1%
**
**
-%
*%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
General surfing/ browsing the internet
233
98
46
144
448
1488
159
169
**
26
61
1476
66%
47%
23%
36%
49%
71%
72%
49%
**
38%
43%
75%
bcd
cd
c
hjk
Sending and receiving e-mail
236
96
43
139
420
1439
170
164
**
27
58
1441
67%
46%
22%
34%
46%
69%
77%
48%
**
39%
40%
73%
bcd
cd
c
f
hjk
Purchasing goods/services/ tickets etc.
178
73
32
105
298
1171
112
130
**
21
50
1152
50%
35%
16%
26%
33%
56%
51%
38%
**
31%
35%
58%
bcd
cd
c
hjk
Banking
151
59
17
75
241
1064
100
102
**
13
37
1058
43%
28%
8%
19%
27%
51%
46%
30%
**
19%
26%
54%
bcd
cd
c
j
hjk
Using social networking sites (such as Facebook, LinkedIn or Bebo)
89
23
8
31
237
921
109
98
**
10
34
925
25%
11%
4%
8%
26%
44%
49%
29%
**
15%
24%
47%
bcd
c
c
j
hjk
Communicating via instant messaging e.g. Facebook Chat, MSN Messenger, Skype Chat
80
32
8
40
212
801
121
94
**
13
32
820
23%
15%
4%
10%
23%
38%
55%
27%
**
19%
22%
42%
bcd
cd
c
f
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Finding/ downloading information for work/ business
100
29
10
39
144
730
104
64
**
8
24
766
28%
14%
5%
10%
16%
35%
47%
19%
**
11%
17%
39%
bcd
c
c
f
hjk
Watching video clips/ webcasts (e.g. YouTube or X Factor)
68
22
7
29
161
651
93
74
**
10
25
673
19%
10%
4%
7%
18%
31%
42%
22%
**
14%
17%
34%
bcd
c
c
f
hjk
To find information on health related issues e.g. NHS Direct/ NHS 24
91
35
16
51
163
617
87
86
**
11
36
616
26%
16%
8%
13%
18%
30%
40%
25%
**
15%
25%
31%
bcd
c
f
hj
Watching catch-up TV (such as BBC iPlayer, Sky Player, ITV Player)
69
32
15
47
145
623
67
73
**
13
20
621
19%
15%
8%
12%
16%
30%
31%
21%
**
19%
14%
31%
cd
c
k
hjk
Using local council/ Government sites, e.g. to find information, to complete processes such as tax returns, to contact local MP
93
39
13
53
137
619
75
72
**
10
27
618
26%
19%
7%
13%
15%
30%
34%
21%
**
14%
19%
31%
bcd
cd
c
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Playing games online/ interactively
58
30
10
40
198
615
79
81
**
13
19
606
16%
14%
5%
10%
22%
29%
36%
24%
**
19%
14%
31%
cd
c
c
k
hjk
Downloading music files, movies or video
clips
52
12
8
20
127
572
92
71
**
11
20
594
15%
6%
4%
5%
14%
27%
42%
21%
**
15%
14%
30%
bcd
f
hjk
Finding/ downloading information for school/ college/ university/ homework
53
12
2
14
103
515
88
59
**
9
18
547
15%
6%
1%
3%
11%
25%
40%
17%
**
13%
13%
28%
bcd
c
c
f
hjk
Watching live TV programmes
51
13
8
21
115
469
73
53
**
8
14
486
14%
6%
4%
5%
13%
22%
33%
15%
**
11%
10%
25%
bcd
f
hjk
Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Skype
51
25
11
36
104
407
82
46
**
4
20
438
14%
12%
6%
9%
11%
19%
37%
13%
**
6%
14%
22%
cd
c
f
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Uploading/ adding content to the internet e.g. photos, videos, blog posts
47
13
7
19
99
431
51
58
**
7
19
423
13%
6%
3%
5%
11%
21%
23%
17%
**
11%
14%
21%
bcd
hjk
Listening to radio
49
11
7
18
74
345
38
43
**
4
17
342
14%
5%
3%
4%
8%
17%
17%
12%
**
6%
12%
17%
bcd
hj
Using Twitter (browsing/ reading site)
23
3
1
4
66
333
41
35
**
2
12
339
6%
1%
1%
1%
7%
16%
19%
10%
**
2%
9%
17%
bcd
j
j
hjk
Real time gambling/ trading/ auctions
33
7
4
11
57
310
23
28
**
2
10
307
9%
3%
2%
3%
6%
15%
10%
8%
**
3%
7%
16%
bcd
hjk
Downloading films (Video on Demand) e.g. LoveFilm, Netflix
9
2
2
4
48
216
37
31
**
2
7
219
3%
1%
1%
1%
5%
10%
17%
9%
**
3%
5%
11%
d
f
j
jk
Using Twitter (account holder, posting on site)
10
2
*
2
46
207
30
23
**
2
6
209
3%
1%
*%
1%
5%
10%
14%
7%
**
3%
4%
11%
cd
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Streamed audio services (free)
12
1
*
2
35
169
39
26
**
3
9
182
3%
1%
*%
*%
4%
8%
18%
8%
**
5%
7%
9%
bcd
f
Communicating via chat rooms e.g. virtual
assistance on a website, chatting on online dating sites
17
1
1
2
51
148
46
19
**
*
9
173
5%
*%
1%
*%
6%
7%
21%
5%
**
*%
7%
9%
bcd
f
j
j
hj
Streamed audio services (subscription)
5
1
*
1
20
69
22
10
**
-
5
80
1%
*%
*%
*%
2%
3%
10%
3%
**
-%
3%
4%
d
f
Other
8
2
4
6
17
29
2
7
**
1
2
23
2%
1%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
**
2%
1%
1%
USE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES
93
24
8
33
249
966
113
101
**
10
34
972
26%
12%
4%
8%
27%
46%
51%
29%
**
15%
24%
49%
bcd
c
c
j
hjk
TV/ VIDEO VIEWING
108
42
20
62
226
886
118
103
**
16
33
900
30%
20%
10%
15%
25%
42%
54%
30%
**
23%
23%
46%
bcd
c
c
f
hjk
USE TWITTER
23
4
1
5
73
349
45
36
**
3
12
357
6%
2%
1%
1%
8%
17%
21%
10%
**
4%
9%
18%
bcd
j
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
STREAMED AUDIO SERVICES
12
2
*
2
40
181
40
27
**
3
10
194
3%
1%
*%
1%
4%
9%
18%
8%
**
5%
7%
10%
cd
f
None of these
11
9
6
16
31
40
6
7
**
3
3
38
3%
4%
3%
4%
3%
2%
3%
2%
**
4%
2%
2%
Don't know
5
*
1
2
5
9
-
2
**
1
-
7
1%
*%
1%
*%
1%
*%
-%
1%
**
1%
-%
*%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe16 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
346
193
121
314
803
2061
183
288
33
54
105
1962
Effective Weighted Sample
285
155
99
249
654
1683
141
227
23
44
82
1627
Total
287
128
62
190
580
1730
199
210
24
35
74
1715
General surfing/ browsing the internet
195
77
35
112
380
1288
141
141
**
**
51
1285
68%
60%
57%
59%
66%
74%
71%
67%
**
**
69%
75%
cd
h
Sending and receiving e-mail
201
77
34
111
341
1220
153
134
**
**
46
1232
70%
60%
55%
58%
59%
71%
77%
64%
**
**
62%
72%
bcd
h
Banking
114
46
13
59
185
834
80
82
**
**
29
830
40%
36%
22%
31%
32%
48%
40%
39%
**
**
40%
48%
cd
c
h
Using social networking sites (such as Facebook, LinkedIn or Bebo)
66
18
5
23
202
752
90
83
**
**
29
750
23%
14%
7%
12%
35%
44%
45%
40%
**
**
39%
44%
bcd
Purchasing goods/ services/ tickets etc.
86
35
11
47
151
667
61
81
**
**
32
646
30%
27%
19%
25%
26%
39%
31%
38%
**
**
44%
38%
c
Communicating via instant messaging e.g. Facebook Chat, MSN Messenger, Skype Chat
57
18
5
23
147
596
89
71
**
**
23
602
20%
14%
8%
12%
25%
34%
45%
34%
**
**
31%
35%
cd
f
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe16 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
346
193
121
314
803
2061
183
288
33
54
105
1962
Effective Weighted Sample
285
155
99
249
654
1683
141
227
23
44
82
1627
Total
287
128
62
190
580
1730
199
210
24
35
74
1715
Finding/ downloading information for work/ business
67
15
5
19
90
501
81
43
**
**
15
535
23%
11%
8%
10%
16%
29%
41%
21%
**
**
20%
31%
bcd
f
hk
Watching video clips/ webcasts (e.g. YouTube or X Factor)
36
12
4
16
115
426
72
49
**
**
12
450
13%
10%
6%
8%
20%
25%
36%
23%
**
**
16%
26%
f
k
Playing games online/ interactively
33
24
7
31
144
410
51
58
**
**
12
394
11%
19%
11%
16%
25%
24%
26%
28%
**
**
17%
23%
a
Watching catch-up TV (such as BBC iPlayer, Sky Player, ITV Player)
26
14
7
21
77
352
35
45
**
**
8
342
9%
11%
11%
11%
13%
20%
17%
21%
**
**
11%
20%
k
k
Finding/ downloading information for school/ college/ university/ homework
31
5
*
5
62
321
60
33
**
**
10
351
11%
4%
1%
3%
11%
19%
30%
16%
**
**
14%
20%
bcd
f
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe16 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
346
193
121
314
803
2061
183
288
33
54
105
1962
Effective Weighted Sample
285
155
99
249
654
1683
141
227
23
44
82
1627
Total
287
128
62
190
580
1730
199
210
24
35
74
1715
Downloading music files, movies or video clips
20
3
3
6
75
301
48
40
**
**
10
310
7%
3%
5%
3%
13%
17%
24%
19%
**
**
13%
18%
b
f
Watching live TV programmes
24
6
3
9
73
254
47
35
**
**
5
261
8%
5%
5%
5%
13%
15%
24%
16%
**
**
7%
15%
f
k
Using local council/ Government sites, e.g. to find information, to complete processes such as tax returns, to contact local MP
37
14
4
18
55
262
29
32
**
**
11
260
13%
11%
7%
10%
9%
15%
15%
15%
**
**
15%
15%
Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Skype
23
14
3
16
65
234
61
25
**
**
11
264
8%
11%
4%
8%
11%
14%
30%
12%
**
**
15%
15%
f
Uploading/ adding content to the internet e.g. photos, videos, blog posts
20
7
3
10
67
260
32
34
**
**
11
254
7%
5%
5%
5%
12%
15%
16%
16%
**
**
15%
15%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe16 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
346
193
121
314
803
2061
183
288
33
54
105
1962
Effective Weighted Sample
285
155
99
249
654
1683
141
227
23
44
82
1627
Total
287
128
62
190
580
1730
199
210
24
35
74
1715
To find information on health related issues e.g. NHS Direct/ NHS 24
30
7
6
13
65
240
39
40
**
**
16
238
10%
6%
10%
7%
11%
14%
20%
19%
**
**
22%
14%
l
l
Using Twitter (browsing/ reading site)
11
1
1
2
43
220
29
21
**
**
5
228
4%
1%
2%
1%
7%
13%
15%
10%
**
**
7%
13%
Listening to radio
23
8
4
12
45
188
22
26
**
**
10
185
8%
6%
6%
6%
8%
11%
11%
13%
**
**
13%
11%
Real time gambling/ trading/ auctions
12
5
1
6
33
169
4
14
**
**
4
160
4%
4%
2%
3%
6%
10%
2%
7%
**
**
5%
9%
g
Using Twitter (account holder, posting on site)
7
1
*
1
36
159
19
16
**
**
3
159
2%
1%
*%
1%
6%
9%
10%
8%
**
**
4%
9%
Downloading films (Video on Demand) e.g. LoveFilm, Netflix
4
2
*
2
26
120
24
21
**
**
1
122
1%
1%
*%
1%
4%
7%
12%
10%
**
**
2%
7%
f
k
k
Streamed audio services (free)
6
*
*
1
18
92
21
19
**
**
5
93
2%
*%
*%
*%
3%
5%
11%
9%
**
**
7%
5%
f
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe16 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
346
193
121
314
803
2061
183
288
33
54
105
1962
Effective Weighted Sample
285
155
99
249
654
1683
141
227
23
44
82
1627
Total
287
128
62
190
580
1730
199
210
24
35
74
1715
Communicating via chat rooms e.g. virtual assistance on a website, chatting on online dating sites
10
-
1
1
30
73
27
8
**
**
3
89
3%
-%
1%
*%
5%
4%
13%
4%
**
**
4%
5%
bd
f
Streamed audio services (subscription)
3
1
*
1
11
43
13
6
**
**
2
48
1%
*%
*%
*%
2%
2%
7%
3%
**
**
3%
3%
f
Other
7
1
2
3
12
21
1
6
**
**
2
15
2%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
*%
3%
**
**
3%
1%
l
USE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES
66
19
5
24
210
789
92
85
**
**
29
789
23%
14%
9%
13%
36%
46%
46%
41%
**
**
40%
46%
bcd
TV/ VIDEO VIEWING
51
19
10
29
137
537
77
65
**
**
18
547
18%
15%
16%
15%
24%
31%
39%
31%
**
**
24%
32%
USE TWITTER
11
2
1
3
50
238
31
23
**
**
5
246
4%
1%
2%
1%
9%
14%
15%
11%
**
**
7%
14%
STREAMED AUDIO SERVICES
6
1
*
1
21
102
22
19
**
**
6
103
2%
1%
*%
1%
4%
6%
11%
9%
**
**
8%
6%
f
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe16 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 346 | 193 | 121 | 314 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 285 | 155 | 99 | 249 |
| Total | 287 | 128 | 62 |
| None of these | 16 | 14 | 12 |
| 6% | 11% | 19% | 13% |
| a | a | l | l |
| Don't know | | | |
| 5 | * | 1 | 2 |
| 2% | *% | 2% | 1% |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe16 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
General surfing/ browsing the internet
195
77
35
112
380
1288
141
141
**
21
51
1285
55%
36%
18%
28%
42%
62%
64%
41%
**
30%
36%
65%
bcd
cd
c
j
hjk
Sending and receiving e-mail
201
77
34
111
341
1220
153
134
**
19
46
1232
57%
37%
17%
27%
38%
58%
69%
39%
**
27%
32%
62%
bcd
cd
c
f
j
hjk
Banking
114
46
13
59
185
834
80
82
**
8
29
830
32%
22%
7%
15%
20%
40%
37%
24%
**
12%
21%
42%
bcd
cd
c
j
hjk
Using social networking sites (such as Facebook, LinkedIn or Bebo)
66
18
5
23
202
752
90
83
**
8
29
750
19%
9%
2%
6%
22%
36%
41%
24%
**
11%
20%
38%
bcd
c
c
j
hjk
Purchasing goods/ services/ tickets etc.
86
35
11
47
151
667
61
81
**
12
32
646
24%
17%
6%
12%
17%
32%
28%
24%
**
17%
23%
33%
bcd
cd
c
hjk
Communicating via instant messaging e.g. Facebook Chat, MSN Messenger, Skype Chat
57
18
5
23
147
596
89
71
**
9
23
602
16%
9%
2%
6%
16%
29%
40%
21%
**
13%
16%
31%
bcd
c
c
f
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe16 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Finding/ downloading information for work/ business
67
15
5
19
90
501
81
43
**
5
15
535
19%
7%
2%
5%
10%
24%
37%
13%
**
7%
10%
27%
bcd
c
f
hjk
Watching video clips/ webcasts (e.g. YouTube or X Factor)
36
12
4
16
115
426
72
49
**
4
12
450
10%
6%
2%
4%
13%
20%
32%
14%
**
6%
8%
23%
cd
c
f
jk
hjk
Playing games online/ interactively
33
24
7
31
144
410
51
58
**
8
12
394
9%
12%
4%
8%
16%
20%
23%
17%
**
12%
9%
20%
c
c
c
k
k
Watching catch-up TV (such as BBC iPlayer, Sky Player, ITV Player)
26
14
7
21
77
352
35
45
**
6
8
342
7%
7%
4%
5%
8%
17%
16%
13%
**
9%
6%
17%
c
k
hjk
Finding/ downloading information for school/ college/ university/ homework
31
5
*
5
62
321
60
33
**
4
10
351
9%
2%
*%
1%
7%
15%
27%
10%
**
5%
7%
18%
bcd
c
f
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe16 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Downloading music files, movies or video clips
20
3
3
6
75
301
48
40
**
4
10
310
6%
2%
2%
2%
8%
14%
22%
12%
**
5%
7%
16%
bcd
f
hjk
Watching live TV programmes
24
6
3
9
73
254
47
35
**
4
5
261
7%
3%
2%
2%
8%
12%
22%
10%
**
6%
4%
13%
bcd
f
k
jk
Using local council/ Government sites, e.g. to find information, to complete processes such as tax returns, to contact local MP
37
14
4
18
55
262
29
32
**
4
11
260
11%
7%
2%
5%
6%
13%
13%
9%
**
6%
8%
13%
cd
c
hk
Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Skype
23
14
3
16
65
234
61
25
**
2
11
264
6%
6%
1%
4%
7%
11%
27%
7%
**
3%
8%
13%
c
c
c
f
hjk
Uploading/ adding content to the internet e.g. photos, videos, blog posts
20
7
3
10
67
260
32
34
**
2
11
254
6%
3%
2%
3%
7%
12%
15%
10%
**
3%
8%
13%
cd
j
jk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe16 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
To find information on health related issues e.g. NHS Direct/ NHS 24
30
7
6
13
65
240
39
40
**
2
16
238
8%
3%
3%
3%
7%
11%
18%
12%
**
3%
12%
12%
bcd
f
j
j
j
Using Twitter (browsing/ reading site)
11
1
1
2
43
220
29
21
**
1
5
228
3%
1%
1%
1%
5%
11%
13%
6%
**
2%
4%
12%
bcd
hjk
Listening to radio
23
8
4
12
45
188
22
26
**
3
10
185
7%
4%
2%
3%
5%
9%
10%
8%
**
5%
7%
9%
cd
Real time gambling/ trading/ auctions
12
5
1
6
33
169
4
14
**
1
4
160
3%
2%
1%
1%
4%
8%
2%
4%
**
2%
3%
8%
cd
g
hjk
Using Twitter (account holder, posting on site)
7
1
*
1
36
159
19
16
**
1
3
159
2%
*%
*%
*%
4%
8%
9%
5%
**
1%
2%
8%
cd
hjk
Downloading films (Video on Demand) e.g. LoveFilm, Netflix
4
2
*
2
26
120
24
21
**
*
1
122
1%
1%
*%
*%
3%
6%
11%
6%
**
*%
1%
6%
f
jk
jk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QE16 (QE5B) SHOWCARD And, which, if any, of these activities have you used the internet for in the LAST WEEK? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Streamed audio services (free)
6
*
*
1
18
92
21
19
**
2
5
93
2%
*%
*%
*%
2%
4%
10%
5%
**
3%
4%
5%
cd
f
Communicating via chat rooms e.g. virtual
assistance on a website, chatting on online dating sites
10
-
1
1
30
73
27
8
**
*
3
89
3%
-%
*%
*%
3%
3%
12%
2%
**
*%
2%
4%
bcd
f
Streamed audio services (subscription)
3
1
*
1
11
43
13
6
**
-
2
48
1%
*%
*%
*%
1%
2%
6%
2%
**
-%
2%
2%
f
Other
7
1
2
3
12
21
1
6
**
1
2
15
2%
*%
1%
1%
1%
1%
*%
2%
**
2%
1%
1%
l
USE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES
66
19
5
24
210
789
92
85
**
8
29
789
19%
9%
3%
6%
23%
38%
42%
25%
**
11%
21%
40%
bcd
c
c
j
hjk
TV/ VIDEO VIEWING
51
19
10
29
137
537
77
65
**
11
18
547
14%
9%
5%
7%
15%
26%
35%
19%
**
16%
13%
28%
cd
f
hjk
USE TWITTER
11
2
1
3
50
238
31
23
**
2
5
246
3%
1%
1%
1%
6%
11%
14%
7%
**
3%
4%
12%
bcd
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QE16 (QE5B) SHOWCARD And, which, if any, of these activities have you used the internet for in the LAST WEEK? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| STREAMED AUDIO SERVICES | 6 | 1 | * |
| 2% | 1% | *% | *% |
| cd | f | | |
| None of these | | | |
| 16 | 14 | 12 | 25 |
| 5% | 6% | 6% | 6% |
| Don't know | 5 | * | 1 |
| 1% | *% | 1% | *% |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe17 (Qe24). Showcard How Likely Are You To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code)
Base : Those without internet access at home
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 87 | 117 | 254 | 371 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 70 | 90 | 205 | 290 |
| Total | 67 | 73 | 128 |
| Certain to | ** | * | * |
| ** | 1% | *% | *% |
| Very likely | ** | 1 | 1 |
| ** | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Likely | ** | 2 | 2 |
| ** | 3% | 2% | 2% |
| hk | | | |
| TOTAL LIKELY | ** | 3 | 3 |
| ** | 4% | 3% | 3% |
| hk | | | |
| Unlikely | ** | 10 | 5 |
| ** | 14% | 4% | 8% |
| c | | | |
| Very unlikely | ** | 14 | 18 |
| ** | 20% | 14% | 16% |
| Certain not to | ** | 38 | 84 |
| ** | 52% | 66% | 61% |
| b | l | l | |
| TOTAL UNLIKELY | ** | 62 | 107 |
| ** | 86% | 84% | 85% |
| l | l | | |
| Don't know | ** | 7 | 17 |
| ** | 10% | 13% | 12% |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe18A (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 63 | 101 | 217 | 318 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 49 | 77 | 175 | 248 |
| Total | 48 | 62 | 107 |
| No need | ** | 39 | 73 |
| ** | 63% | 68% | 66% |
| Don't want a computer | ** | 28 | 31 |
| ** | 45% | 29% | 35% |
| c | | | |
| Too old to use the internet | ** | 15 | 41 |
| ** | 25% | 38% | 33% |
| b | l | | |
| Too expensive to set up | ** | 10 | 8 |
| ** | 16% | 7% | 11% |
| c | h | | |
| Don't know how you use computers | | | |
| ** | 8 | 25 | 34 |
| ** | 13% | 24% | 20% |
| l | | | |
| Computer is too expensive to buy | ** | 4 | 8 |
| ** | 7% | 8% | 7% |
| Don't have a phone line | ** | 3 | 4 |
| ** | 4% | 4% | 4% |
| Charges are too expensive | ** | 2 | 3 |
| ** | 4% | 3% | 3% |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe18A (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 63 | 101 | 217 | 318 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 49 | 77 | 175 | 248 |
| Total | 48 | 62 | 107 |
| Friends/ family member checks things on the | | | |
| internet for me | ** | 7 | 6 |
| ** | 12% | 6% | 8% |
| Satisfied with using the internet elsewhere | ** | * | 1 |
| ** | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| h | | | |
| Concerned about security/ fraud | ** | 2 | 1 |
| ** | 4% | 1% | 2% |
| Worries/ concerns about privacy issues | ** | 2 | 1 |
| ** | 3% | 1% | 2% |
| Satisfied with using the internet at work | | | |
| ** | - | - | - |
| ** | -% | -% | -% |
| Other | ** | 1 | 4 |
| ** | 1% | 4% | 3% |
| l | | | |
| ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS | ** | 31 | 64 |
| ** | 50% | 60% | 56% |
| ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS | ** | 55 | 89 |
| ** | 88% | 83% | 84% |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe18A (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 63 | 101 | 217 | 318 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 49 | 77 | 175 | 248 |
| Total | 48 | 62 | 107 |
| ONLY VOLUNTARY REASONS | ** | 31 | 42 |
| ** | 50% | 39% | 43% |
| Don't know | ** | - | 1 |
| ** | -% | 1% | *% |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe18B (Qe25B). And, Which One Of These Reasons Is Your Main Reason For Not Getting Internet Access At Home? (Single Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 63 | 101 | 217 | 318 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 49 | 77 | 175 | 248 |
| Total | 48 | 62 | 107 |
| No need | ** | 25 | 47 |
| ** | 40% | 44% | 43% |
| Don't want a computer | ** | 18 | 13 |
| ** | 29% | 12% | 18% |
| cd | | | |
| Too old to use the internet | ** | 8 | 26 |
| ** | 12% | 24% | 20% |
| b | l | | |
| Too expensive to set up | ** | 3 | 1 |
| ** | 6% | 1% | 3% |
| c | h | | |
| Don't know how you use computers | | | |
| ** | 5 | 8 | 13 |
| ** | 8% | 8% | 8% |
| Computer is too expensive to buy | ** | 1 | 3 |
| ** | 1% | 3% | 2% |
| Satisfied with using the internet elsewhere | ** | - | 1 |
| ** | -% | 1% | 1% |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe18B (Qe25B). And, Which One Of These Reasons Is Your Main Reason For Not Getting Internet Access At Home? (Single Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|--------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 63 | 101 | 217 | 318 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 49 | 77 | 175 | 248 |
| Total | 48 | 62 | 107 |
| Friends/family member checks things on the | | | |
| internet for me | ** | 1 | 3 |
| ** | 1% | 3% | 2% |
| Charges are too expensive | ** | * | 2 |
| ** | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Don't have a phone line | ** | 1 | - |
| ** | 2% | -% | 1% |
| Other | ** | 1 | 3 |
| ** | 1% | 3% | 2% |
| ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS | ** | 18 | 40 |
| ** | 29% | 37% | 34% |
| ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS | | | |
| ** | 44 | 64 | 107 |
| ** | 70% | 59% | 63% |
| Don't know | ** | - | 1 |
| ** | -% | 1% | *% |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QE19 (QE22). SHOWCARD Thinking about personal computers or desktop PCs or laptops, do you ever have/ think you might have difficulties doing any of the following? (MULTICODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Using the mouse
9
10
19
29
38
53
6
33
**
11
17
28
2%
5%
10%
7%
4%
3%
3%
10%
**
15%
12%
1%
ab
a
l
l
l
Using the keyboard
8
10
19
29
40
48
5
30
**
11
17
24
2%
5%
10%
7%
4%
2%
2%
9%
**
16%
12%
1%
ab
a
l
hl
l
Seeing the monitor display
3
5
15
20
27
28
1
23
**
9
10
6
1%
2%
8%
5%
3%
1%
*%
7%
**
14%
7%
*%
ab
a
l
hl
l
Seeing the letters and symbols on the keyboard
3
6
13
19
23
23
1
19
**
11
10
6
1%
3%
7%
5%
3%
1%
*%
5%
**
15%
7%
*%
ab
a
l
hkl
l
Any other difficulties
8
3
3
7
12
25
3
6
**
2
4
20
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
**
2%
3%
1%
l
No, none
311
159
118
277
730
1874
206
255
**
45
99
1829
88%
75%
60%
68%
80%
90%
94%
74%
**
65%
69%
93%
bcd
cd
c
hjk
Don't know
20
33
48
81
109
112
4
38
**
10
19
79
6%
16%
24%
20%
12%
5%
2%
11%
**
15%
13%
4%
a
ab
a
g
l
l
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe20 (Qe41). Showcard Thinking About Tablet Computers, Do You Ever Have/ Think You Might Have Difficulties Doing Any Of The Following? (Multicode)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Using touch to open, close or move within the screen
5
14
18
32
46
71
3
35
**
12
18
42
1%
7%
9%
8%
5%
3%
1%
10%
**
18%
12%
2%
a
a
a
l
hl
l
Using the letters displayed on the on-screen keyboard
8
9
15
24
32
37
1
24
**
10
15
14
2%
4%
8%
6%
3%
2%
1%
7%
**
14%
11%
1%
a
a
l
hl
l
Seeing the screen display
1
6
13
20
24
29
1
24
**
9
11
6
*%
3%
7%
5%
3%
1%
1%
7%
**
13%
8%
*%
a
a
a
l
l
l
Seeing the letters and symbols on the onscreen keyboard
1
5
11
16
18
19
-
17
**
9
9
4
*%
2%
6%
4%
2%
1%
-%
5%
**
13%
6%
*%
a
a
a
l
hl
l
Any other difficulties
1
3
4
7
8
14
3
4
**
-
2
12
*%
1%
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
**
-%
2%
1%
a
a
No, none
295
140
100
241
663
1755
203
227
**
38
87
1734
84%
67%
51%
59%
73%
84%
92%
66%
**
54%
61%
88%
bcd
cd
c
f
j
hjk
Don't know
46
51
67
118
179
229
10
68
**
17
32
174
13%
24%
34%
29%
20%
11%
5%
20%
**
24%
22%
9%
a
ab
a
g
l
l
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe21 (Qe29). Explain That Phone Calls Can Be Made Using The Internet Using Services Such As Skype. Before Now, Were You Aware That You Could Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| Yes | 280 | 135 | 83 |
| 79% | 64% | 43% | 54% |
| bcd | cd | c | f |
| No | | | |
| 67 | 69 | 106 | 175 |
| 19% | 33% | 54% | 43% |
| a | abd | ab | g |
| Don't know | 7 | 7 | 6 |
| 2% | 3% | 3% | 3% |
| l | l | l | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QE22 (QE30). Have you or anyone in your household ever used one of these services to make voice calls using the internet at home? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| Yes & currently using | 83 | 43 | 16 |
| 24% | 20% | 8% | 14% |
| cd | cd | c | f |
| Yes but stopped using | | | |
| 28 | 9 | 7 | 16 |
| 8% | 4% | 4% | 4% |
| bcd | | | |
| TOTAL YES | 112 | 51 | 23 |
| 32% | 24% | 12% | 18% |
| cd | cd | c | f |
| No never used | 233 | 155 | 166 |
| 66% | 74% | 85% | 79% |
| a | abd | a | g |
| Don't know | 9 | 4 | 6 |
| 2% | 2% | 3% | 2% |
| l | | | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe23 (Qe31). Showcard Which Supplier Does/ Did Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
Unweighted total
134
83
42
125
298
915
120
122
15
23
52
916
Effective Weighted Sample
111
69
34
103
241
749
91
98
11
20
42
760
Total
112
51
23
74
213
792
137
97
12
17
41
825
Skype
96
**
**
66
188
700
129
81
**
**
**
739
86%
**
**
89%
88%
88%
94%
84%
**
**
**
90%
FaceTime
7
**
**
*
9
35
1
2
**
**
**
34
6%
**
**
1%
4%
4%
*%
2%
**
**
**
4%
d
Viber
2
**
**
-
5
12
12
1
**
**
**
24
2%
**
**
-%
2%
2%
9%
1%
**
**
**
3%
f
MSN Messenger
2
**
**
1
8
16
4
1
**
**
**
18
2%
**
**
1%
4%
2%
3%
1%
**
**
**
2%
BT Broadband voice/Home Hub
1
**
**
2
3
13
2
3
**
**
**
12
1%
**
**
2%
1%
2%
1%
3%
**
**
**
2%
Yahoo Messenger
1
**
**
-
5
3
13
1
**
**
**
13
1%
**
**
-%
2%
*%
10%
1%
**
**
**
2%
f
Vonage
-
**
**
1
1
11
3
1
**
**
**
13
-%
**
**
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
**
**
**
2%
Orange broadband/ Wanadoo/ Livebox
1
**
**
-
-
5
-
1
**
**
**
4
1%
**
**
-%
-%
1%
-%
1%
**
**
**
1%
Plusnet (Plustalk)
1
**
**
*
2
5
-
*
**
**
**
5
1%
**
**
*%
1%
1%
-%
*%
**
**
**
1%
Other
4
**
**
1
4
22
2
6
**
**
**
18
3%
**
**
1%
2%
3%
2%
7%
**
**
**
2%
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe23 (Qe31). Showcard Which Supplier Does/ Did Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 134 | 83 | 42 | 125 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 111 | 69 | 34 | 103 |
| Total | 112 | 51 | 23 |
| Don't know | 6 | ** | ** |
| 5% | ** | ** | 5% |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe24 (Qe33). Showcard Which Device Or Devices Does Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
Unweighted total
134
83
42
125
298
915
120
122
15
23
52
916
Effective Weighted Sample
111
69
34
103
241
749
91
98
11
20
42
760
Total
112
51
23
74
213
792
137
97
12
17
41
825
Laptop
69
**
**
47
135
504
107
65
**
**
**
540
62%
**
**
63%
63%
64%
78%
67%
**
**
**
65%
f
Desktop PC
52
**
**
26
68
215
33
33
**
**
**
214
46%
**
**
34%
32%
27%
24%
34%
**
**
**
26%
Tablet computer (e.g. iPad)
11
**
**
11
36
145
33
15
**
**
**
156
10%
**
**
15%
17%
18%
24%
16%
**
**
**
19%
Smartphone
7
**
**
-
27
130
36
15
**
**
**
145
6%
**
**
-%
13%
16%
26%
15%
**
**
**
18%
d
f
Netbook
1
**
**
1
5
18
4
3
**
**
**
20
1%
**
**
1%
2%
2%
3%
3%
**
**
**
2%
Other
2
**
**
4
4
10
-
4
**
**
**
5
1%
**
**
5%
2%
1%
-%
4%
**
**
**
1%
l
Don't know
1
**
**
*
*
12
-
*
**
**
**
11
1%
**
**
*%
*%
1%
-%
*%
**
**
**
1%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qe25 (Qe34). Do You Pay For Any Elements Of Your Service To Make Calls Using The Internet? Perhaps Calls Made To Landline Or Mobile Phones, Or Any Equipment Or Software You Needed To Purchase Solely To Be Able To Make Calls Using The Internet. (Single Code)
Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | 134 | 83 | 42 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | 111 | 69 | 34 |
| Total | 112 | 51 | 23 |
| Yes, pay for any elements | 11 | ** | ** |
| 10% | ** | ** | 3% |
| d | | | |
| No, do not pay for any elements | 91 | ** | ** |
| 82% | ** | ** | 89% |
| Don't know | | | |
| 9 | ** | ** | 6 |
| 8% | ** | ** | 8% |
| g | | | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary - Access To/ Use Of Internet Across Any Connection/ Any Device/ Any Location
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| ACCESS TO INTERNET - ANY | | | |
| CONNECTION/ ANY DEVICE/ ANY | | | |
| LOCATION | 296 | 139 | 69 |
| 84% | 66% | 35% | 51% |
| bcd | cd | c | f |
| USE INTERNET - ANY CONNECTION/ ANY | | | |
| DEVICE/ ANY LOCATION | 288 | 128 | 62 |
| 82% | 61% | 32% | 47% |
| bcd | cd | c | f |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary - Access To Internet
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
ACCESS TO INTERNET AT HOME
285
138
66
204
569
1700
199
215
**
37
76
1682
81%
65%
34%
50%
63%
81%
90%
63%
**
54%
53%
85%
bcd
cd
c
f
k
hjk
ACCESS TO INTERNET AT HOME OR
USES A MOBILE PHONE/ DEVICE TO CONNECT TO INTERNET
286
138
66
204
593
1737
201
218
**
38
77
1719
81%
65%
34%
50%
65%
83%
91%
64%
**
55%
54%
87%
bcd
cd
c
f
k
hjk
MOBILE INTERNET (MOBILE BROADBAND OR VIA MOBILE PHONE)
127
32
8
40
307
1173
148
109
**
10
33
1206
36%
15%
4%
10%
34%
56%
67%
32%
**
15%
23%
61%
bcd
cd
c
f
jk
hjk
MOBILE PHONE ACCESS ONLY
5
1
*
2
60
108
8
14
**
1
4
102
1%
1%
*%
*%
7%
5%
3%
4%
**
1%
3%
5%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qb1. Showcard Do You Or Does Anyone In Your Household Have An E-Reader, Or Digital Book Reader In Your Home At The Moment? (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| Yes | 94 | 34 | 15 |
| 27% | 16% | 8% | 12% |
| bcd | c | c | g |
| No | | | |
| 256 | 177 | 180 | 357 |
| 72% | 84% | 92% | 88% |
| a | ab | a | f |
| Don't know | 3 | - | * |
| 1% | -% | *% | *% |
| f | | | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qb2. Showcard And Do You Personally Use This E-Reader, Or Digital Book Reader? (Single Code)
Base : Those who have access to an e-reader/ digital book reader at home
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
l
Unweighted total
117
50
28
78
156
557
26
70
8
17
31
515
Effective Weighted Sample
97
41
22
63
127
455
20
58
5
13
26
426
Total
94
34
15
49
109
471
28
48
4
11
19
449
Yes
71
**
**
**
76
324
**
**
**
**
**
312
76%
**
**
**
70%
69%
**
**
**
**
**
69%
No
23
**
**
**
33
146
**
**
**
**
**
136
24%
**
**
**
30%
31%
**
**
**
**
**
30%
Don't know
-
**
**
**
-
1
**
**
**
**
**
1
-%
**
**
**
-%
*%
**
**
**
**
**
*%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QH1A. SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these types of television does your household receive at the moment? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Cable TV (through Virgin Media - previously NTL and Telewest)
65
40
13
53
132
343
39
46
**
9
23
335
18%
19%
7%
13%
15%
16%
18%
13%
**
13%
16%
17%
cd
cd
c
Satellite TV (Sky)
121
55
43
98
267
782
97
109
**
19
40
778
34%
26%
22%
24%
29%
37%
44%
32%
**
27%
28%
39%
bcd
hjk
Satellite (Freesat)
18
9
7
16
31
91
2
17
**
3
6
76
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
4%
1%
5%
**
5%
4%
4%
g
Satellite TV (Other)
1
-
*
*
3
6
1
-
**
-
-
7
*%
-%
*%
*%
*%
*%
*%
-%
**
-%
-%
*%
Freeview (through a set-top box or digital television set) with ONLY free channels
171
113
131
244
499
977
75
189
**
41
83
876
48%
54%
67%
60%
55%
47%
34%
55%
**
59%
58%
44%
abd
a
g
l
l
l
Freeview (through a set-top box or digital television set) with free channels PLUS topup channels such as ESPN, TV favourites, Picturebox films)
19
12
13
25
54
99
8
17
**
4
6
90
5%
6%
7%
6%
6%
5%
4%
5%
**
6%
4%
5%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QH1A. SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these types of television does your household receive at the moment? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
TV via a broadband DSL line (e.g. BT Vision, Tiscali)
7
2
2
4
18
59
4
10
**
2
4
53
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
3%
2%
3%
**
3%
3%
3%
YouView (through a set-top box connected to
your aerial and broadband)
1
1
-
1
3
11
-
2
**
-
-
9
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
1%
-%
1%
**
-%
-%
*%
No TV in household
6
2
2
4
12
31
25
6
**
-
2
43
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
11%
2%
**
-%
2%
2%
f
Don't know
-
-
3
3
3
3
-
*
**
-
*
3
-%
-%
1%
1%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
-%
*%
*%
a
MAIN TV PLATFORM DIGITAL TOTAL
348
209
191
399
893
2053
195
337
**
69
140
1926
98%
99%
98%
98%
98%
98%
89%
98%
**
100%
98%
98%
g
FREEVIEW TOTAL
148
109
129
238
465
820
57
164
**
38
71
723
42%
52%
66%
59%
51%
39%
26%
48%
**
55%
50%
37%
a
abd
a
g
l
l
l
FREEVIEW ONLY
130
100
117
217
422
743
53
150
**
35
67
657
37%
48%
60%
54%
46%
36%
24%
44%
**
50%
47%
33%
a
ab
a
g
l
l
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QH1A. SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these types of television does your household receive at the moment? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
PAY DIGITAL
195
96
61
157
421
1168
132
155
**
27
63
1145
55%
46%
32%
39%
46%
56%
60%
45%
**
39%
44%
58%
bcd
c
c
hjk
CABLE
65
39
12
51
129
335
39
44
**
8
22
329
18%
18%
6%
13%
14%
16%
18%
13%
**
12%
15%
17%
cd
cd
c
SATELLITE
128
57
48
105
280
839
94
119
**
22
42
820
36%
27%
24%
26%
31%
40%
43%
35%
**
32%
29%
42%
bcd
hk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QH1B. SHOWCARD And which of these do you consider is your MAIN type of television? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Cable TV (through Virgin Media - previously NTL and Telewest)
65
39
12
51
129
335
39
44
**
8
22
329
18%
18%
6%
13%
14%
16%
18%
13%
**
12%
15%
17%
cd
cd
c
Satellite TV (Sky)
114
52
41
93
254
762
92
104
**
19
38
755
32%
25%
21%
23%
28%
37%
42%
30%
**
27%
27%
38%
bcd
hjk
Satellite (Freesat)
13
5
7
12
24
71
2
14
**
3
4
58
4%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
1%
4%
**
5%
3%
3%
Satellite TV (Other)
1
-
-
-
3
6
1
-
**
-
-
6
*%
-%
-%
-%
*%
*%
*%
-%
**
-%
-%
*%
Freeview (through a set-top box or digital television set) with ONLY free channels
130
100
117
217
422
743
53
150
**
35
67
657
37%
48%
60%
54%
46%
36%
24%
44%
**
50%
47%
33%
a
ab
a
g
l
l
l
Freeview (through a set-top box or digital television set) with free channels PLUS topup channels such as ESPN, TV favourites, Picturebox films)
17
9
11
21
43
76
5
15
**
3
4
66
5%
4%
6%
5%
5%
4%
2%
4%
**
5%
3%
3%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QH1B. SHOWCARD And which of these do you consider is your MAIN type of television? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
TV via a broadband DSL line (e.g. BT Vision, Tiscali)
6
2
2
4
16
50
4
9
**
1
4
45
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
3%
**
1%
3%
2%
YouView (through a set-top box connected to
your aerial and broadband)
1
1
-
1
3
10
-
1
**
-
-
8
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
-%
-%
*%
No TV in household
6
2
2
4
12
31
25
6
**
-
2
43
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
11%
2%
**
-%
2%
2%
f
Don't know
-
-
3
3
3
3
-
*
**
-
*
3
-%
-%
1%
1%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
-%
*%
*%
a
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Tv Multi-Platform Ownership
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
CABLE ONLY
58
32
10
43
108
286
30
37
**
6
19
278
16%
15%
5%
11%
12%
14%
14%
11%
**
9%
13%
14%
cd
c
c
CABLE AND FREEVIEW
7
6
3
9
22
51
9
6
**
3
3
54
2%
3%
1%
2%
2%
2%
4%
2%
**
4%
2%
3%
FREEVIEW ONLY
137
105
126
231
449
791
53
162
**
37
68
691
39%
50%
65%
57%
49%
38%
24%
47%
**
54%
48%
35%
a
abd
a
g
l
l
l
SATELLITE AND FREEVIEW
45
11
14
25
73
216
20
30
**
4
13
212
13%
5%
7%
6%
8%
10%
9%
9%
**
6%
9%
11%
bcd
SATELLITE ONLY
93
50
35
85
219
639
79
90
**
17
31
630
26%
24%
18%
21%
24%
31%
36%
26%
**
25%
22%
32%
c
hk
NO TV
6
2
2
4
12
31
25
6
**
-
2
43
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
11%
2%
**
-%
2%
2%
f
OTHER
7
4
2
6
22
70
5
13
**
2
5
62
2%
2%
1%
2%
2%
3%
2%
4%
**
3%
4%
3%
Mean TV platforms
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
**
1.1
1.1
1.1
cd
g
Standard deviation
.41
.35
.35
.35
.37
.39
.51
.41
**
.33
.41
.40
Standard error
.02
.02
.02
.01
.01
.01
.03
.02
**
.03
.03
.01
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Multichannel Tv Ownership
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
ALL MULTICHANNEL TV
348
209
191
399
893
2053
195
337
**
69
140
1926
98%
99%
98%
98%
98%
98%
89%
98%
**
100%
98%
98%
g
DIGITAL TERRESTRIAL
190
124
144
268
549
1073
82
205
**
45
89
964
54%
59%
74%
66%
60%
51%
37%
60%
**
65%
62%
49%
abd
a
g
l
l
l
DIGITAL SATELLITE
139
62
49
111
296
866
99
124
**
22
45
850
39%
29%
25%
27%
33%
41%
45%
36%
**
32%
31%
43%
bcd
hjk
PAY DIGITAL SATELLITE
109
46
37
83
238
715
87
90
**
15
33
714
31%
22%
19%
21%
26%
34%
39%
26%
**
22%
23%
36%
bcd
hjk
FREE DIGITAL SATELLITE
25
13
11
24
52
128
12
29
**
6
9
114
7%
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
8%
**
9%
6%
6%
l
CABLE
65
40
13
53
132
343
39
46
**
9
23
335
18%
19%
7%
13%
15%
16%
18%
13%
**
13%
16%
17%
cd
cd
c
NO MULTICHANNEL TV
6
2
4
6
16
35
25
6
**
-
3
46
2%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
11%
2%
**
-%
2%
2%
f
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh2 (Qh66). What Are The Reasons Why You Don'T Have A Television Set In Your Household?
Base : Those without a TV in the household
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
~e
~f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
Unweighted total
8
3
4
7
17
36
16
7
1
2
45
Effective Weighted Sample
7
3
3
6
14
28
11
5
1
2
38
Total
6
2
2
4
12
31
25
6
*
2
43
Not interested in watching TV
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't want to/ can't afford to pay the TV
Licence
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Busy with other interests
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Watch online instead
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Can't afford to replace broken TV set
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Too expensive to buy and install
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Recently moved home
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh3. Showcard Which Of The Following Best Describes Your Satellite Tv Service/S? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with Satellite TV
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|----------------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 174 | 102 | 95 | 197 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 142 | 85 | 75 | 160 |
| Total | 139 | 62 | 49 |
| Sky satellite dish to receive subscription | | | |
| channels - you pay a monthly subscription | | | |
| fee | 108 | 46 | ** |
| 78% | 75% | ** | 75% |
| h | | | |
| Sky satellite dish for free to air services only - | | | |
| you pay no monthly subscription fee | 16 | 7 | ** |
| 12% | 12% | ** | 10% |
| l | | | |
| Freesat standard package with a dish and | | | |
| standard set top box - you do not pay a | | | |
| subscription fee | 8 | 4 | ** |
| 6% | 7% | ** | 9% |
| Freesat HD package with a dish and high | | | |
| definition (HD) set top box - you do not pay a | | | |
| subscription fee | 2 | 1 | ** |
| 1% | 2% | ** | 2% |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh3. Showcard Which Of The Following Best Describes Your Satellite Tv Service/S? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with Satellite TV
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|--------------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 174 | 102 | 95 | 197 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 142 | 85 | 75 | 160 |
| Total | 139 | 62 | 49 |
| Other satellite dish, showing mainly non- | | | |
| English programmes where you pay a | | | |
| monthly subscription fee | 1 | - | ** |
| 1% | -% | ** | -% |
| Other satellite dish, showing mainly non- | | | |
| English programmes where you do not pay a | | | |
| monthly subscription fee | 1 | - | ** |
| 1% | -% | ** | -% |
| Broadband satellite - satellite provided for the | | | |
| use of broadband internet access but used to | | | |
| access free to air satellite programmes | 1 | 1 | ** |
| *% | 2% | ** | 1% |
| PAY SATELLITE | | | |
| 109 | 46 | ** | 83 |
| 79% | 75% | ** | 75% |
| h | | | |
| Don't know | 3 | 2 | ** |
| 2% | 3% | ** | 4% |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh4. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Sky Satellite Service? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with paid for Sky Satellite TV
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
d
e
f
~g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
Unweighted total
140
79
73
152
353
905
86
138
18
24
55
856
Effective Weighted Sample
112
65
57
121
280
734
70
109
13
18
44
707
Total
108
46
37
83
236
710
87
90
13
15
33
709
Sky Sports 1 only
4
**
**
3
5
11
**
3
**
**
**
9
3%
**
**
4%
2%
2%
**
3%
**
**
**
1%
Sky Sports 2 only
-
**
**
1
1
2
**
-
**
**
**
3
-%
**
**
1%
*%
*%
**
-%
**
**
**
*%
Sky Sports Pack (Sky Sports 1, 2, 3 and 4)
30
**
**
27
61
230
**
22
**
**
**
235
28%
**
**
33%
26%
32%
**
24%
**
**
**
33%
Sky Movies 1 only (Comedy, Family, Classics, Modern Greats, Drama & Romance)
5
**
**
5
15
34
**
4
**
**
**
41
5%
**
**
6%
6%
5%
**
4%
**
**
**
6%
Sky Movies 2 only (Comedy, Indie, Sci-Fi & Horror, Crime & Thriller, Action & Adventure)
1
**
**
-
3
11
**
1
**
**
**
9
1%
**
**
-%
1%
2%
**
1%
**
**
**
1%
Sky Movies Pack (All Sky Movies channels in Sky Movies 1 and 2, plus Premiere and Disney Cinemagic)
27
**
**
13
47
194
**
19
**
**
**
204
25%
**
**
16%
20%
27%
**
21%
**
**
**
29%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh4. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Sky Satellite Service? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with paid for Sky Satellite TV
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
~b
~c
d
e
f
~g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
Unweighted total
140
79
73
152
353
905
86
138
18
24
55
856
Effective Weighted Sample
112
65
57
121
280
734
70
109
13
18
44
707
Total
108
46
37
83
236
710
87
90
13
15
33
709
Sky+ HD (High Definition channels through Sky+ HD box)
50
**
**
25
76
295
**
32
**
**
**
285
46%
**
**
30%
32%
42%
**
35%
**
**
**
40%
d
ANY SKY SPORTS
34
**
**
31
66
243
**
25
**
**
**
247
31%
**
**
37%
28%
34%
**
27%
**
**
**
35%
ANY SKY MOVIES
33
**
**
18
65
238
**
23
**
**
**
254
31%
**
**
22%
28%
34%
**
26%
**
**
**
36%
h
SKY SPORTS AND SKY MOVIES
20
**
**
8
30
134
**
10
**
**
**
146
18%
**
**
9%
13%
19%
**
11%
**
**
**
21%
d
h
Basic package only
31
**
**
30
90
217
**
34
**
**
**
211
29%
**
**
36%
38%
31%
**
37%
**
**
**
30%
None of these
1
**
**
*
3
7
**
1
**
**
**
6
1%
**
**
1%
1%
1%
**
1%
**
**
**
1%
Don't know
3
**
**
1
4
20
**
1
**
**
**
23
3%
**
**
1%
2%
3%
**
1%
**
**
**
3%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh5. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Cable Tv Service? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with Cable TV
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
l
Unweighted total
75
52
26
78
171
395
37
60
9
12
29
373
Effective Weighted Sample
59
42
22
61
139
318
29
47
7
10
23
305
Total
65
40
13
53
132
343
39
46
7
9
23
335
Sky Sports channels
**
**
**
**
16
72
**
**
**
**
**
77
**
**
**
**
12%
21%
**
**
**
**
**
23%
Sky Movies channels
**
**
**
**
13
53
**
**
**
**
**
55
**
**
**
**
10%
15%
**
**
**
**
**
17%
High Definition channel through V+ HD box
**
**
**
**
38
111
**
**
**
**
**
106
**
**
**
**
29%
32%
**
**
**
**
**
32%
Basic package only
**
**
**
**
68
160
**
**
**
**
**
162
**
**
**
**
51%
47%
**
**
**
**
**
48%
None of these
**
**
**
**
10
20
**
**
**
**
**
18
**
**
**
**
8%
6%
**
**
**
**
**
5%
Don't know
**
**
**
**
6
9
**
**
**
**
**
6
**
**
**
**
5%
3%
**
**
**
**
**
2%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh6 (Qh23). Showcard Thinking About Televisions, Do You Have Any Difficulties / Think You Might Have Difficulties Doing Any Of The Following? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Hearing quiet voices
9
6
14
20
29
35
1
24
**
20
9
14
3%
3%
7%
5%
3%
2%
*%
7%
**
29%
6%
1%
ab
l
hkl
l
Hearing the television at a volume other
people find acceptable
8
7
14
21
24
35
*
24
**
21
9
11
2%
3%
7%
5%
3%
2%
*%
7%
**
30%
6%
1%
ab
a
l
hkl
l
Difficulty hearing quiet parts of programmes
9
6
11
17
25
33
*
22
**
19
7
13
3%
3%
6%
4%
3%
2%
*%
6%
**
28%
5%
1%
a
l
hkl
l
Using the on-screen Electronic Programme Guide (EPG)
8
5
8
13
21
28
6
18
**
8
11
15
2%
2%
4%
3%
2%
1%
3%
5%
**
11%
8%
1%
l
hl
l
Using the interactive services on your television
4
4
8
12
14
19
4
9
**
3
6
14
1%
2%
4%
3%
1%
1%
2%
3%
**
5%
4%
1%
a
l
l
l
Seeing the buttons on the remote control
2
2
5
7
11
15
-
10
**
4
7
5
1%
1%
3%
2%
1%
1%
-%
3%
**
6%
5%
*%
l
l
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qh6 (Qh23). Showcard Thinking About Televisions, Do You Have Any Difficulties / Think You Might Have Difficulties Doing Any Of The Following? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|--------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| Seeing small details on screen | 1 | 2 | 8 |
| *% | 1% | 4% | 2% |
| ab | a | l | l |
| Any other difficulties | | | |
| 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| No, none | 326 | 191 | 156 |
| 92% | 91% | 80% | 86% |
| cd | cd | c | j |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QCHECK. Can I just check that you have the following services? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Landline phone
324
201
184
385
719
1756
179
284
**
61
122
1659
92%
95%
94%
95%
79%
84%
81%
83%
**
89%
86%
84%
Mobile phone
327
168
120
288
764
1935
212
278
**
47
105
1872
92%
80%
62%
71%
84%
93%
96%
81%
**
68%
74%
95%
bcd
cd
c
j
hjk
Fixed broadband internet access
269
130
58
188
484
1521
185
184
**
35
65
1518
76%
62%
30%
46%
53%
73%
84%
54%
**
51%
45%
77%
bcd
cd
c
f
hjk
Mobile broadband internet access
19
5
3
8
55
179
14
25
**
-
9
165
5%
2%
2%
2%
6%
9%
6%
7%
**
-%
6%
8%
cd
j
j
j
Narrowband internet access
2
-
1
1
4
13
1
1
**
*
-
13
1%
-%
1%
*%
*%
1%
*%
*%
**
1%
-%
1%
TV service with additional channels you pay to receive
195
100
63
163
427
1181
133
156
**
27
64
1159
55%
47%
32%
40%
47%
57%
60%
46%
**
39%
45%
59%
cd
c
c
hjk
No, none of these
-
1
2
3
8
9
1
3
**
1
1
7
-%
*%
1%
1%
1%
*%
*%
1%
**
1%
1%
*%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qdm. And Which, If Any, Of These Services Are You Primarily Or Jointly Responsible For - In Terms Of Deciding Which Supplier Or Network To Use? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Landline phone
309
191
174
365
653
1543
151
257
**
58
110
1446
87%
91%
89%
90%
72%
74%
69%
75%
**
83%
77%
73%
l
Mobile phone
303
155
108
263
696
1753
190
252
**
43
96
1693
86%
74%
55%
65%
77%
84%
86%
73%
**
62%
67%
86%
bcd
cd
c
j
hjk
Fixed broadband internet access
247
122
52
175
419
1298
153
160
**
32
58
1284
70%
58%
27%
43%
46%
62%
69%
47%
**
46%
41%
65%
bcd
cd
c
hjk
Mobile broadband internet access
16
5
3
8
51
156
11
21
**
-
9
143
5%
2%
1%
2%
6%
7%
5%
6%
**
-%
6%
7%
cd
j
j
j
Narrowband internet access
1
-
1
1
4
10
1
1
**
*
-
10
*%
-%
1%
*%
*%
*%
*%
*%
**
1%
-%
1%
TV service with additional channels you pay to receive
170
88
52
140
363
960
107
127
**
24
52
941
48%
42%
27%
35%
40%
46%
48%
37%
**
34%
37%
48%
cd
cd
c
hjk
None of these
15
11
10
21
59
134
17
26
**
4
12
125
4%
5%
5%
5%
7%
6%
8%
8%
**
6%
9%
6%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QG1. Do you receive more than one of these services as part of an overall deal or package from the same supplier? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Yes
234
108
54
162
409
1255
146
149
**
28
56
1247
66%
51%
28%
40%
45%
60%
66%
44%
**
40%
40%
63%
bcd
cd
c
hjk
No
113
99
137
236
480
768
62
182
**
40
81
659
32%
47%
70%
58%
53%
37%
28%
53%
**
58%
57%
33%
a
abd
ab
g
l
l
l
Don't know
6
3
4
7
20
65
13
12
**
1
5
65
2%
1%
2%
2%
2%
3%
6%
4%
**
2%
3%
3%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qg2. Is This One Deal Or Package, Or More Than One? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 281 | 163 | 105 | 268 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 229 | 131 | 87 | 214 |
| Total | 234 | 108 | 54 |
| One deal or package | 182 | 94 | 48 |
| 78% | 87% | 88% | 87% |
| a | a | a | |
| Two packages from one supplier | | | |
| 28 | 9 | 4 | 13 |
| 12% | 8% | 8% | 8% |
| Two packages from different suppliers | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| 2% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| f | | | |
| Three or more packages | 17 | 5 | * |
| 7% | 4% | 1% | 3% |
| cd | | | |
| Don't know | | | |
| 3 | * | 1 | 1 |
| 1% | *% | 2% | 1% |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qg3 (Qg3A). Showcard Thinking About The Service Package You Consider To Be The Main One, Or The One Your Household Spends The Most On... Please Could You Tell Me Which Services Are Part Of This Deal Or Package You Have With The Same Supplier? (Multi Code)
Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | 281 | 163 | 105 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | 229 | 131 | 87 |
| Total | 234 | 108 | 54 |
| Landline phone | 222 | 104 | 51 |
| 95% | 97% | 93% | 95% |
| One mobile phone | 22 | 7 | 2 |
| 9% | 6% | 4% | 6% |
| h | | | |
| More than one mobile phone | | | |
| 7 | 1 | * | 1 |
| 3% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Internet - Fixed Broadband access | 211 | 98 | 43 |
| 90% | 91% | 79% | 87% |
| c | c | | |
| Internet - Mobile Broadband access | 6 | 1 | 1 |
| 3% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Internet - not broadband access | 1 | - | - |
| 1% | -% | -% | -% |
| TV service | | | |
| 98 | 48 | 22 | 70 |
| 42% | 44% | 41% | 43% |
| Don't know | 3 | - | 2 |
| 1% | -% | 4% | 1% |
| b | | | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qg3 (Qg3A). Showcard Thinking About The Service Package You Consider To Be The Main One, Or The One Your Household Spends The Most On... Please Could You Tell Me Which Services Are Part Of This Deal Or Package You Have With The Same Supplier? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | 438 | 323 | 383 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | 358 | 255 | 308 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| Landline phone | 222 | 104 | 51 |
| 63% | 50% | 26% | 38% |
| bcd | cd | c | hjk |
| One mobile phone | 22 | 7 | 2 |
| 6% | 3% | 1% | 2% |
| cd | hk | | |
| More than one mobile phone | 7 | 1 | * |
| 2% | *% | *% | *% |
| cd | | | |
| Internet - Fixed Broadband access | | | |
| 211 | 98 | 43 | 141 |
| 60% | 47% | 22% | 35% |
| bcd | cd | c | hjk |
| Internet - Mobile Broadband access | 6 | 1 | 1 |
| 2% | *% | *% | *% |
| d | | | |
| Internet - not broadband access | 1 | - | - |
| *% | -% | -% | -% |
| TV service | | | |
| 98 | 48 | 22 | 70 |
| 28% | 23% | 11% | 17% |
| cd | c | c | hk |
| Don't know | 3 | - | 2 |
| 1% | -% | 1% | 1% |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QG3 (QG3A). SHOWCARD Thinking about the service package you consider to be the main one, or the one your household spends the most on... Please could you tell me which services are part of this deal or package you have with the same supplier? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|----------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | 438 | 323 | 383 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | 358 | 255 | 308 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| DO NOT HAVE A PACKAGE/ BUNDLE OF | | | |
| SERVICES | 119 | 102 | 141 |
| 34% | 49% | 72% | 60% |
| a | abd | ab | l |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qg4 (Qg3B). Do You Receive A Discount Or Special Deal For Subscribing To This Package Of Services? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 281 | 163 | 105 | 268 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 229 | 131 | 87 | 214 |
| Total | 234 | 108 | 54 |
| Yes | 147 | 64 | 26 |
| 63% | 59% | 48% | 56% |
| c | | | |
| No | | | |
| 50 | 28 | 18 | 46 |
| 22% | 26% | 33% | 28% |
| a | | | |
| Don't know | 37 | 16 | 10 |
| 16% | 15% | 19% | 16% |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qg5 (Qg3D). Which Supplier Do You Use For This Package Of Services? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
Unweighted total
281
163
105
268
571
1488
137
209
32
39
84
1421
Effective Weighted Sample
229
131
87
214
466
1214
107
164
22
31
66
1181
Total
234
108
54
162
409
1255
146
149
22
28
56
1247
BT
74
33
18
51
94
349
31
41
**
**
**
342
32%
31%
33%
31%
23%
28%
22%
28%
**
**
**
27%
Virgin Media (previously NTL/ Telewest)
55
38
10
49
123
319
37
38
**
**
**
316
24%
35%
19%
30%
30%
25%
26%
25%
**
**
**
25%
ac
c
Sky
43
14
11
25
96
288
43
34
**
**
**
293
18%
13%
21%
16%
24%
23%
29%
23%
**
**
**
24%
Talk Talk/ Carphone Warehouse
32
17
8
25
56
152
21
21
**
**
**
152
14%
16%
14%
15%
14%
12%
15%
14%
**
**
**
12%
Orange
5
2
-
2
4
29
1
2
**
**
**
29
2%
2%
-%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
**
**
**
2%
Plusnet
4
1
1
2
3
21
-
3
**
**
**
18
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
-%
2%
**
**
**
1%
AOL
2
1
1
2
5
11
1
3
**
**
**
9
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
**
**
**
1%
O2
-
-
*
*
6
11
1
1
**
**
**
11
-%
-%
1%
*%
2%
1%
*%
*%
**
**
**
1%
Other
11
1
3
4
14
57
5
7
**
**
**
56
5%
1%
6%
3%
3%
5%
3%
5%
**
**
**
4%
b
b
Don't know
6
1
1
2
6
19
5
*
**
**
**
22
3%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
4%
*%
**
**
**
2%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qg6 (Qg5). Showcard Over The Last 12 Months, Have You Used A Price Comparison Website (Such As U Switch Or Bill Monitor) To Compare The Cost Of Providers Of Any Of The Following Communication Services? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Broadband
25
8
2
9
26
123
16
22
**
3
10
114
7%
4%
1%
2%
3%
6%
7%
7%
**
4%
7%
6%
cd
c
Mobile phone
15
6
5
11
32
103
12
13
**
3
8
98
4%
3%
3%
3%
4%
5%
5%
4%
**
5%
6%
5%
Landline phone
15
11
2
13
27
95
5
16
**
2
10
83
4%
5%
1%
3%
3%
5%
2%
5%
**
3%
7%
4%
c
c
TV service with additional channels you pay to receive
11
4
*
4
18
66
5
11
**
2
5
59
3%
2%
*%
1%
2%
3%
2%
3%
**
3%
4%
3%
cd
c
Any combination of these services in a package or bundle
9
7
1
8
21
73
2
11
**
1
6
65
3%
3%
*%
2%
2%
3%
1%
3%
**
2%
5%
3%
c
c
No, none of these
309
191
186
377
832
1808
195
303
**
65
125
1706
87%
91%
96%
93%
91%
87%
88%
88%
**
94%
87%
87%
ab
a
l
Don't know
3
*
1
2
9
29
3
3
**
-
-
30
1%
*%
1%
*%
1%
1%
2%
1%
**
-%
-%
2%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Components Of Package - I.E. Simple Bundle
Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 281 | 163 | 105 | 268 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 229 | 131 | 87 | 214 |
| Total | 234 | 108 | 54 |
| LANDLINE & BROADBAND | 116 | 54 | 27 |
| 49% | 50% | 51% | 50% |
| LANDLINE, BROADBAND & MULTI- | | | |
| CHANNEL TV | 73 | 36 | 13 |
| 31% | 33% | 24% | 30% |
| MULTI-CHANNEL TV & BROADBAND | 7 | 4 | * |
| 3% | 3% | 1% | 3% |
| LANDLINE & MULTI-CHANNEL TV | 6 | 7 | 9 |
| 3% | 6% | 16% | 9% |
| ab | a | | |
| LANDLINE, MOBILE & BROADBAND | | | |
| 9 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| 4% | 3% | 3% | 3% |
| LANDLINE, BROADBAND, MOBILE & | | | |
| MULTI-CHANNEL TV | 8 | 2 | - |
| 4% | 2% | -% | 1% |
| MOBILE & BROADBAND | 2 | - | 1 |
| 1% | -% | 2% | 1% |
| f | | | |
| LANDLINE & DIAL-UP | 1 | - | - |
| *% | -% | -% | -% |
| LANDLINE, DIAL-UP & MULTI-CHANNEL | | | |
| TV | * | - | - |
| *% | -% | -% | -% |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Components Of Package - I.E. Simple Bundle
Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 281 | 163 | 105 | 268 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 229 | 131 | 87 | 214 |
| Total | 234 | 108 | 54 |
| OTHER | 10 | 3 | - |
| 4% | 3% | -% | 2% |
| DON'T KNOW | 3 | - | 2 |
| 1% | -% | 4% | 1% |
| b | | | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Components Of Package, Which Includes Discount - I.E. Discounted Bundle
Base : Those with a package for which they get a discount/ special deal
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 175 | 99 | 55 | 154 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 144 | 82 | 48 | 127 |
| Total | 147 | 64 | 26 |
| LANDLINE & BROADBAND | 72 | ** | ** |
| 49% | ** | ** | 55% |
| LANDLINE, BROADBAND & MULTI- | | | |
| CHANNEL TV | 49 | ** | ** |
| 33% | ** | ** | 28% |
| MULTI-CHANNEL TV & BROADBAND | 2 | ** | ** |
| 2% | ** | ** | 2% |
| LANDLINE, BROADBAND, MOBILE & | | | |
| MULTI-CHANNEL TV | 8 | ** | ** |
| 6% | ** | ** | 1% |
| d | | | |
| LANDLINE, MOBILE & BROADBAND | 5 | ** | ** |
| 3% | ** | ** | 3% |
| MOBILE & BROADBAND | 2 | ** | ** |
| 1% | ** | ** | *% |
| LANDLINE & MULTI-CHANNEL TV | 1 | ** | ** |
| 1% | ** | ** | 8% |
| a | | | |
| LANDLINE, DIAL-UP & MULTI-CHANNEL | | | |
| TV | - | ** | ** |
| -% | ** | ** | -% |
| LANDLINE & DIAL-UP | 1 | ** | ** |
| 1% | ** | ** | -% |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Components Of Package, Which Includes Discount - I.E. Discounted Bundle
Base : Those with a package for which they get a discount/ special deal
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 175 | 99 | 55 | 154 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 144 | 82 | 48 | 127 |
| Total | 147 | 64 | 26 |
| OTHER | 6 | ** | ** |
| 4% | ** | ** | 2% |
| DON'T KNOW | 1 | ** | ** |
| 1% | ** | ** | *% |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary Of Package
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Base for %
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
INCLUDES A DISCOUNT
147
64
26
91
228
783
93
94
**
17
32
783
42%
31%
13%
22%
25%
37%
42%
27%
**
24%
23%
40%
bcd
cd
c
hjk
DOES NOT INCLUDE A DISCOUNT
50
28
18
46
108
263
27
35
**
7
15
251
14%
13%
9%
11%
12%
13%
12%
10%
**
11%
10%
13%
c
DON'T KNOW IF INCLUDES A DISCOUNT
37
16
10
26
73
209
26
21
**
3
9
213
10%
8%
5%
6%
8%
10%
12%
6%
**
5%
6%
11%
cd
h
NO PACKAGES
119
102
141
243
500
833
75
194
**
42
86
725
34%
49%
72%
60%
55%
40%
34%
56%
**
60%
60%
37%
a
abd
ab
l
l
l
DOUBLE PLAY
137
67
38
105
232
718
95
87
**
15
32
724
39%
32%
19%
26%
26%
34%
43%
25%
**
21%
23%
37%
cd
c
c
f
hjk
TRIPLE PLAY
84
39
14
54
159
479
48
59
**
13
23
466
24%
19%
7%
13%
18%
23%
22%
17%
**
18%
16%
24%
cd
cd
c
hk
QUAD PLAY
8
2
-
2
7
34
-
1
**
-
-
34
2%
1%
-%
*%
1%
2%
-%
*%
**
-%
-%
2%
cd
h
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary Of Package
Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
Unweighted total
281
163
105
268
571
1488
137
209
32
39
84
1421
Effective Weighted Sample
229
131
87
214
466
1214
107
164
22
31
66
1181
Total
234
108
54
162
409
1255
146
149
22
28
56
1247
Base for %
234
108
54
162
409
1255
146
149
22
28
56
1247
INCLUDES A DISCOUNT
147
64
26
91
228
783
93
94
**
**
**
783
63%
59%
48%
56%
56%
62%
64%
63%
**
**
**
63%
c
DOES NOT INCLUDE A DISCOUNT
50
28
18
46
108
263
27
35
**
**
**
251
22%
26%
33%
28%
26%
21%
19%
23%
**
**
**
20%
a
DON'T KNOW IF INCLUDES A DISCOUNT
37
16
10
26
73
209
26
21
**
**
**
213
16%
15%
19%
16%
18%
17%
18%
14%
**
**
**
17%
DOUBLE PLAY
137
67
38
105
232
718
95
87
**
**
**
724
59%
62%
69%
64%
57%
57%
66%
58%
**
**
**
58%
TRIPLE PLAY
84
39
14
54
159
479
48
59
**
**
**
466
36%
36%
27%
33%
39%
38%
33%
39%
**
**
**
37%
QUAD PLAY
8
2
-
2
7
34
-
1
**
**
**
34
3%
2%
-%
1%
2%
3%
-%
*%
**
**
**
3%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary Table For Purchasing Behaviour - Fixed Broadband
Base : Those with fixed broadband at home
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 329 | 195 | 111 | 306 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 270 | 156 | 88 | 241 |
| Total | 269 | 130 | 58 |
| FIXED BROADBAND STANDALONE | 58 | 32 | 15 |
| 22% | 25% | 27% | 25% |
| FIXED BROADBAND STANDALONE | | | |
| (INCLUDING THOSE WHO HAVE IT AS | | | |
| PART OF A NO DISCOUNT BUNDLE) | 133 | 71 | 37 |
| 50% | 55% | 63% | 57% |
| a | | | |
| FIXED BROADBAND BUNDLE | 211 | 98 | 43 |
| 78% | 75% | 73% | 75% |
| FIXED BROADBAND DISCOUNTED | | | |
| BUNDLE | 135 | 59 | 22 |
| 50% | 45% | 37% | 43% |
| c | | | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary Table For Purchasing Behaviour - Fixed Line
Base : Those with a landline phone at home
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-----------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 398 | 305 | 361 | 666 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 325 | 241 | 290 | 521 |
| Total | 324 | 201 | 184 |
| FIXED LINE STANDALONE | 102 | 96 | 133 |
| 32% | 48% | 72% | 60% |
| a | abd | ab | l |
| FIXED LINE STANDALONE (INCLUDING | | | |
| THOSE WHO HAVE IT AS PART OF A NO | | | |
| DISCOUNT BUNDLE) | 183 | 138 | 158 |
| 56% | 69% | 86% | 77% |
| a | abd | ab | l |
| FIXED LINE BUNDLE | | | |
| 222 | 104 | 51 | 155 |
| 68% | 52% | 28% | 40% |
| bcd | cd | c | hjk |
| FIXED LINE DISCOUNTED BUNDLE | 141 | 63 | 25 |
| 44% | 31% | 14% | 23% |
| bcd | cd | c | hjk |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary Table For Purchasing Behaviour - Mobile Broadband
Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-----------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | MOBI- | | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 23 | 9 | 7 | 16 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 18 | 8 | 6 | 14 |
| Total | 19 | 5 | 3 |
| MOBILE BROADBAND STANDALONE | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| MOBILE BROADBAND BUNDLE | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| MOBILE BROADBAND DISCOUNTED | | | |
| BUNDLE | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary Table For Purchasing Behaviour - Mobile Phone
Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|--------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 402 | 261 | 231 | 492 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 329 | 205 | 183 | 383 |
| Total | 327 | 168 | 120 |
| MOBILE PHONE STANDALONE | 298 | 160 | 117 |
| 91% | 95% | 98% | 96% |
| a | a | l | l |
| MOBILE PHONE BUNDLE | | | |
| 29 | 8 | 3 | 11 |
| 9% | 5% | 2% | 4% |
| cd | hk | | |
| MOBILE PHONE DISCOUNTED BUNDLE | 21 | 5 | 1 |
| 6% | 3% | 1% | 2% |
| cd | hk | | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary Table For Purchasing Behaviour - Pay Tv Service
Base : Those with a Pay TV service
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 242 | 154 | 126 | 280 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 193 | 122 | 99 | 218 |
| Total | 195 | 100 | 63 |
| PAY TV STANDALONE | 98 | 52 | 41 |
| 50% | 52% | 65% | 57% |
| a | | | |
| PAY TV BUNDLE | | | |
| 98 | 48 | 22 | 70 |
| 50% | 48% | 35% | 43% |
| c | | | |
| PAY TV DISCOUNTED BUNDLE | 64 | 25 | 10 |
| 33% | 25% | 16% | 22% |
| cd | h | | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QP1. SHOWCARD During an average week, on how many days do you listen to the radio (including listening at home, in the car, at work, via mobile phone, personal stereo)? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
7 days a week
(7.0)
191
103
105
208
403
1034
80
146
**
29
57
969
54%
49%
54%
51%
44%
50%
36%
43%
**
42%
40%
49%
g
hk
6 days a week
(6.0)
10
7
5
12
22
59
6
6
**
1
5
61
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
3%
3%
2%
**
1%
3%
3%
5 days a week
(5.0)
16
14
6
20
44
143
16
13
**
3
4
145
5%
7%
3%
5%
5%
7%
7%
4%
**
4%
3%
7%
c
hk
3 or 4 days a week
(3.5)
31
15
7
23
70
184
11
28
**
3
11
172
9%
7%
4%
6%
8%
9%
5%
8%
**
4%
8%
9%
c
1 or 2 days a week
(1.5)
34
17
13
30
81
171
14
30
**
7
14
154
10%
8%
7%
7%
9%
8%
6%
9%
**
10%
10%
8%
Less often
(0.5)
14
11
10
21
44
80
20
18
**
3
8
79
4%
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
9%
5%
**
4%
5%
4%
f
Never/ do not listen to the radio
(0.0)
57
42
49
91
241
414
72
101
**
24
44
386
16%
20%
25%
23%
27%
20%
33%
29%
**
34%
31%
20%
a
a
f
l
l
l
Don't know
1
1
*
1
4
4
1
1
**
1
*
4
*%
*%
*%
*%
*%
*%
*%
*%
**
2%
*%
*%
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QP1. SHOWCARD During an average week, on how many days do you listen to the radio (including listening at home, in the car, at work, via mobile phone, personal stereo)? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| Mean number of days during an | | | |
| average week | 4.7 | 4.4 | 4.3 |
| g | hjk | | |
| Standard deviation | 2.88 | 2.99 | 3.16 |
| Standard error | .14 | .17 | .16 |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp2A (Qp11A). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Access The Radio Via - Radio Set With Am Stereo - Either At Home, In The Car Or On Portable Radio. (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 361 | 258 | 281 | 539 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 294 | 203 | 224 | 421 |
| Total | 296 | 168 | 146 |
| Every day | 48 | 32 | 31 |
| 16% | 19% | 21% | 20% |
| f | | | |
| At least weekly | | | |
| 25 | 11 | 11 | 22 |
| 9% | 6% | 8% | 7% |
| At least monthly | 6 | 7 | 2 |
| 2% | 4% | 2% | 3% |
| Have tried it once | 17 | 13 | 9 |
| 6% | 8% | 6% | 7% |
| f | l | | |
| EVER | 97 | 63 | 53 |
| 33% | 37% | 36% | 37% |
| f | | | |
| Never | 152 | 73 | 77 |
| 52% | 43% | 53% | 48% |
| g | hk | | |
| Do not have access to device | 47 | 32 | 16 |
| 16% | 19% | 11% | 15% |
| c | l | | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp2B (Qp11B). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Access The Radio Via - Radio Set With Fm Stereo - Either At Home, In The Car Or On Portable Radio. (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 361 | 258 | 281 | 539 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 294 | 203 | 224 | 421 |
| Total | 296 | 168 | 146 |
| Every day | 98 | 68 | 78 |
| 33% | 41% | 53% | 47% |
| ab | a | l | |
| At least weekly | | | |
| 60 | 27 | 26 | 53 |
| 20% | 16% | 18% | 17% |
| At least monthly | 11 | 6 | 4 |
| 4% | 3% | 2% | 3% |
| Have tried it once | 6 | 6 | 5 |
| 2% | 4% | 4% | 4% |
| f | | | |
| EVER | 174 | 107 | 113 |
| 59% | 64% | 77% | 70% |
| ab | a | l | |
| Never | 89 | 45 | 27 |
| 30% | 27% | 19% | 23% |
| cd | g | hk | |
| Do not have access to device | 33 | 16 | 6 |
| 11% | 9% | 4% | 7% |
| cd | c | f | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp2C (Qp11C). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Access The Radio Via - Mobile Phone. (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 361 | 258 | 281 | 539 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 294 | 203 | 224 | 421 |
| Total | 296 | 168 | 146 |
| Every day | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| hk | | | |
| At least weekly | | | |
| 7 | 2 | * | 3 |
| 2% | 1% | *% | 1% |
| c | k | | |
| At least monthly | 4 | 1 | - |
| 1% | 1% | -% | *% |
| f | | | |
| Have tried it once | 12 | 3 | 1 |
| 4% | 2% | 1% | 1% |
| cd | f | | |
| EVER | 25 | 8 | 3 |
| 8% | 5% | 2% | 3% |
| cd | f | hk | |
| Never | 223 | 121 | 94 |
| 75% | 72% | 65% | 69% |
| c | g | | |
| Do not have access to device | 48 | 39 | 48 |
| 16% | 23% | 33% | 28% |
| ab | a | l | l |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp2D (Qp11D). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Access The Radio Via - Digital Radio Through Tv. (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 361 | 258 | 281 | 539 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 294 | 203 | 224 | 421 |
| Total | 296 | 168 | 146 |
| Every day | 17 | 10 | 7 |
| 6% | 6% | 5% | 6% |
| l | | | |
| At least weekly | | | |
| 34 | 10 | 6 | 16 |
| 11% | 6% | 4% | 5% |
| bcd | | | |
| At least monthly | 28 | 8 | 7 |
| 9% | 5% | 5% | 5% |
| d | | | |
| Have tried it once | 22 | 6 | 4 |
| 7% | 4% | 3% | 3% |
| cd | | | |
| EVER | 100 | 35 | 25 |
| 34% | 21% | 17% | 19% |
| bcd | | | |
| Never | 177 | 114 | 99 |
| 60% | 68% | 68% | 68% |
| a | g | k | |
| Do not have access to device | 19 | 19 | 21 |
| 6% | 11% | 14% | 13% |
| a | a | f | l |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp2E (Qp11E). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Access The Radio Via - Digital Radio Through The Internet. (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
361
258
281
539
984
2096
141
360
55
68
147
1882
Effective Weighted Sample
294
203
224
421
780
1678
104
280
41
54
113
1533
Total
296
168
146
313
664
1670
147
241
37
44
98
1581
Every day
8
2
-
2
14
53
9
6
**
**
1
55
3%
1%
-%
1%
2%
3%
6%
2%
**
**
1%
3%
cd
At least weekly
15
3
4
7
29
124
9
20
**
**
5
111
5%
2%
3%
2%
4%
7%
6%
8%
**
**
5%
7%
d
At least monthly
17
3
2
5
21
91
16
8
**
**
3
102
6%
2%
1%
2%
3%
5%
11%
3%
**
**
3%
6%
bcd
f
h
Have tried it once
16
3
2
5
17
89
13
11
**
**
6
89
5%
2%
1%
1%
3%
5%
9%
5%
**
**
6%
6%
bcd
EVER
56
11
7
18
82
356
47
45
**
**
15
358
19%
6%
5%
6%
12%
21%
32%
19%
**
**
15%
23%
bcd
f
Never
205
115
83
198
414
1090
74
133
**
**
54
1040
69%
68%
57%
63%
62%
65%
50%
55%
**
**
55%
66%
c
c
g
hk
Do not have access to device
35
42
55
97
167
224
27
63
**
**
29
184
12%
25%
38%
31%
25%
13%
18%
26%
**
**
30%
12%
a
ab
a
l
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp2F (Qp11F). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Access The Radio Via - Dab Radio Set. (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 361 | 258 | 281 | 539 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 294 | 203 | 224 | 421 |
| Total | 296 | 168 | 146 |
| Every day | 63 | 44 | 32 |
| 21% | 26% | 22% | 24% |
| hk | | | |
| At least weekly | | | |
| 29 | 15 | 11 | 26 |
| 10% | 9% | 7% | 8% |
| h | | | |
| At least monthly | 5 | 3 | 1 |
| 2% | 2% | 1% | 1% |
| f | | | |
| Have tried it once | 5 | * | - |
| 2% | *% | -% | *% |
| d | | | |
| EVER | 101 | 63 | 44 |
| 34% | 38% | 30% | 34% |
| hk | | | |
| Never | 100 | 55 | 48 |
| 34% | 33% | 33% | 33% |
| Do not have access to device | 94 | 49 | 54 |
| 32% | 30% | 37% | 33% |
| f | l | l | |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp2G (Qp11G) Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Access The Radio Via - A Car Radio (Fm). (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
361
258
281
539
984
2096
141
360
55
68
147
1882
Effective Weighted Sample
294
203
224
421
780
1678
104
280
41
54
113
1533
Total
296
168
146
313
664
1670
147
241
37
44
98
1581
Every day
100
47
29
77
164
637
39
57
**
**
23
624
34%
28%
20%
25%
25%
38%
26%
24%
**
**
23%
39%
cd
c
g
hk
At least weekly
74
52
18
70
141
396
27
42
**
**
12
383
25%
31%
13%
22%
21%
24%
19%
17%
**
**
12%
24%
c
cd
c
hk
At least monthly
8
10
6
16
25
63
11
11
**
**
6
67
3%
6%
4%
5%
4%
4%
7%
5%
**
**
7%
4%
Have tried it once
2
4
3
7
15
20
8
4
**
**
2
26
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
5%
2%
**
**
2%
2%
f
EVER
184
113
57
170
345
1117
84
114
**
**
43
1100
62%
67%
39%
54%
52%
67%
57%
47%
**
**
44%
70%
cd
cd
c
g
hk
Never
72
32
49
80
165
310
21
53
**
**
26
274
24%
19%
33%
26%
25%
19%
14%
22%
**
**
27%
17%
abd
l
Do not have access to device
40
23
40
63
154
243
42
74
**
**
28
208
13%
14%
27%
20%
23%
15%
29%
31%
**
**
29%
13%
abd
a
f
l
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp2H (Qp11H) Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Access The Radio Via - A Car Radio (Am). (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 361 | 258 | 281 | 539 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 294 | 203 | 224 | 421 |
| Total | 296 | 168 | 146 |
| Every day | 38 | 17 | 12 |
| 13% | 10% | 9% | 9% |
| f | hk | | |
| At least weekly | | | |
| 29 | 13 | 7 | 20 |
| 10% | 8% | 5% | 6% |
| c | | | |
| At least monthly | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| 2% | 3% | 2% | 2% |
| f | | | |
| Have tried it once | 5 | 10 | 3 |
| 2% | 6% | 2% | 4% |
| ac | f | | |
| EVER | 77 | 45 | 24 |
| 26% | 27% | 17% | 22% |
| c | c | f | hk |
| Never | 168 | 82 | 77 |
| 57% | 49% | 53% | 51% |
| g | | | |
| Do not have access to device | 50 | 41 | 44 |
| 17% | 25% | 30% | 27% |
| a | a | a | l |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp2I (Qp11I) Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Access The Radio Via - A Car Radio (Dab). (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
361
258
281
539
984
2096
141
360
55
68
147
1882
Effective Weighted Sample
294
203
224
421
780
1678
104
280
41
54
113
1533
Total
296
168
146
313
664
1670
147
241
37
44
98
1581
Every day
22
9
7
15
29
110
20
23
**
**
6
110
7%
5%
5%
5%
4%
7%
13%
9%
**
**
6%
7%
f
At least weekly
14
7
2
9
16
69
8
5
**
**
3
72
5%
4%
1%
3%
2%
4%
5%
2%
**
**
4%
5%
c
At least monthly
2
-
1
1
3
10
4
1
**
**
1
13
1%
-%
1%
*%
1%
1%
3%
1%
**
**
1%
1%
f
Have tried it once
*
*
-
*
4
4
3
-
**
**
-
7
*%
*%
-%
*%
1%
*%
2%
-%
**
**
-%
*%
f
EVER
38
16
10
25
53
194
34
29
**
**
10
202
13%
9%
7%
8%
8%
12%
23%
12%
**
**
10%
13%
cd
f
Never
140
79
66
145
294
753
56
88
**
**
34
721
47%
47%
46%
46%
44%
45%
38%
36%
**
**
35%
46%
hk
Do not have access to device
118
73
69
143
317
723
57
124
**
**
54
658
40%
44%
48%
46%
48%
43%
39%
52%
**
**
55%
42%
l
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary - Ever Use Digital Radio
Base : Those who listen to radio
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 361 | 258 | 281 | 539 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 294 | 203 | 224 | 421 |
| Total | 296 | 168 | 146 |
| YES, EVER USED | 176 | 88 | 57 |
| 59% | 53% | 39% | 46% |
| cd | c | | |
| YES, USE AT LEAST MONTHLY | | | |
| 166 | 87 | 55 | 142 |
| 56% | 52% | 38% | 45% |
| cd | c | h | |
| YES, USE AT LEAST WEEKLY | 144 | 79 | 52 |
| 49% | 47% | 36% | 42% |
| c | c | h | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary - Ever Use Digital Radio
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| YES, EVER USED | 176 | 88 | 57 |
| 50% | 42% | 29% | 36% |
| cd | c | c | hjk |
| YES, USE AT LEAST MONTHLY | | | |
| 166 | 87 | 55 | 142 |
| 47% | 41% | 28% | 35% |
| cd | c | c | hjk |
| YES, USE AT LEAST WEEKLY | 144 | 79 | 52 |
| 41% | 37% | 27% | 32% |
| cd | c | g | hjk |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary - Ever Listen To Radio
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| YES, EVER USED | 293 | 167 | 144 |
| 83% | 79% | 74% | 77% |
| cd | g | hjk | |
| YES, USE AT LEAST MONTHLY | | | |
| 293 | 165 | 142 | 308 |
| 83% | 79% | 73% | 76% |
| cd | g | hjk | |
| YES, USE AT LEAST WEEKLY | 285 | 157 | 139 |
| 80% | 75% | 71% | 73% |
| cd | g | hjk | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp3 (Qp16). Showcard In Which Of These Ways Do You Listen To Radio On Your Mobile Phone? (Multi Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio via a mobile phone
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
e
f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
l
Unweighted total
27
12
8
20
122
368
52
44
8
3
11
377
Effective Weighted Sample
23
10
6
15
96
296
39
35
7
2
9
309
Total
25
8
3
11
96
330
59
36
8
2
8
356
Live via a built in FM radio app
**
**
**
**
49
148
**
**
**
**
**
171
**
**
**
**
51%
45%
**
**
**
**
**
48%
Live via a station website
**
**
**
**
29
111
**
**
**
**
**
114
**
**
**
**
30%
34%
**
**
**
**
**
32%
Via a downloaded app such as RadioPlayer, BBC Radio iPlayer, Tunein or apps downloaded for specific radio stations
**
**
**
**
17
65
**
**
**
**
**
74
**
**
**
**
17%
20%
**
**
**
**
**
21%
Via podcasts
**
**
**
**
3
22
**
**
**
**
**
22
**
**
**
**
3%
7%
**
**
**
**
**
6%
Other ways
**
**
**
**
-
2
**
**
**
**
**
2
**
**
**
**
-%
1%
**
**
**
**
**
*%
Don't know
**
**
**
**
14
34
**
**
**
**
**
35
**
**
**
**
15%
10%
**
**
**
**
**
10%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp4 (Qp2). Before Today, Had You Heard Of Digital Radios, Sometimes Called D-A-B Radios? Read Out Explanation If Necessary (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| Yes | 314 | 168 | 129 |
| 89% | 80% | 66% | 73% |
| bcd | cd | c | g |
| No | | | |
| 33 | 37 | 53 | 90 |
| 9% | 17% | 27% | 22% |
| a | ab | a | f |
| Unsure | 6 | 6 | 13 |
| 2% | 3% | 7% | 5% |
| ab | a | l | l |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp5 (Qb1). Do You, Or Does Anyone In Your Household, Have Digital Radio Channels In Your Home At The Moment - Whether Through A Specialist Dab Radio Receiver, Through A Digital Television Or Over The Internet? (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| Yes | 238 | 124 | 82 |
| 67% | 59% | 42% | 51% |
| bcd | cd | c | hjk |
| No | | | |
| 111 | 82 | 106 | 188 |
| 31% | 39% | 54% | 46% |
| abd | ab | l | l |
| Don't know | 4 | 5 | 7 |
| 1% | 2% | 4% | 3% |
| a | l | l | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp6 (Qp4). Showcard I'M Now Going To Ask About Any Radio Sets That You Have At Home. In Which Of These Rooms At Home Do You Have Any Radios? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| Kitchen/ Kitchen diner | 148 | 91 | 76 |
| 42% | 43% | 39% | 41% |
| g | | | |
| Living room/ Lounge | | | |
| 149 | 95 | 85 | 180 |
| 42% | 45% | 43% | 44% |
| g | | | |
| Adult's bedroom | 114 | 76 | 59 |
| 32% | 36% | 30% | 33% |
| Child's bedroom | 13 | * | * |
| 4% | *% | *% | *% |
| bcd | k | | |
| Dining room | | | |
| 18 | 12 | 16 | 27 |
| 5% | 5% | 8% | 7% |
| Bathroom/ Shower room/ WC | 11 | 7 | 7 |
| 3% | 3% | 3% | 3% |
| Spare bedroom | 14 | 7 | 2 |
| 4% | 4% | 1% | 2% |
| c | | | |
| Study/ Home office | 15 | 8 | 3 |
| 4% | 4% | 1% | 3% |
| c | g | | |
| Conservatory | 6 | 11 | 3 |
| 2% | 5% | 1% | 3% |
| ac | | | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp6 (Qp4). Showcard I'M Now Going To Ask About Any Radio Sets That You Have At Home. In Which Of These Rooms At Home Do You Have Any Radios? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Garage
5
2
3
5
11
36
3
6
**
1
2
34
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
**
1%
1%
2%
Hallway/ Landing
3
1
1
2
5
16
-
2
**
1
1
13
1%
*%
*%
*%
1%
1%
-%
1%
**
2%
1%
1%
Move around as needed/ portable
16
7
8
15
24
74
3
11
**
3
6
67
5%
3%
4%
4%
3%
4%
1%
3%
**
4%
4%
3%
Other
2
4
3
8
14
35
2
8
**
3
4
29
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
**
4%
3%
1%
l
None - do not have any radio sets at home
69
37
37
75
248
531
92
83
**
15
40
542
19%
18%
19%
18%
27%
25%
42%
24%
**
22%
28%
27%
f
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QP7 (QP19). In total, how many radio sets do you have in your home? Please include any mains or battery powered radio sets or wind-up radios. For now, please don't include car radios, radio listening through computers, TVs or phones. (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
None
69
37
37
75
247
526
92
82
**
15
39
538
19%
18%
19%
18%
27%
25%
42%
24%
**
22%
28%
27%
f
1
134
70
82
152
368
779
76
142
**
27
60
715
38%
33%
42%
38%
40%
37%
35%
41%
**
39%
42%
36%
b
2-3
122
83
58
141
238
609
42
90
**
21
30
561
34%
39%
30%
35%
26%
29%
19%
26%
**
30%
21%
28%
c
g
k
4-5
21
16
13
29
45
130
9
20
**
3
9
122
6%
8%
7%
7%
5%
6%
4%
6%
**
4%
6%
6%
6-10
7
4
4
8
10
34
1
9
**
3
4
27
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
1%
3%
**
5%
3%
1%
l
l
11 or more
2
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
**
-
-
2
*%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
*%
ANY RADIO SETS IN THE HOME
285
173
158
331
661
1554
129
261
**
54
103
1426
81%
82%
81%
82%
73%
74%
58%
76%
**
78%
72%
72%
g
Don't know
-
-
-
-
1
8
-
1
**
-
1
7
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
*%
-%
*%
**
-%
*%
*%
Mean number of radio sets
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.5
**
1.6
1.4
1.4
g
Standard deviation
1.52
1.40
1.35
1.37
1.25
1.40
1.16
1.46
**
1.64
1.42
1.38
Standard error
.07
.08
.07
.05
.03
.03
.08
.06
**
.15
.10
.03
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QP8 (QP5). In total, how many radio sets do you have in your home that you, or someone in your household, listen to in most weeks? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
None
113
62
62
123
359
768
98
132
**
34
61
739
32%
29%
32%
30%
40%
37%
44%
39%
**
49%
43%
37%
l
1
123
71
74
146
327
709
76
121
**
20
49
662
35%
34%
38%
36%
36%
34%
34%
35%
**
29%
34%
34%
2-3
101
60
50
110
183
498
40
75
**
11
25
464
28%
29%
25%
27%
20%
24%
18%
22%
**
16%
18%
24%
4-5
12
11
8
18
24
72
6
8
**
3
5
71
3%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
**
4%
4%
4%
6-10
3
3
1
4
4
15
-
2
**
1
1
13
1%
1%
*%
1%
*%
1%
-%
1%
**
1%
1%
1%
ANY 'ACTIVE' RADIO SETS IN THE HOME
238
145
132
277
538
1295
122
207
**
35
80
1211
67%
69%
68%
68%
59%
62%
55%
60%
**
50%
56%
61%
j
Don't know
2
4
1
5
11
25
1
4
**
1
1
22
1%
2%
*%
1%
1%
1%
*%
1%
**
1%
1%
1%
Mean number of 'active' radio sets
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.1
.9
1.0
**
1.0
1.0
1.1
g
Standard deviation
1.17
1.31
1.17
1.25
1.10
1.19
1.04
1.18
**
1.38
1.18
1.18
Standard error
.06
.07
.06
.05
.03
.02
.07
.05
**
.13
.08
.02
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp8 (Qp5). In Total, How Many Radio Sets Do You Have In Your Home That You, Or Someone In Your Household, Listen To In Most Weeks? (Single Code)
Base : Those with any 'active' radio sets in the home
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 292 | 222 | 259 | 481 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 239 | 173 | 209 | 375 |
| Total | 238 | 145 | 132 |
| 1 | 123 | 71 | 74 |
| 52% | 49% | 56% | 53% |
| 2-3 | 101 | 60 | 50 |
| 42% | 42% | 37% | 40% |
| 4-5 | 12 | 11 | 8 |
| 5% | 7% | 6% | 7% |
| 6-10 | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| 1% | 2% | 1% | 1% |
| ANY 'ACTIVE' RADIO SETS IN THE HOME | | | |
| 238 | 145 | 132 | 277 |
| 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Mean number of 'active' radio sets | 1.7 | 1.9 | 1.7 |
| Standard deviation | 1.02 | 1.17 | 1.03 |
| Standard error | .06 | .08 | .06 |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QP9. You said earlier that you have (NUMBER AT QP8) radio sets in your home that someone in the household listens to in most weeks. How many of these radio sets are digital radios? READ OUT EXPLANATION IF NECESSARY (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
None
221
139
140
279
678
1356
154
260
**
55
116
1257
62%
66%
72%
69%
75%
65%
70%
76%
**
79%
81%
64%
a
a
l
l
l
1
98
54
42
96
184
544
38
62
**
11
19
522
28%
26%
21%
24%
20%
26%
17%
18%
**
16%
14%
26%
g
hjk
2
23
13
7
20
32
127
18
16
**
2
6
129
6%
6%
3%
5%
4%
6%
8%
5%
**
3%
4%
7%
3
9
2
4
6
8
34
5
3
**
*
*
35
3%
1%
2%
2%
1%
2%
2%
1%
**
1%
*%
2%
4-5
1
2
-
2
2
13
-
-
**
-
-
13
*%
1%
-%
*%
*%
1%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
1%
6-10
*
-
-
-
-
2
-
*
**
*
-
1
*%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
*%
**
*%
-%
*%
ANY 'ACTIVE' DIGITAL RADIOS IN THE HOME
131
72
52
124
226
720
62
81
**
14
26
700
37%
34%
27%
30%
25%
34%
28%
24%
**
20%
18%
36%
cd
hjk
Don't know
2
-
3
3
6
12
5
2
**
*
1
14
1%
-%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
**
1%
1%
1%
f
Mean number of 'active' digital radio sets
.5
.4
.3
.4
.3
.5
.4
.3
**
.3
.2
.5
cd
c
hjk
Standard deviation
.80
.74
.64
.69
.60
.76
.75
.66
**
.84
.53
.77
Standard error
.04
.04
.03
.03
.02
.01
.05
.03
**
.08
.04
.02
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp9. You Said Earlier That You Have (Number At Qp8) Radio Sets In Your Home That Someone In The Household Listens To In Most Weeks. How Many Of These Radio Sets Are Digital Radios? Read Out Explanation If Necessary (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|--------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 361 | 258 | 281 | 539 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 294 | 203 | 224 | 421 |
| Total | 296 | 168 | 146 |
| None | 164 | 97 | 93 |
| 55% | 58% | 64% | 61% |
| l | l | | |
| 1 | | | |
| 97 | 54 | 39 | 93 |
| 33% | 32% | 27% | 30% |
| hk | | | |
| 2 | 23 | 13 | 7 |
| 8% | 8% | 5% | 6% |
| 3 | 9 | 2 | 4 |
| 3% | 1% | 3% | 2% |
| 4-5 | 1 | 2 | - |
| *% | 1% | -% | 1% |
| 6-10 | * | - | - |
| *% | -% | -% | -% |
| ANY 'ACTIVE' DIGITAL RADIOS IN THE | | | |
| HOME | 130 | 70 | 50 |
| 44% | 42% | 34% | 38% |
| c | hk | | |
| Don't know | | | |
| 2 | - | 3 | 3 |
| 1% | -% | 2% | 1% |
| b | | | |
| Mean number of 'active' digital radio sets | .6 | .5 | .4 |
| c | hk | | |
| Standard deviation | .84 | .77 | .71 |
| Standard error | .04 | .05 | .04 |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QP10. In most weeks, how many motor vehicles do you personally use - as a driver or a passenger? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
None
73
50
82
133
358
467
91
137
**
21
62
415
21%
24%
42%
33%
39%
22%
41%
40%
**
31%
44%
21%
abd
ab
f
l
l
jl
1
193
120
102
222
454
1114
88
164
**
42
71
1052
55%
57%
52%
55%
50%
53%
40%
48%
**
60%
50%
53%
g
h
h
2
75
35
10
45
76
433
25
30
**
6
8
428
21%
16%
5%
11%
8%
21%
11%
9%
**
9%
6%
22%
cd
cd
c
g
hjk
3
9
4
*
4
14
42
11
7
**
-
1
45
2%
2%
*%
1%
1%
2%
5%
2%
**
-%
1%
2%
c
f
4 or more
2
-
*
*
1
24
4
6
**
-
-
22
1%
-%
*%
*%
*%
1%
2%
2%
**
-%
-%
1%
Don't know
3
2
-
2
6
9
2
*
**
-
*
10
1%
1%
-%
*%
1%
*%
1%
*%
**
-%
*%
1%
Mean number of motor vehicles
1.1
1.0
.6
.8
.7
1.1
.9
.8
**
.8
.6
1.1
bcd
cd
c
g
k
k
hjk
Standard deviation
.77
.69
.61
.67
.70
.85
1.22
1.04
**
.59
.63
.84
Standard error
.04
.04
.03
.03
.02
.02
.08
.05
**
.06
.04
.02
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp11. How Many Of These Motor Vehicles Have A Radio? (Single Code)
Base : Those who use at least one motor vehicle in most weeks
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 347 | 247 | 220 | 467 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 280 | 193 | 172 | 360 |
| Total | 278 | 159 | 113 |
| None | 5 | 2 | 4 |
| 2% | 1% | 3% | 2% |
| f | | | |
| 1 | | | |
| 192 | 120 | 99 | 219 |
| 69% | 76% | 87% | 81% |
| ab | a | l | l |
| 2 | 71 | 33 | 10 |
| 25% | 21% | 9% | 16% |
| cd | c | c | hk |
| 3 | 8 | 4 | 1 |
| 3% | 2% | 1% | 2% |
| f | | | |
| 4 or more | 2 | - | - |
| 1% | -% | -% | -% |
| Don't know | 1 | - | - |
| *% | -% | -% | -% |
| Mean number of motor vehicles | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| cd | cd | c | f |
| Standard deviation | .59 | .50 | .38 |
| Standard error | .03 | .03 | .03 |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QP12/13. Is the radio in this vehicle a digital radio?/ How many of the radios in those vehicles are digital radios? READ OUT EXPLANATION IF NECESSARY (SINGLE CODE)
Base : Those who use at least one motor vehicle with a radio in most weeks
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 341 | 244 | 214 | 458 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 274 | 190 | 167 | 353 |
| Total | 273 | 157 | 109 |
| None | 181 | 116 | 71 |
| 67% | 74% | 65% | 71% |
| g | | | |
| 1 | | | |
| 50 | 20 | 11 | 31 |
| 18% | 13% | 10% | 11% |
| cd | | | |
| 2 | 9 | 3 | * |
| 3% | 2% | *% | 1% |
| c | f | | |
| 3 | 4 | 1 | - |
| 1% | *% | -% | *% |
| f | | | |
| 4 or more | - | - | - |
| -% | -% | -% | -% |
| f | | | |
| ANY DIGITAL RADIO IN VEHICLES | 63 | 23 | 11 |
| 23% | 15% | 10% | 13% |
| bcd | f | | |
| Don't know | 28 | 17 | 26 |
| 10% | 11% | 24% | 16% |
| abd | a | l | l |
| Mean number of 'ACTIVE' digital radios in | | | |
| vehicles | .3 | .2 | .1 |
| bcd | f | | |
| Standard deviation | | | |
| .60 | .46 | .32 | .41 |
| Standard error | .03 | .03 | .02 |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary Of Digital Radio Ownership In Home Or In Vehicle
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
None
197
129
139
267
640
1229
132
241
**
50
106
1128
56%
61%
71%
66%
70%
59%
60%
70%
**
72%
74%
57%
ab
a
l
l
l
1
97
53
42
96
193
545
42
69
**
16
27
521
27%
25%
22%
24%
21%
26%
19%
20%
**
23%
19%
26%
g
hk
2
33
21
9
30
56
205
24
24
**
2
8
201
9%
10%
5%
7%
6%
10%
11%
7%
**
4%
6%
10%
c
c
j
3
17
4
3
7
13
69
7
5
**
-
2
72
5%
2%
1%
2%
1%
3%
3%
1%
**
-%
1%
4%
cd
h
4 or more
10
3
3
6
7
40
15
4
**
1
*
50
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
7%
1%
**
1%
*%
3%
f
ANY 'ACTIVE' DIGITAL RADIOS IN THE HOME
131
72
52
124
226
720
62
81
**
14
26
700
37%
34%
27%
30%
25%
34%
28%
24%
**
20%
18%
36%
cd
hjk
ANY DIGITAL RADIO IN VEHICLES
63
23
11
35
82
317
51
39
**
6
16
329
18%
11%
6%
9%
9%
15%
23%
11%
**
9%
11%
17%
bcd
c
f
h
ANY DIGITAL RADIO SETS
156
82
56
138
269
859
88
102
**
19
37
844
44%
39%
29%
34%
30%
41%
40%
30%
**
28%
26%
43%
cd
c
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Summary Of Digital Radio Ownership In Home Or In Vehicle
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Mean number of 'active' digital radio sets in | | | |
| home or vehicle | .7 | .6 | .4 |
| bcd | c | f | hjk |
| Standard deviation | 1.07 | .90 | .76 |
| Standard error | .05 | .05 | .04 |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp14 (Qp13). Showcard Before Today, Were You Aware That You Can Listen To Radio Programmes As They Are Broadcast In These Ways? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Through a TV service - such as Freeview, Sky, Virgin, BT Vision
254
130
81
210
544
1517
149
214
**
43
80
1456
72%
62%
41%
52%
60%
73%
68%
62%
**
63%
56%
74%
bcd
cd
c
hjk
Using a computer connected to the internet
221
107
56
163
467
1427
149
178
**
31
61
1398
63%
51%
29%
40%
51%
68%
68%
52%
**
45%
43%
71%
bcd
cd
c
k
hjk
Using a smartphone - such as an iPhone or BlackBerry
179
82
32
113
378
1250
136
150
**
26
53
1234
51%
39%
16%
28%
42%
60%
62%
44%
**
38%
37%
63%
bcd
cd
c
hjk
Using an MP3 player - such as an iPod
142
61
24
86
303
1022
103
119
**
22
44
1012
40%
29%
13%
21%
33%
49%
47%
35%
**
32%
31%
51%
bcd
cd
c
hjk
Using a games console - such as a PlayStation or Wii
100
34
12
46
196
748
65
86
**
17
25
731
28%
16%
6%
11%
22%
36%
30%
25%
**
25%
18%
37%
bcd
c
c
hjk
AWARE CAN LISTEN IN ANY OF THESE WAYS
274
143
90
233
620
1679
180
233
**
46
84
1629
78%
68%
46%
57%
68%
80%
82%
68%
**
67%
59%
83%
bcd
cd
c
k
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp14 (Qp13). Showcard Before Today, Were You Aware That You Can Listen To Radio Programmes As They Are Broadcast In These Ways? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
AWARE CAN LISTEN THROUGH COMPUTER & INTERNET, DIGITAL TV OR GAMES CONSOLE
273
141
89
230
606
1645
175
230
**
46
83
1593
77%
67%
46%
57%
67%
79%
80%
67%
**
67%
58%
81%
bcd
cd
c
k
hjk
No, none of these
79
67
105
173
288
409
40
111
**
23
58
343
22%
32%
54%
43%
32%
20%
18%
32%
**
33%
41%
17%
a
abd
ab
l
l
hl
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp15 (Qp14). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Features Did You Associate With Digital Radio Before Today? (Multi Code)
Base : All aware of digital radio, with experience of listening to digital radio or aware of ways of listening to digital radio
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
404
284
276
560
1143
2429
193
422
56
90
163
2206
Effective Weighted Sample
332
226
225
445
924
1964
147
327
42
72
125
1822
Total
332
185
143
328
795
1964
202
287
41
59
107
1882
Clear and high quality sound/ interference free
197
86
60
146
404
1160
121
157
**
**
55
1128
59%
47%
42%
45%
51%
59%
60%
55%
**
**
52%
60%
bcd
A wider choice of radio stations/ digital-only radio stations
167
75
52
126
338
1051
106
131
**
**
51
1032
50%
41%
36%
39%
43%
54%
52%
46%
**
**
47%
55%
bcd
h
Ease of use (e.g. find your station by name, not frequency)
80
33
23
56
157
550
53
66
**
**
26
541
24%
18%
16%
17%
20%
28%
26%
23%
**
**
25%
29%
cd
h
Extra features (including ability to pause and rewind live radio, programme guides)
56
21
13
33
109
410
52
49
**
**
16
420
17%
11%
9%
10%
14%
21%
26%
17%
**
**
15%
22%
cd
h
Scrolling text information about the programme (e.g. track and artist name, phone numbers, topics, guests)
49
19
10
29
88
359
41
43
**
**
16
362
15%
10%
7%
9%
11%
18%
20%
15%
**
**
15%
19%
cd
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp15 (Qp14). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Features Did You Associate With Digital Radio Before Today? (Multi Code)
Base : All aware of digital radio, with experience of listening to digital radio or aware of ways of listening to digital radio
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
~j
k
l
Unweighted total
404
284
276
560
1143
2429
193
422
56
90
163
2206
Effective Weighted Sample
332
226
225
445
924
1964
147
327
42
72
125
1822
Total
332
185
143
328
795
1964
202
287
41
59
107
1882
Future-proof/ ready for switchover
45
14
17
30
79
277
21
35
**
**
15
270
14%
7%
12%
9%
10%
14%
11%
12%
**
**
14%
14%
b
ANY FEATURES ASSOCIATED WITH
DIGITAL RADIO
259
119
81
200
539
1526
156
201
**
**
74
1485
78%
65%
56%
61%
68%
78%
77%
70%
**
**
69%
79%
bcd
hk
None of these
74
65
62
127
255
437
46
86
**
**
34
395
22%
35%
44%
39%
32%
22%
23%
30%
**
**
31%
21%
a
a
a
l
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp16 (Qp15). Showcard As A Digital Radio Listener, Which, If Any, Of These Features Of Digital Radio Have You Had Experience Of When Listening To Digital Radio? (Multi Code)
Base : All with any type of digital radio
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
~g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
Unweighted total
189
118
104
222
383
1023
80
142
28
29
58
962
Effective Weighted Sample
156
94
83
174
308
834
59
113
21
25
47
798
Total
156
82
56
138
269
859
88
102
20
19
37
844
Clear and high quality sound/ interference free
94
50
30
80
161
554
**
61
**
**
**
549
60%
61%
53%
58%
60%
65%
**
60%
**
**
**
65%
A wider choice of radio stations/ digital-only
radio stations
77
39
30
69
138
502
**
57
**
**
**
504
49%
48%
53%
50%
51%
58%
**
55%
**
**
**
60%
Ease of use (e.g. find your station by name, not frequency)
49
20
19
38
72
295
**
34
**
**
**
294
31%
24%
33%
28%
27%
34%
**
33%
**
**
**
35%
Scrolling text information about the programme (e.g. track and artist name, phone numbers, topics, guests)
25
11
6
17
41
207
**
26
**
**
**
205
16%
14%
10%
12%
15%
24%
**
26%
**
**
**
24%
Extra features (including ability to pause and rewind live radio, programme guides)
31
12
6
18
40
195
**
20
**
**
**
201
20%
15%
11%
13%
15%
23%
**
20%
**
**
**
24%
EXPERIENCED ANY FEATURES WHEN LISTENING
118
61
40
101
205
692
**
76
**
**
**
687
76%
74%
72%
73%
76%
81%
**
74%
**
**
**
81%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp16 (Qp15). Showcard As A Digital Radio Listener, Which, If Any, Of These Features Of Digital Radio Have You Had Experience Of When Listening To Digital Radio? (Multi Code)
Base : All with any type of digital radio
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 189 | 118 | 104 | 222 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 156 | 94 | 83 | 174 |
| Total | 156 | 82 | 56 |
| None of these | 38 | 21 | 16 |
| 24% | 26% | 28% | 27% |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp17. Showcard Before Today, Were You Aware That You Can Listen To Radio Programmes After They Are Broadcast In These Ways? 9Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Via the 'listen again' function on radio apps such as Radio Player and BBC Radio Player
137
43
27
70
248
918
98
101
**
14
37
915
39%
21%
14%
17%
27%
44%
44%
29%
**
21%
26%
46%
bcd
c
hjk
Via radio station websites
121
40
16
56
232
827
100
92
**
15
32
833
34%
19%
8%
14%
25%
40%
45%
27%
**
22%
22%
42%
bcd
c
c
hjk
Via radio station apps
81
25
7
32
158
661
72
63
**
10
19
674
23%
12%
4%
8%
17%
32%
33%
18%
**
15%
14%
34%
bcd
c
c
hjk
Via podcasts
83
22
9
32
148
655
32
65
**
9
20
626
24%
10%
5%
8%
16%
31%
15%
19%
**
14%
14%
32%
bcd
c
g
hjk
AWARE CAN LISTEN IN ANY OF THESE WAYS
160
58
33
91
316
1099
121
127
**
19
46
1096
45%
28%
17%
22%
35%
53%
55%
37%
**
27%
32%
56%
bcd
c
hjk
None of these
193
153
162
315
593
989
99
217
**
50
97
876
55%
72%
83%
78%
65%
47%
45%
63%
**
73%
68%
44%
a
ab
a
l
l
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp18. Showcard And Do You Ever Listen To Radio Programmes After They Have Been Broadcast In Any Of These Ways? (Multi Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Via the 'listen again' function on radio apps such as Radio Player and BBC Radio Player
41
11
7
18
69
268
36
33
**
5
14
273
12%
5%
4%
5%
8%
13%
16%
10%
**
8%
10%
14%
bcd
h
Via radio station websites
25
4
5
9
48
195
31
26
**
3
9
200
7%
2%
2%
2%
5%
9%
14%
7%
**
5%
6%
10%
bcd
Via podcasts
17
2
3
5
21
150
9
20
**
3
5
141
5%
1%
2%
1%
2%
7%
4%
6%
**
4%
3%
7%
bcd
k
Via radio station apps
11
2
1
3
30
135
16
17
**
2
5
139
3%
1%
*%
1%
3%
6%
7%
5%
**
3%
4%
7%
cd
EVER LISTEN IN ANY OF THESE WAYS
62
14
10
25
101
432
52
55
**
7
18
433
17%
7%
5%
6%
11%
21%
23%
16%
**
10%
13%
22%
bcd
hjk
None of these
292
196
185
381
808
1656
169
289
**
62
125
1539
83%
93%
95%
94%
89%
79%
77%
84%
**
90%
87%
78%
a
a
a
l
l
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp19 (Qp12). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Dab Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code)
Base : Those who listen to radio and have any active radio sets but no DAB sets at home
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 122 | 116 | 151 | 267 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 97 | 89 | 121 | 208 |
| Total | 97 | 67 | 73 |
| Certain to | 4 | 1 | - |
| 4% | 1% | -% | 1% |
| cd | | | |
| Very likely | | | |
| 1 | 3 | - | 3 |
| 1% | 5% | -% | 2% |
| c | | | |
| Likely | 10 | 5 | 3 |
| 11% | 7% | 4% | 5% |
| TOTAL LIKELY | 16 | 9 | 3 |
| 16% | 13% | 4% | 8% |
| cd | c | h | |
| Unlikely | | | |
| 19 | 11 | 15 | 26 |
| 20% | 17% | 21% | 19% |
| Very unlikely | 20 | 11 | 22 |
| 20% | 17% | 30% | 24% |
| b | | | |
| Certain not to | 19 | 18 | 21 |
| 20% | 27% | 29% | 28% |
| l | | | |
| TOTAL UNLIKELY | | | |
| 58 | 40 | 58 | 99 |
| 60% | 60% | 80% | 71% |
| ab | l | | |
| Don't know | 24 | 18 | 12 |
| 24% | 27% | 16% | 21% |
| h | | | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp20 (Qj14). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Digital Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get DAB radio in the next 12 months
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
c
d
e
f
~g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
Unweighted total
72
71
122
193
300
452
27
140
17
21
64
341
Effective Weighted Sample
58
55
96
150
229
349
19
110
13
16
50
266
Total
58
40
58
99
184
307
22
86
10
13
40
247
No need
**
**
33
55
104
178
**
49
**
**
**
147
**
**
58%
56%
56%
58%
**
57%
**
**
**
60%
Happy to use existing service
**
**
29
51
81
125
**
34
**
**
**
96
**
**
51%
52%
44%
41%
**
40%
**
**
**
39%
Can receive through digital TV service
**
**
1
3
11
17
**
6
**
**
**
13
**
**
1%
3%
6%
6%
**
7%
**
**
**
5%
Happy to use analogue radio service
**
**
5
6
11
16
**
5
**
**
**
13
**
**
8%
6%
6%
5%
**
6%
**
**
**
5%
Too expensive generally
**
**
1
2
9
14
**
6
**
**
**
9
**
**
2%
2%
5%
4%
**
7%
**
**
**
4%
Can't afford it
**
**
2
2
9
14
**
4
**
**
**
11
**
**
3%
2%
5%
4%
**
5%
**
**
**
4%
Would never listen
**
**
2
2
5
13
**
3
**
**
**
11
**
**
3%
2%
3%
4%
**
3%
**
**
**
5%
Don't know why I should
**
**
*
3
4
4
**
2
**
**
**
2
**
**
1%
3%
2%
1%
**
2%
**
**
**
1%
Poor reception in our area
**
**
1
2
2
3
**
1
**
**
**
2
**
**
2%
2%
1%
1%
**
2%
**
**
**
1%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qp20 (Qj14). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Digital Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted
Base : Those unlikely to get DAB radio in the next 12 months
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
c
d
e
f
~g
h
~i
~j
~k
l
Unweighted total
72
71
122
193
300
452
27
140
17
21
64
341
Effective Weighted Sample
58
55
96
150
229
349
19
110
13
16
50
266
Total
58
40
58
99
184
307
22
86
10
13
40
247
Not available in our area
**
**
-
-
-
2
**
-
**
**
**
2
**
**
-%
-%
-%
1%
**
-%
**
**
**
1%
Other
**
**
2
5
5
11
**
6
**
**
**
7
**
**
4%
5%
3%
3%
**
6%
**
**
**
3%
ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS
**
**
3
5
18
30
**
11
**
**
**
21
**
**
6%
5%
10%
10%
**
13%
**
**
**
9%
ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS
**
**
54
94
169
276
**
75
**
**
**
226
**
**
93%
95%
92%
90%
**
87%
**
**
**
92%
ONLY VOLUNTARY REASONS
**
**
53
91
164
267
**
73
**
**
**
217
**
**
91%
93%
89%
87%
**
85%
**
**
**
88%
Don't know
**
**
1
1
1
4
**
1
**
**
**
4
**
**
1%
1%
*%
1%
**
1%
**
**
**
2%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qm1. Which Of The Following Statements Best Describes Your Role When Opening And Sending Mail In Your Household? (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
I am responsible for opening and sending all mail in my household
142
88
126
214
471
816
75
180
**
35
83
714
40%
42%
65%
53%
52%
39%
34%
52%
**
51%
58%
36%
abd
ab
l
l
l
I am responsible for opening and sending some mail in my household
204
118
66
184
396
1165
136
148
**
31
57
1156
58%
56%
34%
45%
44%
56%
62%
43%
**
44%
40%
59%
cd
cd
c
hjk
I am not responsible for opening or sending any mail in my household
7
5
3
7
42
104
9
15
**
3
3
98
2%
2%
1%
2%
5%
5%
4%
4%
**
5%
2%
5%
Don't know
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
**
-
-
3
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
-%
**
-%
-%
*%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qm2. Showcard Approximately How Many Letters, Cards And Small Parcels Or Packets That Would Fit Easily Through A Letterbox Did You Personally Send In The Last Month? (Exclude Any Items Sent In Connection With Running A Business From Home) (Single Code)
Base : Those responsible for sending or receiving any household mail
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | 432 | 315 | 377 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | 354 | 248 | 303 |
| Total | 346 | 206 | 192 |
| I didn't send any letters, cards | | | |
| or small parcels in the last | | | |
| month | (0.0) | 77 | 55 |
| 22% | 27% | 27% | 27% |
| f | | | |
| 1 or 2 items | (1.5) | 93 | 51 |
| 27% | 25% | 28% | 26% |
| 3 or 4 items | (3.5) | 80 | 41 |
| 23% | 20% | 17% | 18% |
| c | | | |
| 5 to 10 items | (7.5) | 54 | 40 |
| 16% | 19% | 20% | 20% |
| 11 to 20 items | (15.0) | 28 | 12 |
| 8% | 6% | 3% | 5% |
| cd | l | | |
| More than 20 items | (30.0) | 10 | 3 |
| 3% | 2% | 2% | 2% |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qm2. Showcard Approximately How Many Letters, Cards And Small Parcels Or Packets That Would Fit Easily Through A Letterbox Did You Personally Send In The Last Month? (Exclude Any Items Sent In Connection With Running A Business From Home) (Single Code)
Base : Those responsible for sending or receiving any household mail
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | 432 | 315 | 377 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | 354 | 248 | 303 |
| Total | 346 | 206 | 192 |
| SENT ANY LETTERS, CARDS | | | |
| OR SMALL PARCELS IN LAST | | | |
| MONTH | 265 | 147 | 134 |
| 77% | 72% | 70% | 71% |
| g | | | |
| Don't know | 4 | 4 | 6 |
| 1% | 2% | 3% | 2% |
| f | | | |
| Refused | - | - | - |
| -% | -% | -% | -% |
| Mean number of letters, cards | | | |
| and small parcels sent in the | | | |
| last month | 4.5 | 4.0 | 3.7 |
| g | | | |
| Standard deviation | 6.05 | 5.21 | 5.22 |
| Standard error | .29 | .30 | .27 |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qm3 (Qm9). Showcard Approximately How Many Parcels Did You Personally Send In The Last Month, So Items That Wouldn'T Easily Fit Through A Letterbox? (Exclude Any Items Sent In Connection With Running A Business From Home) (Single Code)
Base : Those responsible for sending or receiving any household mail
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | 432 | 315 | 377 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | 354 | 248 | 303 |
| Total | 346 | 206 | 192 |
| I didn't send any letters, cards | | | |
| or small parcels in the last | | | |
| month | (0.0) | 264 | 153 |
| 76% | 74% | 86% | 80% |
| abd | l | | |
| 1 or 2 items | (1.5) | 53 | 38 |
| 15% | 18% | 10% | 14% |
| c | c | | |
| 3 or 4 items | (3.5) | 7 | 9 |
| 2% | 4% | 3% | 3% |
| 5 to 10 items | (7.5) | 11 | 3 |
| 3% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| cd | | | |
| 11 to 20 items | (15.0) | 4 | - |
| 1% | -% | *% | *% |
| More than 20 items | (30.0) | 2 | - |
| 1% | -% | -% | -% |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qm3 (Qm9). Showcard Approximately How Many Parcels Did You Personally Send In The Last Month, So Items That Wouldn'T Easily Fit Through A Letterbox? (Exclude Any Items Sent In Connection With Running A Business From Home) (Single Code)
Base : Those responsible for sending or receiving any household mail
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | 432 | 315 | 377 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | 354 | 248 | 303 |
| Total | 346 | 206 | 192 |
| SENT ANY PARCELS IN LAST | | | |
| MONTH | 76 | 49 | 26 |
| 22% | 24% | 13% | 19% |
| c | c | c | h |
| Don't know | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| 1% | 2% | 1% | 2% |
| f | | | |
| Refused | | | |
| 2 | - | - | - |
| 1% | -% | -% | -% |
| Mean number of parcels sent in | | | |
| the last month | .9 | .5 | .3 |
| cd | h | | |
| Standard deviation | 2.95 | 1.18 | 1.31 |
| Standard error | .14 | .07 | .07 |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QM4 (QM5). SHOWCARD Approximately how many letters, cards and small parcels or packets that would fit easily through a letterbox did you personally receive in the last week? (Include any addressed mail, exclude unaddressed mail) (SINGLE CODE)
Base : Those responsible for sending or receiving any household mail
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | 432 | 315 | 377 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | 354 | 248 | 303 |
| Total | 346 | 206 | 192 |
| I didn't receive any letters, | | | |
| cards or small parcels in the | | | |
| last week | (0.5) | 23 | 14 |
| 7% | 7% | 12% | 9% |
| a | | | |
| 1 or 2 items | (1.5) | 42 | 32 |
| 12% | 16% | 21% | 18% |
| a | a | | |
| 3 or 4 items | (3.5) | 76 | 47 |
| 22% | 23% | 23% | 23% |
| 5 to 10 items | (7.5) | 110 | 68 |
| 32% | 33% | 28% | 31% |
| 11 to 20 items | (15.0) | 68 | 31 |
| 20% | 15% | 12% | 14% |
| cd | | | |
| 21 to 30 items | (25.0) | 14 | 5 |
| 4% | 2% | 1% | 2% |
| c | | | |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QM4 (QM5). SHOWCARD Approximately how many letters, cards and small parcels or packets that would fit easily through a letterbox did you personally receive in the last week? (Include any addressed mail, exclude unaddressed mail) (SINGLE CODE)
Base : Those responsible for sending or receiving any household mail
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | 432 | 315 | 377 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | 354 | 248 | 303 |
| Total | 346 | 206 | 192 |
| 31 to 50 items | (40.0) | 6 | 5 |
| 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% |
| h | | | |
| More than 50 items | (60.0) | 3 | 1 |
| 1% | *% | *% | *% |
| RECEIVED ANY LETTERS, | | | |
| CARDS OR SMALL PARCELS | | | |
| IN LAST WEEK | 320 | 190 | 167 |
| 92% | 92% | 87% | 90% |
| c | g | | |
| Don't know | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| f | | | |
| Refused | - | - | * |
| -% | -% | *% | *% |
| Mean number of letters, cards | | | |
| and small parcels received in | | | |
| the last week | 8.7 | 7.8 | 6.3 |
| cd | c | h | |
| Standard deviation | | | |
| 8.88 | 8.32 | 7.38 | 7.91 |
| Standard error | .43 | .47 | .38 |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qm5 (Qm6). Showcard Approximately How Many Parcels Did You Personally Receive In The Last Week, So Items That Wouldn'T Easily Fit Through A Letterbox? (Single Code)
Base : Those responsible for sending or receiving any household mail
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 432 | 315 | 377 | 692 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 354 | 248 | 303 | 541 |
| Total | 346 | 206 | 192 |
| I didn't receive any parcels in | | | |
| the last week | (0.0) | 249 | 152 |
| 72% | 74% | 80% | 77% |
| a | | | |
| 1 or 2 items | (1.5) | 66 | 43 |
| 19% | 21% | 17% | 19% |
| 3 or 4 items | (3.5) | 14 | 8 |
| 4% | 4% | 2% | 3% |
| 5 to 10 items | (7.5) | 11 | 1 |
| 3% | 1% | *% | *% |
| bcd | h | | |
| 11 to 20 items | (15.0) | 2 | - |
| 1% | -% | *% | *% |
| More than 20 items | (30.0) | 1 | - |
| *% | -% | *% | *% |
| RECEIVED ANY PARCELS IN | | | |
| LAST WEEK | 94 | 52 | 37 |
| 27% | 25% | 19% | 22% |
| c | | | |
| Don't know | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| f | | | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qm5 (Qm6). Showcard Approximately How Many Parcels Did You Personally Receive In The Last Week, So Items That Wouldn'T Easily Fit Through A Letterbox? (Single Code)
Base : Those responsible for sending or receiving any household mail
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 432 | 315 | 377 | 692 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 354 | 248 | 303 | 541 |
| Total | 346 | 206 | 192 |
| Refused | - | - | 1 |
| -% | -% | *% | *% |
| Mean number of parcels | | | |
| received in the last week | .8 | .5 | .4 |
| bcd | hk | | |
| Standard deviation | | | |
| 2.35 | 1.00 | 1.76 | 1.42 |
| Standard error | .11 | .06 | .09 |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qm6 (Qm7). Over The Next Year, Do You Think You Will Use Post More, Less Or About The Same As You Do Currently? (Single Code)
Base : Those responsible for sending or receiving any household mail
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 432 | 315 | 377 | 692 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 354 | 248 | 303 | 541 |
| Total | 346 | 206 | 192 |
| Will use post more | 9 | 3 | 5 |
| 3% | 2% | 2% | 2% |
| f | | | |
| Will use post less | | | |
| 16 | 17 | 14 | 31 |
| 5% | 8% | 7% | 8% |
| a | l | l | |
| Will use post about the same as currently | 311 | 177 | 169 |
| 90% | 86% | 88% | 87% |
| g | | | |
| Don't know | 10 | 8 | 5 |
| 3% | 4% | 3% | 3% |
| f | | | |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QI1 (QI2). Have you personally had a reason to make a complaint about your landline, mobile, or internet service or supplier in the last 12 months? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Yes landline
22
12
13
25
52
131
13
33
**
4
11
110
6%
6%
7%
6%
6%
6%
6%
10%
**
6%
8%
6%
l
Yes mobile
10
2
2
5
33
72
13
16
**
1
8
67
3%
1%
1%
1%
4%
3%
6%
5%
**
1%
5%
3%
Yes internet - fixed broadband/ narrowband
35
15
8
23
56
181
16
23
**
6
12
172
10%
7%
4%
6%
6%
9%
7%
7%
**
8%
8%
9%
cd
Yes internet - mobile broadband
*
*
-
*
2
6
-
2
**
-
-
5
*%
*%
-%
*%
*%
*%
-%
1%
**
-%
-%
*%
ANY INTERNET
35
16
8
24
58
186
16
24
**
6
12
175
10%
7%
4%
6%
6%
9%
7%
7%
**
8%
8%
9%
cd
No none of these
298
184
176
359
787
1771
190
283
**
60
119
1687
84%
87%
90%
89%
87%
85%
86%
82%
**
87%
84%
86%
a
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qi2 (Qi4). And Did You Go Ahead And Make A Complaint About Your Landline Service Or Supplier? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a reason to complain about their landline service or supplier in the last 12 months
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 28 | 19 | 26 | 45 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 23 | 15 | 23 | 37 |
| Total | 22 | 12 | 13 |
| Yes | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| No | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qi3 (Qi5). Why Did You Not Make A Complaint About Your Landline Service Or Supplier? (Multi Code)
Base : Those did not go ahead and make a complaint about their landline service or supplier
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
~e
~f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
~l
Unweighted total
5
1
4
5
9
24
3
8
1
1
3
19
Effective Weighted Sample
4
1
3
4
8
18
3
7
1
1
2
14
Total
3
*
2
2
5
18
5
5
1
1
1
15
The problem was sorted out
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Not worth the hassle
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Didn't have time
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
They wouldn't do anything anyway
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Did not know where to go
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qi4 (Qi7). And Did You Go Ahead And Make A Complaint About Your Mobile Service Or Supplier? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a reason to complain about their mobile service or supplier in the last 12 months
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 15 | 6 | 5 | 11 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 12 | 5 | 4 | 9 |
| Total | 10 | 2 | 2 |
| Yes | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| No | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qi5 (Qi8). Why Did You Not Make A Complaint About Your Mobile Service Or Supplier? (Multi Code)
Base : Those did not go ahead and make a complaint about their mobile service or supplier
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
~e
~f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
~l
Unweighted total
1
2
1
3
8
15
2
5
1
2
3
12
Effective Weighted Sample
1
2
1
3
6
12
2
4
1
2
3
10
Total
*
1
1
2
5
11
2
3
1
1
1
9
The problem was sorted out
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Not worth the hassle
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
They wouldn't do anything anyway
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Didn't have time
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qi6 (Qi10). And Did You Go Ahead And Make A Complaint About Your Internet Service Or Supplier? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a reason to complain about their fixed broadband/ narrowband internet service or supplier in the last 12 months
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
~e
f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
l
Unweighted total
38
25
15
40
78
213
14
31
6
7
14
196
Effective Weighted Sample
31
20
13
33
64
174
10
24
5
6
10
162
Total
35
15
8
23
56
181
16
23
5
6
12
172
Yes
**
**
**
**
**
162
**
**
**
**
**
149
**
**
**
**
**
89%
**
**
**
**
**
87%
No
**
**
**
**
**
20
**
**
**
**
**
22
**
**
**
**
**
11%
**
**
**
**
**
13%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qi7 (Qi11). Why Did You Not Make A Complaint About Your Internet Service Or Supplier? (Multi Code)
Base : Those did not go ahead and make a complaint about their fixed broadband/ narrowband internet service or supplier
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
~e
~f
~g
~h
~i
Unweighted total
4
2
2
4
9
25
4
2
27
Effective Weighted Sample
3
2
2
4
7
19
4
2
21
Total
2
1
1
2
8
20
5
1
22
The problem was sorted out
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Didn't have time
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
They wouldn't do anything anyway
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Not worth the hassle
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Did not know where to go
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qi8 (Qi13). And Did You Go Ahead And Make A Complaint About Your Mobile Broadband Service Or Supplier? (Single Code)
Base : Those with a reason to complain about their mobile broadband internet service or supplier in the last 12 months
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | | | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 65+ | OR DE |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Total | * | * | * |
| Yes | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| No | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
Columns Tested: a,b,c - f,g,h Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qi9 (Qi14). Why Did You Not Make A Complaint About Your Internet Service Or Supplier? (Multi Code)
Base : Those did not go ahead and make a complaint about their mobile broadband internet service or supplier
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
55-64
OR DE
NO
NO
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
Unweighted total
1
1
2
2
Effective Weighted Sample
1
1
2
2
Total
*
1
1
1
Not worth the hassle
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
They wouldn't do anything anyway
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
The problem was sorted out
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: None
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QZ1. SHOWCARD Could you please take a look at the options shown on this card and let me know which applies to you? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Married/ civil partnership
226
141
81
222
380
1065
117
153
**
34
60
1029
64%
67%
42%
55%
42%
51%
53%
44%
**
49%
42%
52%
cd
cd
c
hk
Co-habiting
6
3
1
4
59
179
10
16
**
1
3
176
2%
1%
1%
1%
6%
9%
5%
5%
**
2%
2%
9%
hjk
Single
40
13
6
19
226
513
72
61
**
3
22
523
11%
6%
3%
5%
25%
25%
33%
18%
**
5%
16%
27%
bcd
f
j
j
hjk
Widowed, divorced or separated
78
53
105
159
243
327
19
114
**
30
58
235
22%
25%
54%
39%
27%
16%
9%
33%
**
43%
41%
12%
abd
ab
g
l
l
l
Refused
3
-
1
1
2
4
1
-
**
-
-
9
1%
-%
*%
*%
*%
*%
1%
-%
**
-%
-%
*%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QZ2. SHOWCARD Which of the groups on this card do you consider you belong to? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
WHITE British
243
138
127
265
584
1512
-
225
**
48
90
1291
69%
65%
65%
65%
64%
72%
-%
66%
**
69%
63%
65%
g
English
50
39
38
77
127
249
-
53
**
13
26
196
14%
19%
20%
19%
14%
12%
-%
15%
**
19%
18%
10%
g
l
l
l
Scottish
21
15
12
28
67
162
-
21
**
4
11
139
6%
7%
6%
7%
7%
8%
-%
6%
**
6%
7%
7%
g
Welsh
9
5
6
11
28
53
-
13
**
2
4
40
3%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
-%
4%
**
3%
2%
2%
g
l
Irish
5
3
3
6
18
36
-
6
**
*
2
30
2%
2%
1%
2%
2%
2%
-%
2%
**
*%
2%
2%
Any other white background
5
1
2
3
23
76
-
5
**
1
1
71
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
4%
-%
1%
**
2%
1%
4%
g
h
MIXED White and Black Caribbean
-
1
-
1
5
-
12
1
**
-
-
16
-%
*%
-%
*%
1%
-%
6%
*%
**
-%
-%
1%
f
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QZ2. SHOWCARD Which of the groups on this card do you consider you belong to? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
White and Black African
2
-
-
-
-
-
3
1
**
-
1
4
1%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
1%
*%
**
-%
*%
*%
f
White and Asian
*
-
-
-
3
-
6
*
**
-
*
6
*%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
3%
*%
**
-%
*%
*%
f
Any other mixed background
-
-
-
-
1
-
1
-
**
-
-
1
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
*%
-%
**
-%
-%
*%
f
ASIAN AND BRITISH ASIAN Indian
7
3
3
6
16
-
63
9
**
-
1
50
2%
1%
2%
2%
2%
-%
29%
3%
**
-%
*%
3%
f
Pakistani
1
1
1
1
9
-
27
3
**
-
2
24
*%
*%
*%
*%
1%
-%
12%
1%
**
-%
2%
1%
f
Bangladeshi
2
-
-
-
6
-
18
1
**
-
1
17
1%
-%
-%
-%
1%
-%
8%
*%
**
-%
1%
1%
f
Any other Asian background
-
-
-
-
2
-
7
2
**
-
-
5
-%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
3%
*%
**
-%
-%
*%
f
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QZ2. SHOWCARD Which of the groups on this card do you consider you belong to? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
BLACK AND BLACK BRITISH Caribbean
2
3
1
4
6
-
21
3
**
*
2
22
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
-%
10%
1%
**
1%
1%
1%
f
African
3
-
-
-
9
-
31
1
**
-
1
38
1%
-%
-%
-%
1%
-%
14%
*%
**
-%
1%
2%
d
f
h
Any other black background
-
1
-
1
3
-
4
1
**
-
1
4
-%
1%
-%
*%
*%
-%
2%
*%
**
-%
*%
*%
f
MIDDLE EAST AND ARABIC ORIGIN Middle Eastern, including Arabic origin
2
-
-
-
1
-
8
-
**
-
-
4
1%
-%
-%
-%
*%
-%
4%
-%
**
-%
-%
*%
f
Iranian
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
**
-
-
1
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
1%
-%
**
-%
-%
*%
f
CHINESE OR OTHER ETHNIC GROUP Chinese
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
**
-
-
1
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
1%
-%
**
-%
-%
*%
f
Any other background
-
-
1
1
1
-
13
-
**
-
-
5
-%
-%
*%
*%
*%
-%
6%
-%
**
-%
-%
*%
f
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz2. Showcard Which Of The Groups On This Card Do You Consider You Belong To? (Single Code)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Refused
1
*
*
1
1
-
-
*
**
-
*
6
*%
*%
*%
*%
*%
-%
-%
*%
**
-%
*%
*%
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QZ3 (C9). SHOWCARD Which of these, if any, limit your daily activities or the work you can do? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Cannot walk far or manage stairs or can only do so with difficulty
25
26
42
68
101
119
6
130
**
23
130
-
7%
12%
22%
17%
11%
6%
3%
38%
**
33%
91%
-%
a
ab
a
l
l
hjl
Breathlessness or chest pains
21
13
22
35
66
86
2
90
**
15
41
-
6%
6%
11%
9%
7%
4%
1%
26%
**
22%
29%
-%
ab
g
l
l
l
Poor hearing, partial hearing or deafness
11
14
32
46
58
67
*
69
**
69
23
-
3%
7%
16%
11%
6%
3%
*%
20%
**
100%
16%
-%
a
abd
ab
g
l
hkl
l
Poor vision, partial sight or blindness
6
12
18
30
42
48
*
49
**
13
17
-
2%
6%
9%
7%
5%
2%
*%
14%
**
19%
12%
-%
a
a
a
l
l
l
Mental health problems or difficulties
7
-
2
2
23
28
1
29
**
2
6
-
2%
-%
1%
*%
3%
1%
1%
8%
**
3%
4%
-%
bd
l
l
l
Limited ability to reach
3
3
8
12
18
22
2
25
**
5
25
-
1%
2%
4%
3%
2%
1%
1%
7%
**
8%
17%
-%
a
l
l
hjl
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QZ3 (C9). SHOWCARD Which of these, if any, limit your daily activities or the work you can do? (MULTI CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Dyslexia
3
1
-
1
6
15
-
15
**
1
1
-
1%
1%
-%
*%
1%
1%
-%
4%
**
1%
1%
-%
kl
l
l
Cannot walk at all / use a wheelchair
3
2
3
5
10
12
-
13
**
2
13
-
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
-%
4%
**
3%
9%
-%
l
l
hl
Other illnesses or health problems which limit your daily activities or the work that you can do
21
12
19
31
69
95
10
104
**
7
30
-
6%
6%
10%
8%
8%
5%
5%
30%
**
10%
21%
-%
jkl
l
jl
None
290
158
108
266
659
1767
202
-
**
-
-
1972
82%
75%
56%
66%
72%
85%
92%
-%
**
-%
-%
100%
bcd
cd
c
f
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz4 (C10). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Sight? (Single Code)
Base : Those with poor vision, partial sight or blindness
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
~e
~f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
Unweighted total
9
15
31
46
62
71
1
72
72
17
25
Effective Weighted Sample
7
13
26
37
49
54
1
53
53
14
19
Total
6
12
18
30
42
48
*
49
49
13
17
Cannot tell by the light where the windows are
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Cannot see the shapes of furniture in the
room
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend if close to his or her face
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend if he or she is at arm's length
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Cannot see well enough to read a newspaper headline
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Cannot see well enough to read a large print book
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz4 (C10). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Sight? (Single Code)
Base : Those with poor vision, partial sight or blindness
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
~e
~f
~g
~h
~i
~j
~k
Unweighted total
9
15
31
46
62
71
1
72
72
17
25
Effective Weighted Sample
7
13
26
37
49
54
1
53
53
14
19
Total
6
12
18
30
42
48
*
49
49
13
17
Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend across a room
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend
across a road
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Have difficulty seeing ordinary newspaper print
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Other
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Don't know
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz5 (C11). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Hearing? (Single Code)
Base : Those with poor hearing, partial hearing or deafness
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
Significance Level: 95%
~a
~b
~c
~d
~e
f
~g
h
~i
j
~k
Unweighted total
18
20
61
81
98
113
1
114
17
114
36
Effective Weighted Sample
15
16
51
65
77
87
1
89
14
89
28
Total
11
14
32
46
58
67
*
69
13
69
23
Cannot hear sounds at all
**
**
**
**
**
2
**
2
**
2
**
**
**
**
**
**
4%
**
3%
**
3%
**
Cannot follow a TV programme with the
volume turned up
**
**
**
**
**
8
**
7
**
7
**
**
**
**
**
**
12%
**
11%
**
11%
**
Have difficulty hearing someone talking in a loud voice in a quiet room
**
**
**
**
**
6
**
6
**
6
**
**
**
**
**
**
9%
**
9%
**
9%
**
Cannot hear a doorbell, alarm clock or telephone bell
**
**
**
**
**
5
**
6
**
6
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
**
9%
**
9%
**
Cannot follow a TV programme at a volume others find acceptable
**
**
**
**
**
12
**
13
**
13
**
**
**
**
**
**
18%
**
19%
**
19%
**
Difficulty hearing someone talking in a normal voice in a quiet room
**
**
**
**
**
6
**
6
**
6
**
**
**
**
**
**
8%
**
8%
**
8%
**
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
## Qz5 (C11). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Hearing? (Single Code)
Base : Those with poor hearing, partial hearing or deafness
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|---------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 18 | 20 | 61 | 81 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 15 | 16 | 51 | 65 |
| Total | 11 | 14 | 32 |
| Difficulty following a conversation against | | | |
| background noise | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Other | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
| Don't know | ** | ** | ** |
| ** | ** | ** | ** |
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QZ8 (QZ9A). Could you please tell me if your total household income from all sources before tax and other deductions is above or below £11,500 per year?
Base : All respondents
| AGE | AGE/SEG | MEG | DISABILITY |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|
| 65+ | HEAR- | MOBI- | |
| 55-64 | 65-74 | 75+ | 65+ |
| Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c |
| Unweighted total | | | |
| 438 | 323 | 383 | 706 |
| Effective Weighted Sample | | | |
| 358 | 255 | 308 | 553 |
| Total | 353 | 211 | 195 |
| Under £11,500 | 54 | 50 | 67 |
| 15% | 24% | 35% | 29% |
| a | ab | a | l |
| Above £11,500 | | | |
| 186 | 88 | 61 | 148 |
| 53% | 42% | 31% | 37% |
| bcd | c | g | hjk |
| Don't know | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| 4% | 7% | 8% | 7% |
| Refused | 98 | 58 | 52 |
| 28% | 27% | 27% | 27% |
| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | | | |
Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QZ9 (QZ9). SHOWCARD Group in which you would place your total household income from all sources, before tax and other deductions? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Unweighted total
438
323
383
706
1347
2652
219
521
72
114
221
2358
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
Total
353
211
195
406
909
2088
220
343
49
69
143
1972
Under £11,500
54
50
67
117
319
364
43
124
**
24
61
276
15%
24%
35%
29%
35%
17%
19%
36%
**
34%
43%
14%
a
ab
a
l
l
l
£11,500 - £17,499
34
28
29
57
128
221
15
43
**
6
15
195
10%
13%
15%
14%
14%
11%
7%
12%
**
9%
10%
10%
a
a
£17,500 - £29,999
33
22
10
32
67
233
19
23
**
7
6
233
9%
11%
5%
8%
7%
11%
9%
7%
**
10%
4%
12%
c
c
hk
£30,000 - £49,999
35
10
4
14
23
227
15
16
**
4
4
224
10%
5%
2%
3%
3%
11%
7%
5%
**
6%
3%
11%
bcd
c
hk
£50,000+
22
5
1
6
8
149
8
5
**
-
2
150
6%
2%
*%
1%
1%
7%
4%
2%
**
-%
2%
8%
bcd
c
hjk
REFUSED BUT ABOVE £11.5K
69
29
20
49
93
339
36
42
**
7
19
338
19%
14%
10%
12%
10%
16%
17%
12%
**
11%
14%
17%
cd
h
DK/ Refused
108
65
64
130
272
556
84
89
**
21
34
556
30%
31%
33%
32%
30%
27%
38%
26%
**
30%
24%
28%
f
HOUSEHOLD INCOME UNDER £11.5K
54
50
67
117
319
364
43
124
**
24
61
276
15%
24%
35%
29%
35%
17%
19%
36%
**
34%
43%
14%
a
ab
a
l
l
l
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level.
QZ9 (QZ9). SHOWCARD Group in which you would place your total household income from all sources, before tax and other deductions? (SINGLE CODE)
Base : All respondents
AGE
AGE/SEG
MEG
DISABILITY
65+
HEAR-
MOBI-
55-64
65-74
75+
65+
OR DE
NO
YES
ANY
VISION
ING
LITY
NO
Significance Level: 95%
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
~i
j
k
l
Effective Weighted Sample
358
255
308
553
1078
2123
164
404
53
89
171
1929
£11.5K- £17.5K
34
28
29
57
128
221
15
43
**
6
15
195
10%
13%
15%
14%
14%
11%
7%
12%
**
9%
10%
10%
a
a
£17.5K- £29.9K
33
22
10
32
67
233
19
23
**
7
6
233
9%
11%
5%
8%
7%
11%
9%
7%
**
10%
4%
12%
c
c
hk
£30K+
57
16
4
20
30
375
23
22
**
4
6
374
16%
7%
2%
5%
3%
18%
10%
6%
**
6%
4%
19%
bcd
c
c
g
hjk
Columns Tested: a,b,c,d - f,g - h,i,j,k,l | en |
3566-pdf |
## Legal Aid Statistics Quarterly, England And Wales, April To June 2017 Main Points
Crime lower workload
down 4% compared to the
same quarter last year
This continues the gradual downward trend of recent
years. Expenditure on completed work was also down, by 3%.
Crown Court completed
workload down 12%
compared to the same
Expenditure on completed work fell by 11% over this period, and new orders for legal representation in the
Crown Court continued to decline.
quarter last year
14% fewer legal help new
matter starts than in the
The volume of completed claims also decreased, by 9% and expenditure by 3%.
same period of 2016
Family mediation starts
were 24% lower than in
the same quarter of 2016
Mediation Information and Assessment Meetings (MIAMS) and mediation outcomes also fell over this period.
26% more certificates
completed for public
family law than in the
Expenditure on completed work in this category, which already accounts for more than half the total cost of civil legal aid, rose by 17% (£18m).
same quarter last year
533 applications for
Exceptional Case
Funding received in the
This is similar to Jan-Mar 2017 (536) but 26% higher
than Apr-Jun 2016. The proportion of applications granted this quarter was 57%.
last quarter
This edition comprises the first release of official statistics for the three-month period from April to June 2017 and the latest statement of all figures for previous periods. For more detailed commentary, and statistics on providers of legal aid, Central Funds, appealing legal aid decisions and legal aid in the higher courts, please refer to the annual publication. For technical detail, please refer to the User guide to legal aid statistics.
## We Have Changed How Our Quarterly Bulletins Look, And Would Welcome Any Feedback Using This Quick Survey.
For other feedback related to the content of this publication, please let us know at statistics@legalaid.gsi.go.uk
## Things You Need To Know
These symbols are used throughout this release to navigate to other documents of interest:
To understand trends in legal aid as a whole, it is best to begin by looking at annual expenditure figures and then look at trends in both workload and expenditure for each category of legal aid. Summarising activity across the legal aid system meaningfully within a single number is difficult because of the diversity of services included, from quicker, lowercost provision like pre-charge advice to representation in a complex, high-cost court case. Expenditure on legal aid is measured differently for different purposes. A measure that is best for analysing the costs of different services, for example, may not be practical for managing budgets or payments. The three most often-used measures, shown in Fig. 1, are:
Closed-case expenditure is the measure used for expenditure figures throughout these
legal aid statistics. It represents the total value of payments made to legal aid providers in relation to pieces of work that are completed in the period. This basis is comparable to volumes of completed work to which it relates, and to the same fine level of detail. This does not include income received or expenditure in relation to debt write-offs.
The government **budgeting** measure known as RDEL (Resource Departmental
Expenditure Limits) is the main measure used by government to control current spending, both to set budgets for future years and report on how much has been spent. It represents the value of work carried out in the period better than the closed-case measure but cannot be broken down to such a fine level of detail. This measure does incorporate income and expenditure in relation to debt.
Figure 1 shows this budgeting measure both in **nominal** and **real terms**. 'Nominal
terms' means not adjusted for inflation; 'real terms' means adjusted for inflation to make the value of spending in previous years directly comparable with the specified year.
These measures show a large reduction in legal aid expenditure from around 2010-11, which are mostly due to changes to the scope of civil legal aid introduced by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act from 2013-14, reductions in criminal legal aid workloads and reductions in fees payable to legal aid providers.
## 1. Criminal Legal Aid Main Point
Workloads and expenditure fell in most areas of criminal legal aid between April and June 2017 and the same period of the previous year.
Criminal legal aid is sometimes categorised into Crime Lower and Crime Higher. Crime Lower includes pre-charge, police station, early court (including magistrates' court) and prison law work. Crime Higher covers work in the Crown and Higher Courts.
| Workload | Expenditure |
|------------------------------|--------------------|
| (% change compared to | (% change compared |
| Claim category | |
| the same quarter last | to the previous |
| year) | quarter last year) |
| Pre-charge suspects (police) | |
| 161,000 ( | |
| 0 | |
| % | |
| ↔ | |
| ) | £33m ( |
| 4 | |
| % | |
| ↑ | |
| ) | |
| Charged defendants (police) | |
| 1,000 ( | |
| 6 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | £1m ( |
| 12 | |
| % | |
| ↑ | |
| ) | |
| Crime Lower | |
| Crime | |
| 243,000 ( | |
| 4 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | |
| Virtual courts | |
| 1,000 ( | |
| 20 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | £0.1m ( |
| 19 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | |
| £70m ( | |
| 3 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | |
| Workload | |
| Magistrates' courts* | |
| 75,000 ( | |
| 11 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | £32m ( |
| 11 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | |
| 291,000 ( | |
| 5 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | |
| Prison Law | |
| 5,000 ( | |
| 9 | |
| % | |
| ↑ | |
| ) | £4m ( |
| 11 | |
| % | |
| ↑ | |
| ) | |
| Expenditure | |
| Solicitor fee scheme | |
| 24,000 ( | |
| 11 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | £77m ( |
| 12 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | |
| £209m ( | |
| 9 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | |
| Crime Higher | |
| Advocate fee scheme | |
| 25,000 ( | |
| 13 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | £53m ( |
| 17 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | |
| 48,000 ( | |
| 12 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | |
| £139m ( | |
| 11 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | |
| High Cost crime cases | |
| 2 ( | |
| 100 | |
| % | |
| ↑ | |
| ) | £10m ( |
| 55 | |
| % | |
| ↑ | |
| ) | |
| | |
*includes court duty solicitor sessions
Although Crown Court work comprises a relatively small portion of criminal legal aid in terms of volume, it accounts for around two-thirds of all criminal legal aid expenditure. Conversely, police station work makes up the largest portion of workload but a much smaller proportion of expenditure.
## Pre-Charge And Charged Defendants
Tables
2.1 and 2.2
These two categories make up advice before court, mainly heard in the police station before a defendant may be charged. They are represented in Figure 3 by the 'Police Station' line.
Pre-charge work made up two-thirds of the Crime Lower workload between April and June
2017 but less than half of the expenditure. Pre-charge legal aid workload between April and June 2017 remains unchanged compared to the previous year. This reflects a recent slowing to the general downward trend seen over the last three years, although this trend was never as steep as the decline for Crime Lower as a whole, or overall figures from the Crime Survey for England and Wales1. The majority of the pre-charge workload (87% in April to June 2017) consists of suspects receiving legal help with a solicitor in attendance at the police station, with the remainder consisting mainly of legal advice over the telephone.
## Applications And Grants For Representation In The Criminal Courts
Tables 3.1 and 3.2
While figures should be interpreted with caution as they may be revised in subsequent quarters, the number of orders granted for legally-aided representation in the magistrates'
court fell by 10% in this quarter when compared to the same quarter of the previous year.
This continues the downward trend of the last 3 years, driven recently by Summary Only cases (down 21%). The overall number of receipts in the magistrates' court2 (including those not involving legal aid) was 3% down over the same period. The proportion of these applications that are granted has changed very little over recent years, at around 95%.
Orders granted for legally-aided representation in the **Crown Court** were also down but by a smaller degree; 4% this quarter compared to last year. Within this, orders relating to Either Way offences fell by 12%, while those relating to Indictable offences increased by 8%; their fifth consecutive quarterly rise. The proportion granted remains at almost 100%.
## Magistrates' Court Completed Work
Tables 2.1 and 2.2
Legally-aided **representation in the magistrates' court** comprised around one-third of the workload and just under half of expenditure in Crime Lower between April and June 2017. The volume of completed work in the magistrates' court fell by 11% in this quarter when compared to the same period of the previous year. Expenditure also fell by 11% (£4m).
The other area of court work within Crime Lower is in the **virtual courts**. This accounts for a small proportion of workload, and less than half a percent of all crime lower expenditure, but has grown over the last few years. Workload this quarter was, however, 20% down on last year and expenditure fell by 19%.
## Crown Court Completed Work Tables 4.1 - 4.3
Volumes of cases completed in the Crown Court have declined over recent years but more gradually than new orders, due to longer-running cases still awaiting trial.
Completed work volumes within the **solicitor fee scheme** were 11% lower in April to June
2017 than in the same period of the previous year, driven mainly by a 26% fall in cases in which the defendant pleads guilty at their earliest opportunity in the Crown Court. This may be due to procedural reforms in the court system, with some defendants pleading earlier at the magistrates' court. Within the **advocate fee scheme** there was a 13% fall compared to the same period last year; again, the largest fall was within the guilty plea category. The value of payments for completed cases in the solicitor fee scheme was 12% lower in April to June 2017 than in the same period of the previous year, broadly in line with volumes. In the advocate fee scheme, the value of payments was 17% lower than in the same period of the previous year.
## Very High Cost Cases In The Crown Court (Vhccs)
VHCCs are those Crown Court cases in which, if the case were to proceed to trial, it would be likely to last more than 60 days. These cases can span many years and, while they may involve relatively small numbers of cases or defendants, the number of related contracts with providers and the amount spent are high in comparison. Expenditure on VHCCs has reduced by more than two-thirds over the last decade due to changes in rates paid and also a reduction in the proportion of cases classified as a VHCC due to the threshold being increased from 40 to 60 days. The total of £9.9 million for the latest quarter ending June 2017 was, however, an increase of 55% compared to the previous year, and is related to an increase in the conclusion of contracts that were opened under fixed fee offers. VHCCs currently represent around 7% of the overall cost of legal aid in the Crown Court.
## Prison Law Tables 2.1 And 2.2
Within criminal legal aid overall, prison law comprised 2% of the volume and 2% of expenditure in April to June 2017. Workload in this quarter increased by 9% compared with the same period in the previous year, driven by an increase in advocacy at prison disciplinary hearings. This category currently makes up around one-third of prison law workload, but a much smaller proportion of costs as can be seen in Figure 4. Expenditure on prison law rose by 11% over the same period, with increases in each of the main categories.
## 2. Civil Legal Aid Main Point
Certificates completed for civil representation in public family law increased by 26% in April to June 2017 compared to the same period the previous year. Expenditure on completed work in this category, which already accounts for more than half the total cost of civil legal aid, rose by 17% (£18m).
##
| Workload | Expenditure |
|------------------|---------------------|
| (% change | (% change |
| compared to the | compared to the |
| same quarter | previous quarter |
| last year) | last year) |
| Family | Family Public |
| 15 | |
| % | |
| ↑ | |
| ) | £123m ( |
| 17 | |
| % | |
| ↑ | |
| ) | |
| 32,000 ( | |
| 6 | |
| % | |
| ↑ | |
| ) | |
| Family Private | 9,000 ( |
| 12 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | £25m ( |
| 16 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | |
| Civil | |
| £148m ( | |
| 9 | |
| % | |
| ↑ | ) |
| workload= | Mediation and MIAMS |
| * | |
| 4,000 ( | |
| 13 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | £1m ( |
| 14 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | |
| 66,000 ( | |
| 1 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | |
| Immigration | 11,000 ( |
| 4 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | £10m ( |
| 12 | |
| % | |
| ↑ | |
| ) | |
| Non-Family | |
| Expenditure = | |
| Mental Health | 9,000 ( |
| 6 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | £10m ( |
| 11 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | |
| 34,000 ( | |
| 6 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | |
| £214m ( | |
| 3 | |
| % | |
| ↑ | |
| ) | |
| Housing | 11,000 ( |
| 12 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | £9m ( |
| 24 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | |
| £66m ( | |
| 9 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | |
| Other Non-Family | 3,000 ( |
| 9 | |
| % | |
| ↑ | |
| ) | £35m ( |
| 9 | |
| % | |
| ↓ | |
| ) | |
| | |
## Legal Help And Controlled Legal Representation
In the last quarter, there were 14% fewer legal help new matter starts than in the same period of 2016. The volume of completed claims decreased by 9% and expenditure by 3% in April to June 2017 compared to the same period in 2016 (figure 5). The implementation of the LASPO Act in April 2013 resulted in large reductions in legal help workload, with the overall trend falling to less than one-third of pre-LASPO levels.
## Tables 5.1 - 5.3 And 7.1 - 7.2 Family Legal Help
In April to June 2017 family legal help starts decreased by 13% compared to the same quarter last year. There were also decreases in completed claims (16%) and expenditure
(18%). There was a steep decline immediately following the implementation of LASPO Act in April 2013, with a more gradual decline over the last 2 to 3 years.
In **family mediation**, Mediation Information and Assessment Meetings (MIAMs) were down by 11% in the last quarter compared to the previous year and currently stand at around a third of pre-LASPO levels. There were 1,600 mediation starts between April and June 2017, which is the lowest number since the LASPO Act was introduced.
## Tables 5.1 - 5.3 Non-Family Legal Help And Controlled Legal Representation
Legal help and controlled legal representation makes up over 90% of both **immigration** and mental health cases. Controlled legal representation relates to representation at tribunal and is often longer and more costly than legal help, but, similar to legal help, the decision on whether to grant legal aid is delegated to providers. The LASPO Act made changes to the scope of legal aid for immigration law, but some areas remained in scope. Workload that remains in the immigration category consists largely of asylum-related work. Having fallen by 40% over the 5 years to 2013-14, new matter starts in the asylum category stood 20% lower in the April to June 2017 quarter than in the same quarter of the previous year. Completed claims in immigration were down by 5% in the last quarter compared to the previous year but expenditure was up by 6%. Within mental health most funding is spent on providing assistance to sectioned clients appealing the terms of their detention before a mental health tribunal. Mental health workload fell 7% when comparing the latest quarter to the previous year. Completed claims and expenditure also fell by 7% over the same period.
Over 80% of **housing** work volume is made up of legal help. The volume of legally-aided housing work halved between July to September 2012 and July to September 2013. The trend in both then fluctuated for around 18 months but since 2014 it has been falling. In April to June 2017 there was a 13% decrease in housing work starts compared to the same quarter the previous year. There were also decreases in completed claims (11%) and expenditure (10%).
## Civil Representation Tables
The number of civil representation certificates granted in the last quarter was up 10% compared to the same period of the previous year. The number of certificates completed also increased, by 12%, and the associated expenditure increased by 4% in the same period. The drop in civil representation workloads following the implementation of the LASPO Act in April 2013 was by a smaller proportion for than for legal help.
## Family Civil Representation
Certificates granted for family work increased by 10% in April to June 2017 compared to the previous year. There was a larger increase in certificates completed (15%) and a similar increase in expenditure (10%). This increase was largely due to **public family law**, which makes up around three quarters of family workload and over 80% of family expenditure. The 18,113 certificates completed in public family law in April to June 2017 was the highest quarterly figure in recent years. In April to June 2017, applications for civil representation in private family law supported by evidence of domestic abuse were down 17% compared to the same period of the previous year, although that was the highest quarterly total since this type of application was introduced in, in 2013. The number granted was up 6% compared to the same period of 2016. The proportion of applications granted remained steady at around 70% from the inception of this type of application until the end of 2015, but has increased to around 80% since. In the latest quarter it was 78%.
## Non-Family Civil Representation
Non-family certificates completed make up about 13% of the total civil representation workload and about a quarter of the expenditure. There are only a small number of immigration and **mental health** cases in civil representation as most of these come under controlled legal representation. The majority of the certificates completed in this category are for **housing** work. There has been a gradual decline in housing certificates completed and in expenditure on this category since 2014, and in the latest period there were 17% fewer than in the same period of the previous year.
## Judicial Reviews
Of all civil representation applications granted, around 3,000 a year relate to judicial review. The number granted in April to June 2017 was 17% lower than in the same quarter in 2016. Over one third (37%) of judicial reviews were for immigration cases and 29% for public law.
## Exceptional Case Funding (Ecf)
There were 533 applications for ECF received between April and June 2017. This is similar to January to March 2017 (536) but 26% higher than in April to June 2016. 455 (85%) of these were new applications. Of the 533 ECF applications received between April and June 2017, 95% (504) had been determined by the LAA as of 31 August 2017. 57% (287) of these were granted, 24% (119) were refused and 17% (88) rejected (see figure 8). Among the ECF applications received between April and June 2017, immigration (54%), inquest (15%), and family (15%) remained the most requested categories of law (figure 8).
## 3. Further Information
This publication presents quarterly data trends. For figures published annually, including those on providers of legal aid, appealing legal aid decisions, Central Funds, butterfly charts and legal aid in the higher courts, please refer to our **annual publication**.
## Accompanying Files
As well as this bulletin, the following products are published as part of this release:
Tables: A set of tables, which give further detail and full time series for each
area.
More detailed data: A detailed file to allow detailed analysis provided in both
.csv (comma separated values) and .ods (OpenDocument Spreadsheet) formats
Data visualisation tool: A web-based tool allowing the user to view and
customize charts and tables based on the published statistics.
Index of data in Legal aid statistics: An index to the more detailed data
published in the .csv and .ods files, lists of available data from Legal Aid systems and guidance on how to work with the more detailed data using pivot tables.
User Guide to legal aid statistics: This provides comprehensive information
about data sources and quality as well as key legislative changes.
## National Statistics Status
National Statistics status means that official statistics meet the highest standards of trustworthiness, quality and public value. All official statistics should comply with all aspects of the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. They are awarded National Statistics status following an assessment by the Authority's regulatory arm. The Authority considers whether the statistics meet the highest standards of Code compliance, including the value they add to public decisions and debate.
It is the Ministry of Justice's responsibility to maintain compliance with the standards expected for National Statistics. If we become concerned about whether these statistics are still meeting the appropriate standards, we will discuss any concerns with the Authority promptly. National Statistics status can be removed at any point when the highest standards are not maintained, and reinstated when standards are restored.
## Contact
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Tel: 020 3334 3536 Email: newsdesk@justice.gsi.gov.uk
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to the Justice Statistics Analytical Services division of the Ministry of Justice:
Richard Field, Head of legal aid statistics Ministry of Justice, 7th Floor, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ Email: statistics@legalaid.gsi.gov.uk
## Next Update: 14 December 2017
© Crown copyright Produced by the Ministry of Justice
Alternative formats are available on request from statistics.enquiries@justice.gsi.gov.uk
| en |
3133-pdf |
## Hm Revenue & Customs Hospitality Register 1 April 2015 - 30 June 2015
Senior Official (SCS2 and above)
Title
Date
Person or organisation that offered hospitality
Type of hospitality received
Mary Aiston
Director Mid-Sized Business and Wealthy Compliance
Nil return
Gill Aitken
General Counsel and Solicitor
Nil return
Gaynor Atherton
Director Organisation Development
Nil return
Jonathan Athow
Director Knowledge, Analysis & Intelligence
Nil return
Ian Barlow
Lead Non-Executive
Nil return
Elaine Benn
Director Personal Tax Change
Nil return
Louise Boyle
Director Benefits & Credits Operations
Nil return
Graham Brammer
Director Debt Management & Banking
Nil return
Carol Bristow
Director Personal Tax Customer, Product & Process
Nil return
Dorothy Brown
Director PT Operations
Nil return
David Bunting
Director Solicitors A - Tax Litigation
Nil return
Ravi Chand
Director Workforce Management
Nil return
Emma Churchill
Director Process Transformation
Nil return
Mark Cope
Director HMRC Transformation Programme
Nil return
Stephen Cottam
Director Commercial
Nil return
Mark Dearnley
Chief Digital and Information Officer
Nil return
Joe Dugdale
Director HR Operations
Nil return
Edwina Dunn
Non-Executive
Nil return
Leslie Ferrar
Non-Executive
Nil return
Kevin Fletcher
Director Knowledge, Analysis & Intelligence
5-7 May 2015
Cloudera
Conference pass
No
Kevin Franklin
Director of Customs Transformation
Nil return
Paul Gerrard
Director Enforcement & Compliance Strategy & Change
Nil return
Jennie Granger
Director General Enforcement and Compliance
12 May 2015
Chartered Institute of Taxation
Drinks and canapés
No
Jennie Granger
Director General Enforcement and Compliance
21 May 2015
Tolley (fifteenth Taxation Awards)
Dinner
No
Jennie Granger
Director General Enforcement and Compliance
11 June 2015
Professional Fee Protection Limited
Drinks
No
Jennie Granger
Director General Enforcement and Compliance
30 June 2015
Chartered Institute of Taxation
Drinks reception
No
Nigel Green
Director of IT Delivery
19 May 2015
The Chemistry Club
Drinks reception and buffet meal.
No
William Hague
Chief People Officer
Nil return
Gill Hammond
Director Estates Services
Nil return
Stephen Hardwick
Director Corporate Communications
Nil return
Jim Harra
Director General Business Tax
Nil return
John Harrison
Director, Process Transformation Cluster
Nil return
Diane Herbert
Non-Executive
Nil return
Justin Holliday
Chief Finance Officer
Nil return
Lin Homer
Chief Executive
Nil return
Ian Kennedy
Director Chief Digital and Information Officer Columbus
Nil return
Judith Knott
Director Large Business Service
12 May 2015
Chartered Institute of Taxation
Drinks and canapés
No
Jonathan Lloyd White
Director Security & Information
25 June 2015
British Academy's High Level Strategy Group for Quantitative Skills
Breakfast
No
Nick Lodge
Director General Benefits and Credits/Transformation
Nil return
Elaine McManus
Director HMRC Change Investment & Assurance
Nil return
Theresa Middleton
Director Business Tax, Customer & Strategy
12 May 2015
Chartered Institute of Taxation
Drinks and canapés
No
Theresa Middleton
Director Business Tax, Customer & Strategy
6 June 2015
Chartered Institute of Taxation
Drinks
No
Theresa Middleton
Director Business Tax, Customer & Strategy
12 June 2015
Smith and Williamson
Lunch
No
Theresa Middleton
Director Business Tax, Customer & Strategy
22 June 2015
Federation of Small Business
Drinks
No
Sinead Murray
Director Solicitors - Personal Tax, Benefits & Credits & Corporate Services
Nil return
Suzanne Newton
Director - Tax Free Child Care Programme
Nil return
Ruth Owen
Director General Personal Tax
Nil return
Brendan Peilow
Deputy Director Government Banking Service
Nil return
Accompanied by spouse, family member(s) or friend?
Senior Official (SCS2 and above)
Title
Date
Person or organisation that offered hospitality
Type of hospitality received
Accompanied by spouse, family member(s) or friend?
Jacqui Perryer
Director Organisational Development
Nil return
Mike Potter
Director of Digital Transformation
Nil return
Vicky Ranson
Director Risk & Intelligence
Nil return
David Richardson
Director Counter-Avoidance
Nil return
Simon Ricketts
Non-Executive
Nil return
James Robertson
Director Central Customer and Strategy
Nil return
Peter Schofield
Director Development, Testing & Operations.
19 May 2015
The Chemistry Club
Drinks reception and buffet meal.
No
Andrew Scott
Director Solicitors - Business Tax & HMRC Corporate Governance
Nil return
Jon Sherman
Director Corporation Tax, International and Stamps
Nil return
Mike Shipp
Programme Director HMRC Transformation Programme
Nil return
Heather Smith
Finance Director Enforcement and Compliance
Nil return
Paul Smith
Non-Executive
Nil return
Tom Smith
Director Customer Strategy and Change Policy
Nil return
Ian Stewart
Director of Indirect Tax
13 May 2015
Association of Revenue and Customs
Dinner
No
Melissa Tatton
Director Individuals & Small Business Compliance
Nil return
Jane Taylor
CDIO and Columbus Finance Director
Nil return
Edward Troup
Tax Assurance Commissioner and second Permanent Secretary
14 April 2015
The Commonwealth Association of Tax Administrators
Drinks
No
Edward Troup
Tax Assurance Commissioner and second Permanent Secretary
12 May 2015
Chartered Institute of Taxation
Drinks reception
No
Edward Troup
Tax Assurance Commissioner and second Permanent Secretary
24 June 2015
Civil Service Retirement Fellowship
Lunch
No
Edward Troup
Tax Assurance Commissioner and second Permanent Secretary
25 June 2015
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
Drinks
No
Marie-Clare Uhart
Director Central Policy
Nil return
Mervyn Walker
Non-Executive
Nil return
Steve Walters
Chief Technology Officer
Nil return
No
Sue Walton
Director Tax Professionalism & Assurance
Nil return
John Whiting
Non-Executive
Nil return
Patrick Whittome
Director Finance Operations
Nil return
Simon York
Director Risk & Intelligence
Nil return
## Applies To All At Scs2 And Above. Does Not Include Functions Hosted By The Government Or Royal Household, Diplomatic Functions Hosted By Overseas Governments Or Organisations, Minor Refreshments At Meetings, Receptions, Conferences, Seminars, Or Offers That Were Declined
| en |
3620-pdf |
##
# Statement Of National Regulatory Provisions (Snrp): Freight Granted To
[
]
| Part I - Scope | 1 |
|--------------------------------------------------------|------|
| | |
| Part II - Interpretation 2 | |
| | |
| Part III - Conditions | 4 |
| | |
| Condition 1: Insurance Against Third Party Liability 4 | |
| | |
| Condition 2: Claims Allocation and Handling | 5 |
| | |
| Condition 8: RSSB Membership 6 | |
| | |
| Condition 9: Safety and standards 7 | |
| | |
| Condition 10: Environmental Matters | 8 |
| | |
| Condition 11: Payment of Fees 9 | |
| | |
| Condition 12: Change of Control 10 | |
| | |
| Condition 28: Rail Delivery Group 11 | |
| | |
| Part IV - Revocation | 12 |
| | |
| | |
Note: Conditions 3 - 7 and 13 - 27 are not used in this SNRP.
## Part I - Scope
1.
The Office of Rail and Road ("ORR"), in exercise of the powers conferred by regulation 10 of the Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005 ("the Regulations"), hereby grants to [*name of SNRP holder*], company registration number [*number*], ("the SNRP holder") an SNRP including the Conditions set out in Part III.
2.
This SNRP shall come into force on [*date*] and shall continue in force unless and until revoked in accordance with Part IV.
Signed by authority of the Office of Rail and Road
## Part Ii - Interpretation 1. In This Snrp:
"comply"
is to be interpreted in accordance with ORR's most
recently published licensing guidance.
"control"
(a)
A person is taken to have control of the SNRP
holder if he exercises, or is able to exercise or is entitled to acquire, direct or indirect control over the SNRP
holder's affairs, and in particular if he possesses or is
entitled to acquire:
(i)
30% or more of any share capital or issued
share capital of the SNRP holder or of the voting power in the SNRP holder; or (ii)
such part of any issued share capital of the
SNRP holder as would, if the whole of the income of the SNRP holder were in fact distributed among the participators (without regard to any rights which he or any other person has as a loan creditor), entitle him to receive 30% or more of the amount so distributed; or
(iii)
such rights as would, in the event of the
winding-up of the SNRP holder or in any other circumstances, entitle him to receive 30% or more of the assets of the SNRP holder which would then be available for distribution among the participators.
(b)
Subsections (4) to (6) of section 416 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, and the legislative provisions referred to in those subsections, apply to the interpretation of paragraph (a) in the same way that they apply to the interpretation of subsection (2) of section 416 of that Act.
"licensed activities" means things authorised to be done by the SNRP holder
in its capacity as operator of trains pursuant to its
European licence.
"RSSB"
means Rail Safety and Standards Board Limited (a company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales under number 04655675), and its successors and assigns.
2.
Any reference in this SNRP to a numbered paragraph is a reference to the paragraph bearing that number in the Condition in which the reference occurs.
3.
In interpreting this SNRP, headings shall be disregarded.
4.
Where in this SNRP the SNRP holder is required to comply with any obligation within a specified time limit, that obligation shall be deemed to continue after that time limit if the SNRP holder fails to comply with that obligation within that time limit.
5.
Where in this SNRP there is a provision for ORR or the Secretary of State to give consent, such consent may be given subject to conditions.
6.
The Interpretation Act 1978 shall apply to this SNRP as if it were an Act.
7.
The provisions of section 149 of the Railways Act 1993 (as amended) ("the
Act") shall apply for the purposes of the service of any document pursuant to
this SNRP.
8.
Unless the context otherwise requires, terms and expressions defined in the Act, the Railways Act 2005, or the Regulations shall have the same meanings in this SNRP.
## Part Iii - Conditions Condition 1: Insurance Against Third Party Liability
1.
The SNRP holder shall, in respect of licensed activities, maintain insurance against third party liabilities in accordance with any relevant ORR general or specific approval, as amended from time to time.
## Condition 2: Claims Allocation And Handling
1.
The SNRP holder shall, except in so far as ORR may otherwise consent, at all times be a party to and comply with such agreements or arrangements (as amended from time to time) relating to: (a)
the handling of claims against operators of railway assets; and
(b)
the allocation of liabilities among operators of railway assets
as may have been approved by ORR.
2.
Except with the consent of ORR, the SNRP holder shall not, in relation to any of the agreements or arrangements described in paragraph 1 (the "relevant
claims handling arrangements"), enter into any agreement or arrangement
with any other party to the relevant claims handling arrangements: (a)
under which the SNRP holder agrees not to exercise any rights which it may have under any of the relevant claims handling arrangements; or
(b)
varying the relevant claims handling arrangements
other than as provided for under the terms of the relevant claims handling arrangements.
## Condition 8: Rssb Membership
1.
If the SNRP holder's annual turnover has never exceeded £1 million and the SNRP holder is not a franchise operator, paragraphs 2 and 3 shall not have
effect until the SNRP holder's annual turnover exceeds £1 million for the first
time. The SNRP holder shall provide ORR with such information in respect of its annual turnover as ORR may from time to time require.
2.
With effect from the date of the coming into force of this SNRP, except where
ORR consents otherwise, the SNRP holder shall:
(a)
become and thereafter remain a member of RSSB;
(b)
comply with its obligations under the Constitution Agreement and the articles of association of RSSB; and
(c)
exercise its rights under the Constitution Agreement and the articles of association of RSSB so as to ensure that RSSB shall act in accordance with the Constitution Agreement.
3.
With effect from the date of the coming into force of this SNRP, the SNRP holder shall comply with the Railway Group Standards Code prepared by RSSB.
4.
When a SNRP holder first becomes subject to the obligations in paragraphs 2 and 3 his rights, obligations and liabilities associated with such membership
shall commence on the same day, and the SNRP holder shall complete the formal and legal documentation associated with such membership within three months of that date.
5.
In this Condition:
| "franchise operator" |
|-------------------------|
| section 30 of the Act. |
## Condition 9: Safety And Standards
1.
The SNRP holder shall comply with: (a)
such Railway Group Standards as are applicable to its licensed activities; and
(b)
subject to paragraph 2, such Rail Industry Standards (or parts thereof) as are applicable to its licensed activities.
2.
The SNRP holder is not required to comply with an applicable Rail Industry Standard (or part thereof) where: (a)
it has, following consultation with such persons as it considers are likely to be affected, identified an equally effective measure which will achieve the purpose of the standard; and
(b)
it has adopted and complying with that measure.
3.
In this Condition:
| "Railway Group Standards" | means standards authorised pursuant to |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
| the Railway Group Standards Code | |
| prepared by RSSB; and | |
| "Rail Industry Standards" | has the meaning set out in the Standards |
| Manual, established by RSSB. | |
## Condition 10: Environmental Matters
1.
The SNRP holder shall establish a written policy designed to protect the environment from the effect of licensed activities, together with operational objectives and management arrangements (together "the environmental arrangements").
2.
The environmental arrangements shall:
(a)
take due account of any relevant guidance issued by ORR;
(b)
be effective within six months beginning with the day on which this SNRP comes into force; and
(c)
be reviewed by the SNRP holder periodically, and otherwise as appropriate.
3.
Nothing contained in paragraph 1 shall oblige the SNRP holder to undertake any action that entails excessive cost taking into account all the circumstances, including the nature and scale of operations of the type carried out by the SNRP holder.
4.
The SNRP holder shall, upon establishment and any material modification of the environmental arrangements, promptly send ORR a current copy of the policy together with a summary of the operational objectives and management arrangements.
5.
The SNRP holder shall act with regard to the policy and operational objectives and use its reasonable endeavours to operate the management arrangements effectively.
## Condition 11: Payment Of Fees
1.
In respect of the year beginning on 1 April [*current financial year* ] and in each subsequent year, the SNRP holder shall render to ORR a payment which is the aggregate of the following amounts: (a)
the annual fee applicable to this SNRP, as determined by ORR; and
(b)
an amount which shall represent a fair proportion as determined by
ORR of the amount estimated by ORR (in consultation with the Competition and Markets Authority) as having been incurred in the calendar year immediately preceding the 1 April in question by the Competition and Markets Authority in connection with references made to it under section 13 of the Act with respect to this SNRP or any class of SNRP of which ORR determines that this SNRP forms part.
2.
The payment shall be rendered by the SNRP holder within such time as ORR may require, being not less than 30 days beginning with the day on which ORR gives notice to the SNRP holder of its amount.
## Condition 12: Change Of Control
1.
The SNRP holder shall, if any person obtains control of the SNRP holder, notify ORR as soon as practicable thereafter.
## Condition 28: Rail Delivery Group
1.
The SNRP holder shall:
(a)
become and thereafter remain a Licensed Member of RDG;
(b)
comply with its obligations under the RDG Articles; and
(c)
procure that any member of its Group that is entitled under the RDG Articles to become a Member of RDG:
(i)
becomes and thereafter remains a Member of RDG; and
(ii)
complies with its obligations under the RDG Articles.
2.
In this Condition:
"Group" has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles; "Licensed Member" has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles; "Member" has the meaning ascribed to it in the RDG Articles; "RDG" means the Rail Delivery Group (a company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales under number 08176197); and
"RDG Articles" means the articles of association of RDG.
## Part Iv - Revocation
1.
ORR may (after having consulted the appropriate franchising authority where the SNRP holder is a franchise operator) revoke this SNRP at any time if agreed in writing by the SNRP holder.
2.
ORR may (after having consulted the appropriate franchising authority where the SNRP holder is a franchise operator) revoke this SNRP by not less than
three months' notice to the SNRP holder: (a)
if a final order has been made, or a provisional order has been confirmed under section 55 of the Act, in respect of any contravention or apprehended contravention by the SNRP holder of any Condition, and the SNRP holder does not comply with the order within a period of three months beginning with the day on which ORR gives notice to the SNRP holder stating that this SNRP will be revoked pursuant to this term if the SNRP holder does not so comply; provided that ORR shall not give any such notice before the expiration of the period within which an application could be made under section 57 of the Act in relation to the order in question or before any proceedings relating to any such application are finally determined;
(b)
if the SNRP holder has not commenced carrying on licensed activities within six months beginning with the day on which this SNRP comes
into force or if the SNRP holder ceases to carry on licensed activities for a continuous period of at least six months;
(c)
if the SNRP holder is convicted of an offence under section 146 of the Act or regulation 15 of the Regulations in making its application for this SNRP; or
(d)
if a person obtains control of the SNRP holder and: (i)
ORR has not approved such obtaining of control;
(ii)
within one month of that obtaining of control coming to the notice of ORR, ORR serves notice on the SNRP holder stating that ORR proposes to revoke this SNRP in pursuance of this paragraph unless the person who has obtained control of the
SNRP holder ceases to have control of the SNRP holder within the period of three months beginning with the day of service of the notice; and
(iii)
that cessation of control does not take place within that period.
| en |
3762-pdf |
## Making The Most Of Your Business' Rating
Our toolkit helps your food business get the most out of your food hygiene rating. We provide imagery guidance, downloadable resources and banners you can use for your website. We provide ideas on how to promote hygiene standards and help increase the numbers of customers who come through the door or order online.
## England And Northern Ireland
View How to get most out of your food hygiene rating - how to guide as PDF (819.96 KB)
## Wales
View How to get the most out of your food hygiene rating as PDF (196.22 KB)
## How It Works Get Inspired
Better food hygiene and standards means both businesses and consumers benefit from our Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS).
## Using Fhrs Imagery
We want food businesses to benefit from the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) and make the most of their food hygiene rating. In addition to displaying the rating in your window or on your door, you can capitalise on a good rating by including it in your promotional activity and materials such as on websites, flyers, social media posts and printed menus. To help with this, downloadable versions of the FHRS imagery are provided in the links below. The FHRS imagery and the FSA logo (together the "Imagery") are protected by registered UK trademarks and other intellectual property rights and are owned and controlled by the FSA. To ensure that the public is not confused or misled the rules below must be followed at all times whenever the Imagery is used:
The Imagery must not be altered or amended without our prior written permission. Permission for any change can be sought from the Food Standards Agency by contacting HygieneRatings@food.gov.uk The FHRS visual elements and the FSA logo are an integral part of the Imagery design. They may be used as part of promotional activity as described above and must not be used in any other way without our prior written permission. Permission for such other use can be sought from the Food Standards Agency by contacting HygieneRatings@food.gov.uk The use of the Imagery in any promotional activity and materials is not and must not be presented in any manner that might be seen as the FSA's endorsement of any individual food business, chain of food businesses, website, online application or other activity. A food business must only use images of its current food hygiene rating. Should the rating of any food business change at a subsequent inspection only images of the new rating must be used, and any images of previous ratings must immediately be updated or removed from all promotional activity and materials in which they feature.
Failure of a food business to use the correct rating issued is a breach of these rules and may be an offence. The FSA may immediately terminate your permission to use the Imagery as a result of that or any other breach of these rules. The FSA may grant, withhold or make conditional its permission for any of the above at its sole discretion. All other rights are reserved in full. The FSA may amend these rules at any time. Amendments will be posted here. Please check this page regularly. By continuing to use the Imagery you will be agreeing to the amendments. If you do not agree you must stop all use.
## By Downloading And/Or Using The Imagery Each Food Business Expressly Accepts And Agrees To Comply With These Rules In Full. Fhrs Stickers
FHRS stickers include the trademarked Imagery and are subject to all the rules above but are issued only by local authorities operating the scheme. Stickers must not be acquired from any other source, to do so would mean a breach of the rules stated above. Food businesses are reminded that displaying or using an invalid rating in any promotional activity or material is a breach of the above rules and our rights. If you breach the above rules and/or our intellectual property rights, we may require you to stop using the Imagery immediately but that does not prevent us from taking legal action. It may also constitute an offence under trading standards legislation, for example under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. In Northern Ireland it is an offence under the Food Hygiene Rating Act (NI) 2016. In Wales it is an offence under the Food Hygiene Ratings (Wales) Act 2013.
## Downloadables
Food Hygiene Rating Scheme - window stickers Food Hygiene Rating Scheme - logos Website banners Sticker in Window images Window sticker artwork Website banners (Wales) Sticker in window - images
## Examples Of Animated Banners
Web banners for businesses and trades. All animated banners and static versions can be downloaded.
## How To Display A Rating Online
We provide a selection of food hygiene rating badges to display on your online digital services, including on websites, apps, social media and emails. The clever bit is that they automatically update if a rating or inspection result changes. To get the badges for a business, go the business's individual page within our search tool. The badge will link back to the business's individual page on our search tool.
## Downloads For Local Authorities, And Example Leaflets
Download business leaflets (high and low resolutions) Download window sticker artwork Download banners for business websites Download banners for trade body and partner websites Download logos Download sticker in window photos Download window sticker artwork Download banners for business websites Download logos Download sticker in window photos
## England And Northern Ireland
View Leaflet for businesses with a rating of 3 or 4 (low resolution) as PDF (783.6 KB)
## England And Northern Ireland
View Leaflet for businesses with a rating of 5 as PDF (952.22 KB)
## Leaflets For Consumers And Food Businesses England
View FHRS Good Food Hygiene is Easy to spot - Consumer online version as PDF (1.92 MB)
## England
View FHRS Good Food Hygiene is Easy to spot - Consumer print friendly version as PDF (1.92
## England
View FHRS Good Food Hygiene is Easy to spot - Business online version as PDF (1.2 MB)
## England
View FHRS Good Food Hygiene is Easy to spot - Business print friendly version as PDF (1.2 MB)
## Wales
View Leaflet for businesses Food hygiene is getting easier to spot in Wales as PDF (362.43 KB) | en |
0924-pdf |
## National Asthma And Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Audit Programme (Nacap) Adult Asthma Clinical Audit 2018/19
Adults with asthma attacks admitted to hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales from 1 November 2018 and discharged by 31 March 2019
## Clinical Audit Report
Published December 2019
## The Royal College Of Physicians
The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) plays a leading role in the delivery of high‐quality patient care by setting standards of medical practice and promoting clinical excellence. The RCP provides physicians in over 30 medical specialties with education, training and support throughout their careers. As an independent charity representing over 36,000 fellows and members worldwide, the RCP advises and works with government, patients, allied healthcare professionals and the public to improve health and healthcare.
## Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership
The National Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Audit Programme (NACAP) is commissioned by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) as part of the National Clinical Audit (NCA) Programme. HQIP is led by a consortium of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the Royal College of Nursing and National Voices. Its aim is to promote quality improvement, and in particular, to increase the impact that clinical audit, outcome review programmes and registries have on healthcare quality in England and Wales. HQIP holds the contract to commission, manage and develop the NCA and Patient Outcomes Programme (NCAPOP), comprising around 40 projects covering care provided to people with a wide range of medical, surgical and mental health conditions. The programme is funded by NHS England, the Welsh government and, with some individual projects, other devolved administrations and crown dependencies www.hqip.org.uk/national-programmes.
## Nacap
NACAP is a programme of work that aims to improve the quality of care, services and clinical outcomes for patients with asthma and COPD in England, Scotland and Wales. Spanning the entire patient care pathway, NACAP includes strong collaboration with asthma and COPD patients, as well as healthcare professionals, and aspires to set out a vision for a service which puts patient needs first. To find out more about NACAP visit: www.rcplondon.ac.uk/nacap.
## Adult Asthma Clinical Audit 2018/19 Report
This report was prepared by the following people, on behalf of the NACAP asthma advisory group (the full list of members is included on the NACAP resources page here: www.rcplondon.ac.uk/nacap-resources): Dr James Calvert, adult asthma clinical lead, NACAP, Care Quality Improvement Department (CQID), RCP, London; consultant respiratory physician, North Bristol NHS Trust; and national specialty advisor for severe asthma Mr Alex Adamson, research assistant in medical statistics, National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London Ms Sophie Robinson, project manager, NACAP, CQID, RCP, London Dr Jennifer Quint, analysis lead, NACAP, CQID, RCP, London; reader in respiratory epidemiology, National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London; and honorary respiratory consultant, Royal Brompton and Imperial NHS Trusts Ms Viktoria McMillan, programme manager, NACAP, CQID, RCP, London Ms Zoe Bowra, programme administrator, NACAP, CQID, RCP, London Mr Philip Stone, research assistant in statistics/epidemiology, National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London Ms Rachael Andrews, project manager, NACAP, CQID, RCP, London Professor C Michael Roberts, senior clinical lead, NACAP, CQID, RCP, London; and managing director, Academic Health Science Network, UCLPartners.
Citation for this document: Calvert J, Adamson A, Robinson S, Quint J, McMillan V, Bowra Z, Stone P, Andrews R, Roberts CM. Adult asthma clinical audit 2018/19 (Adults with asthma attacks admitted to hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales from 1 November 2018 and discharged by 31 March 2019). Clinical audit report. RCP: London, 2019. Copyright © 2019 Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) ISBN: 978-1-86016-765-2 eISBN: 978-1-86016-766-9
Royal College of Physicians Care Quality Improvement Department 11 St Andrews Place Regent's Park London NW1 4LE
Registered charity no 210508
www.rcplondon.ac.uk/nacap-adult-asthma @NACAPaudit #AdultAsthmaAudit #AsthmaAuditQI
## Contents
Report at a glance ................................................................................................................................... 4 How to use this report ............................................................................................................................ 5 Foreword by James Calvert, adult asthma audit clinical lead
................................................................. 7
Key findings and quality improvement priorities.................................................................................... 8
Section 1: General information
........................................................................................................... 8
Section 2: Smoking
............................................................................................................................ 10
Section 3: Acute observations .......................................................................................................... 12 Section 4: Acute treatment
............................................................................................................... 15
Section 5: Review and discharge....................................................................................................... 19 Section 6: Steroids and referral for hospital review ......................................................................... 22
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 24
For providers ..................................................................................................................................... 24 For commissioners / health boards / sustainability transformation partnerships (STPs) and integrated care systems (ICSs) .......................................................................................................... 24 For primary care
................................................................................................................................ 24
For people living with asthma and their families and carers
............................................................ 24
Appendix A: Document purpose
........................................................................................................... 25
Appendix B: References ........................................................................................................................ 26
## Report At A Glance
PEF
72.6%
1H
of all patients with a PEF measurement had this taken within 1 hour of arrival.
27.9%
4H
52.8% of all patients with a PEF measurement had this taken
within 4 hours of arrival.
27.4%
*3.9% of patients were too unwell to have PEF taken following arrival at hospital.
Respiratory review
76.8%
61.8% of all patients who received a respiratory specialist review
were reviewed within 24 hours of arrival.
24H
Systemic steroids
87.7%
1H
of all patients who received systemic steroids were administered these within 1 hour of arrival.*
31.2%
4H
65.3% of all patients who received systemic steroids were
administered these within 4 hours of arrival.*
*Please note that the audit dataset did not collect data on the proportion of patients that received their first dose of systemic steroids prior to arrival at hospital in this round of reporting (see section 4 on acute treatment for further information).
of patients had a PEF measurement recorded during their hospital admission. Guidelines require measurement of PEF as part of severity assessment.*
of patients had no PEF measurement recorded during their admission.
of patients were reviewed by a respiratory specialist during their admission.
of patients were administered systemic steroids following arrival at hospital.*
## How To Use This Report 1. Scope And Data Collection
The adult asthma clinical audit, a component of the National Asthma and COPD Audit Programme (NACAP), launched in November 2018 and captures the processes and clinical outcomes of treatment for patients admitted to hospital in England, Scotland and Wales with asthma attacks.* This report, which is the first since the launch of the audit, presents data describing the cohort of patients that arrived at hospital on or after 1 November 2018, who were admitted to adult services and were discharged by 31 March 2019.
The report highlights three key areas for quality improvement (QI) in 2019/20. Providers and commissioners should consider how these can be delivered locally for the benefit of patients and the healthcare system. A selection of case studies, provided by participating hospital teams, are included in the report to showcase good practice. In addition, tips to achieving the QI priorities are included in the relevant sections of the report. For more information about the delivery of QI within the NACAP, please view the programme's QI strategy available at: https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/national-asthma-and-copd-audit-programmenacap-quality-improvement-resources
2. Indicators included Key process measures included in this report are: review by a member of the respiratory team; measurement of peak expiratory flow (PEF); administration of systemic steroids and β2 agonists; and provision of elements of good practice care. The outcome measures included in this report are length of stay and inpatient mortality. An addendum to this report will be published in 2020, detailing 30- and 90-day mortality and hospital readmission rates. The two reports together are designed to provide a picture of the care provided to the cohort of adult patients admitted to hospital with an asthma attack who were included in the audit, as well as their outcomes post-discharge. In each future round of reporting, the NACAP aims to provide an increasingly comprehensive picture of asthma care provided across the country as case ascertainment builds over the length of the continuous audit. A separate data analysis and methodology report is available at: www.rcplondon.ac.uk/adultasthma-2018-19. This provides the following information:
-
the full data analyses, presented with England and Wales results, as well as combined results for all three countries denoted as 'All' (England, Scotland and Wales) in tables and figures, with explanatory notes throughout
-
nationally benchmarked results for participating hospitals, using variables based on national guidelines and standards
-
appendices, including the methodology for the audit.
It is not necessary to review the full analysis to appreciate the key messages available in this short report.
Provider-level audit data will be made publicly available on www.data.gov.uk, in line with the government's transparency agenda. In addition, authorised hospital web tool users are able to download their raw audit data via the audit web tool at any point. Run charts for key dataset metrics are also accessible for authorised hospital web tool users to access; these display audit data in realtime at provider- and national-level to support local quality improvement. Copies of our datasets, our good practice repository and all other resources can be found via our website: www.rcplondon.ac.uk/nacap-adult-asthma.
## 3. Report Coverage
The data presented here are based on the first five months of audit data collected as hospitals joined the continuous audit and began entering data onto the NACAP web tool. Therefore, data on only a proportion of eligible admissions for patients with asthma attacks were submitted and included in this audit report. It is important to note that a number of analyses have been calculated using small numbers (for instance, analyses of inpatient deaths). Caution must be used in interpreting analyses where the sample size is small as analyses may be underpowered and associations seen may occur by chance. National breakdowns in this round of reporting do not account for Scotland. Scottish audit data is included in the 'All' figures, but are not presented separately in this report, or the data analysis and methodology report, unlike for England and Wales. The low rate of hospital recruitment to the audit in Scotland, during the first 7 months of continuous data collection, provides small numbers (96 cases) that cannot be meaningfully analysed as a representative sample of Scottish asthma care. We look forward to providing Scotland level figures in future reports for the adult asthma audit, once hospital and case ascertainment has increased.
4. Audience and links to relevant guidelines and standards The report is intended to be read by healthcare professionals, NHS managers, chief executives and board members, service commissioners and policymakers, as well as voluntary organisations. A separate report has been produced for patients and the public and is available at: www.rcplondon.ac.uk/adult-asthma-2018-19. References to the appropriate National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) quality standards, British Thoracic Society (BTS) / Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guideline on the management of asthma and National Review of Asthma Deaths (NRAD) 2014 report recommendations are inserted throughout the key findings.
## Foreword By James Calvert, Adult Asthma Audit Clinical Lead
Welcome to the first RCP/HQIP audit report describing care provided to adult patients admitted to hospital with asthma attacks in the UK. Data described are derived from 10,242 patient episodes occurring between 1 November 2018 and 31 March 2019. According to Asthma UK, 5.4 million people in the UK are affected by asthma. In 2016/17 there were 77,124 hospital admissions for asthma and 1,484 people died from their condition.1 The audit data highlights two immediate areas for improvement; improving severity assessment of asthma attacks at the front door and the need to ensure timely treatment. Severity assessment requires measurement of PEF; 2 only 27.9% of patients who received a PEF measurement received it within 1 hour of arrival and 27.4% did not have PEF recorded at any point during their admission. The audit data show that timely administration of systemic steroids are associated with an increased likelihood of a shorter length of stay (OR = 1.26 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.37)); 31.2% of patients who received systemic steroids received these within 1 hour of arrival. It is, however, unclear if some patients were administered treatment prior to arrival at hospital. A planned audit dataset revision will provide information on treatment received as part of pre-hospital care for future analyses. An admission to hospital represents an opportunity to ensure that all elements of long-term care have been optimised prior to discharge;
-
Personalised asthma action plans are associated with a reduction in hospital admissions and a reduction in unscheduled use of medical services; 3 59.4 % of audited patients were discharged without a personalised asthma action plan in place, or review of their existing plan.
-
10.4% of patients left hospital without inhaled steroids being initiated (excluding patients not prescribed these for medical reasons (0.5%)). This means that a critical opportunity to reduce the risk of further attacks was missed.
-
One of the key National Review of Asthma Deaths (NRAD) recommendations is that patients in receipt of more than two courses of systemic steroids in the previous 12 months are referred for
secondary care assessment;4 12.6% of patients who met this criterion were discharged without a
referral for hospital follow up in place and 1.1% of patients who met this criterion declined referral for hospital follow up.
The value of care provided by specialist teams is well demonstrated. Patients seen by a respiratory specialist were eight times more likely to have their tobacco dependency addressed (OR = 8.00 (95% CI 6.34 to 10.17)) and 25 times more likely to receive optimal, guideline-defined care (OR = 24.73 (95% CI
20.73 to 29.52)), as described in the BTS asthma care bundle.2 Specialist-led care was also associated with a reduction in risk of death during admission (OR = 0.39 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.89) N=23). Numbers are clearly small, but it is clear that patients reviewed by a specialist receive more elements of guideline-defined care than those not seen by a specialist. In the short term, one of the national QI objectives must be to increase the proportion of patients seen by a member of the respiratory specialist team during admission. Commissioners should ensure that there are sufficient clinicians with expertise in asthma to provide appropriate levels of specialist care in hospital and in the community. In the longer term, medical training in particular, is moving towards generalist training. We must ensure that the benefits of specialist-led care, demonstrated here, are retained. Finally, I would like to thank all the participating hospital teams who have provided the data that will help us to understand how we can improve the standard of care which we provide to our patients.
## Key Findings And Quality Improvement Priorities Section 1: General Information
To see the data analysis in full, please access the data analysis and methodology report available at: www.rcplondon.ac.uk/adult-asthma-2018-19.
## Admission And Demographics
-
A significantly higher proportion of adult patients admitted with **asthma attacks** were female (72.5%).
-
The **median age** at admission was **50 years** (interquartile range (IQR) 34–65).
-
More patients were admitted on **weekdays**, from **late morning to early afternoon** (10am
to 2pm). Fewer patients were admitted overnight (10pm to 8am) and on weekends.†
## Length Of Stay
-
The **median length of stay** for an admission was **3 days**.
## Inpatient Mortality
-
23 (0.2%) audited patients admitted for asthma attacks died during their hospital stay.
## Patient Numbers Included In The Audit (Case Ascertainment)
-
The **overall case ascertainment figure** for the period **1 November 2018 to 31 March 2019**
was 39% (10,242/26,164 admissions).‡ Case ascertainment will be variable across
participating hospitals.
-
Data presented in the report should be interpreted taking into account that results are based on a non-random sample of eligible patients, rather than the full cohort of eligible individuals.
Case study: University Hospital of North Tees (North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust)
Resource support
-
Following the launch of the continuous COPD audit in 2017, the hospital team were able to ensure sufficient personnel to support data collection and entry through team awareness and communication of the work involved. This subsequently ensured sufficient resource to support the adult asthma audit.
-
A multidisciplinary team (MDT) managed case identification and participation in the adult asthma audit and included team members from the following departments:
o clinical data input o clinical effectiveness o service improvement o respiratory (consultants and specialist
respiratory nurses)
o in-hospital care management.
-
The main members of the team involved in web tool data entry included:
o two clinical data input clerks o one clinical effectiveness coordinator o two clerical officers.
Data collection and entry process
-
Coding reports were used to identify patients discharged under the ICD-10 codes listed for inclusion in the audit. The clinical effectiveness coordinator ran these coding reports every 2 weeks and removed any patients already uploaded onto the web tool.
-
These reports were then sent to the clinical data input clerks who checked that the remaining patients listed were eligible for inclusion.
-
Once this list was finalised, a notes request was sent through to the clinical effectiveness coordinator for the clerical officers or the medical records department to source depending on location of the notes.
-
Upon receipt of the notes, the clinical data input team clerks uploaded the relevant data to the web tool, with clinical support where needed.
-
Running the coding report every 2 weeks allowed enough time for the notes of eligible admissions from each report to be received and uploaded onto the web tool.
-
Regular meetings were also held with the wider MDT to discuss progress with the audit, address any issues and make further improvements to internal processes.
Tips to improve case ascertainment:
-
Involve the emergency department team and acute clinicians in the audit, as many patients will be managed by these team members.
-
Present your hospital's initial audit data to trust / health board management and make a business case for more data collection support to monitor and implement improvements in care. Involve patients in the process to support this.
172 patient records were entered at University Hospital of North Tees between
1 November and 10
May 2019 for the audit
## Section 2: Smoking
To see the data analysis in full, please access the data analysis and methodology report available at:
www.rcplondon.ac.uk/adult-asthma-2018-19.
of current smokers had their tobacco dependency addressed§
Key standards:
-
BTS/SIGN 2019 [6.2.3]: People with asthma and parents/carers of children with asthma should be advised about the dangers of smoking and second-hand tobacco smoke exposure,
and should be offered appropriate support to stop smoking.2
-
NICE 2013 QS43 [QS1]: People are asked if they smoke by their healthcare practitioner, and
those who smoke are offered advice on how to stop.5
-
NRAD 2014 [Patient factors and perception of risk - recommendation 2]: A history of smoking and/or exposure to second-hand smoke should be documented in the medical records of all people with asthma. Current smokers should be offered referral to a smoking
cessation service.4
Audit results:
-
20.7% of patients admitted for asthma attacks were **recorded as current smokers.** 22.8% of patients admitted were ex-smokers and 46.9% of patients had never smoked.
-
59.2% of current smokers had their **tobacco dependency addressed** prior to discharge.
## Case Study: Ealing Hospital (London North West University Healthcare Nhs Trust)
-
Initially the trust had a smoking cessation nurse as well as online referral for smoking cessation using an electronic request system. However, the smoking cessation nurse left the trust. The respiratory specialist nurses therefore focused on discussing tobacco dependency with all patients admitted under the care of the acute medical team and other teams
whenever they reviewed a patient.
-
In a departmental teaching programme, the respiratory specialist nurses asked drug representatives to educate the juniors about the options available for smoking cessation. As a result, the juniors proactively started
prescribing smoking cessation therapies.
-
A matron obtained information leaflets from
the British Lung Foundation (BLF) and distributed these to patients admitted under the care of the respiratory team. At the point of discharge, the team also proactively encouraged people to seek help for their tobacco dependency at their GP surgery to continue their smoking cessation therapies.
-
The hospital pharmacist prescribed Champix6 as a take home prescription. Nicotine patches,
oral lozenges, gum and nasal sprays were also options that could be offered.
-
As part of a local QI initiative, the hospital team wrote a smoking cessation plan and provided this to all patients at the time of discharge.
## Section 3: Acute Observations
To see the data analysis in full, please access the data analysis and methodology report available at www.rcplondon.ac.uk/adult-asthma-2018-19.
of patients had a PEF measurement taken at some point during their admission to hospital
Key standards - peak expiratory flow (PEF):
-
BTS/SIGN 2019 [9.2.3]: Measurements of airway calibre improve recognition of the degree of severity, the appropriateness or intensity of therapy, and decisions about management in hospital or at home. PEF or FEV1 are useful and valid measures of airway calibre. PEF is more
convenient in the acute situation.2
-
BTS/SIGN 2019 [9.2.6]: Patients whose peak flow is greater than 75% best or predicted 1 hour after initial treatment may be discharged from the emergency department unless they meet any of the following criteria, when admission may be appropriate: still have significant symptoms; concerns about adherence; living alone / socially isolated; psychological problems; physical disability or learning difficulties; previous near-fatal asthma attack; asthma attack despite adequate dose of oral corticosteroid prior to presentation; presentation at night;
pregnancy.2
-
NICE 2013 QS25 [QS7]: People with asthma who present with an exacerbation of their
symptoms receive an objective measurement of severity at the time of presentation.7
## Audit Results - Pef:
-
72.6% of patients had a **recorded PEF measurement** while 23.5% had no PEF measurement recorded during their admission and 3.9% of patients were too unwell to have a measurement taken.
-
The **median time to PEF measurement** following arrival at hospital was **4 hours** (IQR 1–16 hours).
-
27.9% of all patients with a PEF measurement, and a time for their measurement, had PEF taken **within 1 hour of arrival**.
-
52.8% of all patients with a PEF measurement, and a time for their measurement, had PEF taken **within 4 hours of arrival**.
-
58.7% of patients had a **previous best PEF recorded**. Where a previous best PEF was not recorded, **33.4%** of admissions had a **predicted PEF recorded**.
-
Of the patients who had a recorded PEF measurement taken, 84.7% had a record of either previous or predicted PEF.
-
The **median PEF on admission** as a percentage of previous best PEF or predicted PEF was 60.0% (IQR 45.5–75.0%).
-
74.3% of patients who had a PEF measurement taken and a measurement for either best/predicted PEF had a PEF measurement of less than 75% as a percentage of best/predicted PEF following arrival.
-
Patients with **PEF taken within 4 hours** were more likely to have a length of stay of 3 days or less compared with those who had a PEF taken more than 4 hours after arrival (OR = 1.66 (95% CI 1.50 to 1.84).
## Audit Results - Asthma Attack Severity:
-
Asthma attack severity was classified according to the NICE guideline** and BTS guideline††
thresholds. Please note that the audit dataset is limited to collection of a smaller subset of
physiological variables compared to the full list provided in the NICE/BTS guidelines and therefore asthma severity categorisation provided here is indicative only. The physiological variables used to categorise asthma severity of patients included in the audit were heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation (where measured) and PEF (where measured). In addition, patients with a heart rate of less than 30 beats per minute or a respiratory rate of less than 10 breaths per minute were classified as severe. Patients recorded as '*Patient too unwell'* for PEF measurement, whose other physiological measurements were normal, were classified as severe.
-
A breakdown of asthma severity in the audit patient cohort is as follows:
o **34.6%** of patients had **moderate** acute asthma o **51.4%** of patients had **severe** acute asthma o **14.0%** of patients had **life-threatening** acute asthma.
-
80.2% of patients with severe asthma and 83.5% of patients with life-threatening acute asthma were reviewed by a member of the respiratory specialist team during their admission. This means that 16.5% of those with life-threatening asthma and 19.8% of those with severe acute asthma did not receive the benefit of specialist review for their condition.
-
The **median time to specialist review** in patients with moderate, severe and life-threatening acute asthma was 19.5 hours, 19.9 hours and 21.4 hours respectively.
1
QI priority: Ensure 90% of patients are assessed for asthma severity, including measurement of PEF within 1 hour of arrival. (BTS/SIGN 2019 [9.2.3, 9.2.6])
Rationale: There is low attainment nationally for measurement of PEF within 1 hour of arrival. Assessment of severity by PEF measurement is required in order to make the necessary care management plans for the patient's admission(BTS/SIGN 2019 [9.2.3, 9.2.6]). Therefore, a 90% QI target has been set, taking into account exception cases where this cannot be recorded (i.e. where the patient is too unwell).‡‡
Tips to achieve this priority:
-
Survey staff to understand the barriers to measuring PEF in the emergency department.
-
Review whether there is sufficient availability of PEF meters in the emergency department, particularly during the busiest periods for admissions (see Table 1.4.2 of the data analysis and methodology report
(day and time of arrival to hospital)).
-
Provide education and training to staff on PEF measurement and interpretation.
-
Encourage use of PEF as part of triage by mandating entry of PEF measurement in electronic systems.
-
Work with the ambulance service to include PEF measurement as part of initial assessment.
## Section 4: Acute Treatment
To see the data analysis in full, please access the data analysis and methodology report available at www.rcplondon.ac.uk/adult-asthma-2018-19.
## Of Patients Were Reviewed By A Respiratory Specialist During Their Admission
Key standards - respiratory specialist review:
-
NICE 2013 QS25 [QS9]: People admitted to hospital with an acute exacerbation of asthma have
a structured review by a member of a specialist respiratory team before discharge.7
Audit results - respiratory specialist review:
-
Patients were judged to have had a respiratory specialist review if they were seen by any member of the respiratory MDT with training and skills in care of patients with asthma. 76.8% of patients were **reviewed by a respiratory specialist** at some point during their admission.
-
The **median time to respiratory specialist review** was **20 hours** (IQR 11–36 hours).
-
61.8% of patients who received a respiratory specialist review were **reviewed within 24 hours** of arrival to hospital.
-
Respiratory specialist review during admission was associated with:
o **increased length of stay;** patients who received a respiratory specialist review
stayed in hospital for a longer period of time (3 days vs 1 day).
o **addressing tobacco dependency;** current smokers who received a respiratory
specialist review were eight times more likely to have their tobacco dependency addressed (OR = 8.00 (95% CI 6.34 to 10.17)).
o **provision of asthma care bundles;** patients who received a respiratory specialist
review were 25 times more likely to receive a care bundle (OR = 24.73 (95% CI 20.73 to 29.52)).
o **delivery of the elements of guideline defined care**; 92.2% of patients who received
a respiratory specialist review received at least one or more elements of guidelinedefined care, compared with 53.7% of patients that did not have a respiratory specialist review.
o **decreased inpatient mortality;** patients who received a specialist review were 2.5
times less likely to die as an inpatient, compared with patients who did not receive a specialist review (OR = 0.39 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.89)). However, please note that as there was a small number of deaths (N=23) the confidence intervals for the odds ratio are wide. The analysis has also not been adjusted for variables such as age or socioeconomic status.
2
QI priority: Ensure 90% of patients receive a respiratory specialist review before discharge from hospital. (NICE 2013 QS25 [QS9])
Timely access to / review by a respiratory specialist is the patient priority for the adult asthma clinical audit, as chosen by the NACAP patient panel. For more information on how this priority was selected, please visit: www.rcplondon.ac.uk/nacap.
Tips to achieve this priority:
-
Work with the admitting medical teams to put a simple system in place whereby the
respiratory team can be notified of new patients at the point of admission.
-
Work with the local IT department to set up an alert system to support identification of relevant patients for review.
Rationale: The audit data highlights that patients in receipt of a respiratory specialist review were more likely to receive an asthma care bundle and the associated elements of good practice care on discharge, as well as more likely to have their tobacco dependency addressed if a current smoker. Therefore, an ambitious 90% QI target has been set for this priority.
-
Undertake a respiratory round of the admitting ward(s) and the emergency department each morning.
Key standards - oxygen prescription and administration:
-
BTS 2017 [Guideline for oxygen use in healthcare and emergency settings]: Every healthcare
facility should have a standard oxygen prescription document or, preferably, a designated oxygen section on all drug-prescribing cards or guided prescription of oxygen in electronic
prescribing systems.8
-
BTS 2017 [Guideline for oxygen use in healthcare and emergency settings]: A prescription for
oxygen should always be provided, except in sudden illness when it must be started
immediately and documented retrospectively.8
Audit results - oxygen prescription and administration:
-
Oxygen should be prescribed to ensure patients are managed safely. However, the audit data shows **16.8%** of patients were administered oxygen without a prescription.
Key standards - systemic steroids:
-
BTS/SIGN 2019 [2.7.1, 9.3.3]: Give steroids in adequate doses to all patients with an acute
asthma attack.2
-
NICE 2013 QS25 [QS8]: People aged 5 years or older presenting to a healthcare professional with a severe or life-threatening acute exacerbation of asthma receive oral or intravenous
steroids within 1 hour of presentation.7
Key standards - β2 **agonists:**
-
BTS/SIGN 2019 [2.7.1, 9.3.2]: Use high-dose inhaled β2 agonists as first-line agents in patients
with acute asthma and administer as early as possible. Reserve intravenous β2 agonists for those
patients in whom inhaled therapy cannot be used reliably.2
Audit results - systemic steroids:
-
87.7% of patients were **administered systemic steroids** following arrival at hospital.
-
31.2% of all patients who received systemic steroids as an inpatient received these within 1 hour of arrival at hospital.
-
65.3% of all patients who received systemic steroids as an inpatient received these within 4 hours of arrival at hospital.
-
Patients administered systemic steroids **over 4 hours after arrival** at hospital were 26% more likely to have a length of stay longer than 3 days when compared with patients who received systemic steroids within 4 hours (OR = 1.26 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.37)).
## Audit Results - Β2 Agonists:
-
42.2% of all patients who received β2 agonists as an inpatient received these **within 1 hour** of
arrival to hospital.
-
Patients administered β2 agonists **over 4 hours after arrival** at hospital were 14% more likely
to have a length of stay of over 3 days when compared with patients who received these within 4 hours (OR = 1.14 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.26)).
Caveats to systemic steroids and β2 agonists audit data:
-
The audit dataset does not record pre-hospital care so it is possible that some patients received
their first dose of systemic steroids and β2 agonists in primary care or in the ambulance.
-
Data on administration of systemic steroids and β2 agonists in the first 4 hours of hospital
admission should be interpreted with the above caveat.
-
Early administration of systemic steroids is associated with better outcomes.9 Therefore it is our
intention to add a question to the pending revision of the audit dataset on pre-hospital care. This will allow us to examine attainment against timely treatment for asthma attacks on arrival to hospital with greater detail in future reports.
QI priority: Ensure 95% of patients who have not been administered systemic steroids
3
as part of pre-hospital care are administered this treatment within 1 hour of arrival to hospital. (NICE 2013 QS25 [QS8])
Rationale: Early administration of systemic steroids for asthma attacks is associated with better patient outcomes.9 The audit data suggests that administration of systemic steroids within 4 hours of arrival to hospital is associated with reduced length of stay. Therefore, a 95% QI target has been set, taking into account exception cases where systemic steroids cannot be administered.
Tips to achieve this priority:
-
Incorporate a clear record of any prehospital systemic steroid treatment for the asthma attack into the ambulance handover or pre-admission triage to avoid delay in treatment with steroids or unnecessary duplication on arrival to hospital.
-
Ensure that all emergency department staff are aware of the importance of steroid administration within 1 hour.
## Section 5: Review And Discharge
To see the data analysis in full, please access the data analysis and methodology report available at www.rcplondon.ac.uk/adult-asthma-2018-19.
of patients admitted received six elements of good practice care set out in the British Thoracic Society Asthma Care Bundle before discharge§§
Key standards - elements of good practice care on discharge:
-
BTS/SIGN 2019 [5.2.2]: A hospital admission represents a window of opportunity to review self-management skills. No patient should leave hospital without a written personalised
asthma action plan.2
-
BTS/SIGN 2019 [5.3.2]: Prior to discharge, inpatients should receive written personalised asthma action plans, given by healthcare professionals with expertise in providing asthma
education.2
-
BTS/SIGN 2019 [9.6.2]: Prior to discharge, trained staff should give asthma education. This should include education on inhaler technique and PEF record keeping, with a written PEF and symptom-based personalised asthma action plan being provided allowing the patient to adjust their therapy within recommendations. These measures have been shown to reduce
morbidity after the asthma attack and reduce relapse rates.2
-
BTS/SIGN 2019 [9.6.3]: A careful history should elicit the reasons for the asthma attack and
explore possible actions the patient should take to prevent future emergency presentations.2
-
BTS/SIGN 2019 [9.6.3]: Medication should be altered depending upon the assessment and the patient provided with an asthma action plan aimed at preventing relapse, optimising
treatment and preventing delay in seeking assistance in the future.2
-
BTS/SIGN 2019 [9.6.3]: Prior to discharge, follow up should be arranged with the patient's general practitioner or asthma nurse within 2 working days, and with a hospital specialist
asthma nurse or respiratory physician at about 1 month after admission.2
-
NICE 2018 QS25 [QS4]: People who receive treatment in an emergency care setting for an
asthma attack are followed up by their general practice within 2 working days of discharge.7
-
NICE 2018 QS25 [QS5]: People with suspected severe asthma are referred to a specialist
multidisciplinary severe asthma service.7
Audit results - elements of good practice care on discharge:
-
48.2% of patients **received an asthma care bundle.*****
-
31.1% of all patients received **all six elements of good practice care**. The six elements were:
1. inhaler technique checked 2. maintenance medication reviewed 3. adherence discussed 4. personalised asthma action plan issued/reviewed 5. tobacco dependency addressed (if a current smoker) 6. follow up (patient provided either: community follow up requested within 2 working
days **and/or** specialist review requested within 4 weeks).
-
83.3% of all patients received **at least one of the elements** of good practice care. This figure includes the elements listed above, also in addition to 'triggers discussed' as an option. The
figure excludes current smokers who only had tobacco dependency addressed.
-
The **least frequently provided** elements of good practice care were:
-
community follow up requested within 2 working days (33.9%)
-
issue/review of a personalised asthma action plan (40.6%).
-
The **most frequently provided** elements of good practice care were:
-
inhaler technique checked (58.6%)
-
maintenance medication reviewed (69.9%).
Case study: Addenbrooke's Hospital (Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust)
Identification and review of admissions
-
The Addenbrooke's Hospital team worked collaboratively to deliver tailored care to their patients. The team used their electronic medical records system to identify emergency asthma admissions on a daily basis, allowing for prioritisation of team tasks. A respiratory specialist (respiratory consultant, respiratory SpR, respiratory nurse specialist or respiratory specialist physiotherapist) then reviewed all patients admitted with an exacerbation of asthma within 24 hours of admission. Completion of an asthma bundle
-
The team completed an asthma care bundle on all
patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of 'exacerbation of asthma'. In the bundle the team:
o checked inhaler technique o reviewed whether the device/drug was
appropriate for them
o assessed concordance/compliance/adherence o checked smoking status - if the patient was
a current smoker they ensured nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) patches were prescribed during the admission, and referred the patient to local smoking cessation services on discharge
o reviewed and amended existing personalised asthma action plans accordingly and
provided new personalised asthma action plans for patients who had never received one previously
o advised patients to see their GP / practice nurse within 48 hours of discharge - the
team ensured this was documented on the discharge summary so GPs were aware of
the need to review the patient
o requested clinic follow up in the hospital's specialist asthma clinic 4–6 weeks postdischarge.
-
In order to capture the discharge data for the NACAP adult asthma audit, the team devised a template asthma care bundle checklist, completed when the patient was reviewed by a respiratory nurse specialist, making the data input process for the audit more efficient.
## Section 6: Steroids And Referral For Hospital Review
To see the data analysis in full, please access the data analysis and methodology report available at: www.rcplondon.ac.uk/adult-asthma-2018-19.
of patients prescribed more than two courses of oral steroids in the previous 12 months were not referred for hospital assessment/follow up
Key standards - inhaled steroids and oral steroids:
-
BTS/SIGN 2019 [Management of acute asthma in adults in hospital (Annex 5)]: When discharged from hospital, patients should have treatment with oral steroids (prednisolone 40–50 mg until recovery - minimum 5 days) and inhaled steroids in addition to
bronchodilators.2
Audit results - inhaled steroids and oral steroids:
-
89.1% of patients were prescribed **inhaled steroids at discharge**.
-
90.2% of patients were prescribed at least **5 days of oral steroids for treatment** of their asthma attack.
-
29.9% of patients had been prescribed more than two courses of oral steroids in the last 12 months.
Key standards - referral for hospital assessment
-
BTS/SIGN 2019 [Management of acute asthma in adults in hospital (Annex 5)]: When discharged from hospital, patients should have a follow-up appointment in a respiratory clinic
within 4 weeks.2
-
NRAD 2014 [Organisation of NHS services - recommendation 2]: Patients with asthma must be referred to a specialist asthma service if they have required more than two courses of systemic corticosteroids, oral or injected, in the previous 12 months or require management
using BTS stepwise treatment 4 or 5 to achieve control.4
-
NRAD 2014 [Organisation of NHS services - recommendation 3]: Secondary care follow up
should be arranged after every hospital admission for asthma […].4
Audit results - referral for hospital assessment:
-
55.8% of patients were **referred for hospital assessment / follow up.** A further **12.2%** of patients were **already being seen** in a secondary care clinic.
Audit results - oral steroids history and referral for hospital assessment:
-
Where patients were prescribed more than two courses of oral steroids in the previous 12 months, 58.1% were referred for hospital assessment / follow up and 25.3% of patients were recorded as already being seen in secondary care clinic.
-
12.6% of patients **prescribed more than two courses of oral steroids in the last 12 months** were **not referred for hospital assessment / follow up.**
## Recommendations For Providers
We have defined three key national quality improvement (QI) priorities for 2019/20, selected for their effectiveness in improving outcomes. These priorities are as follows for the next year:
1. **QI priority 1**: Ensure 90% of patients are assessed for asthma severity including
measurement of PEF within 1 hour of arrival. (BTS/SIGN 2019 [Guideline 9.2.3, 9.2.6])
2. **QI priority 2**: Ensure 90% of patients receive a respiratory specialist review before discharge
from hospital. This is also the **patient priority** for the adult asthma clinical audit, as selected by the NACAP patient panel. (NICE 2013 QS25 [QS9])
3. **QI priority 3:** Ensure 95% of patients, who have not been administered systemic steroids as
part of pre-hospital care, are administered this treatment within 1 hour of arrival to hospital. (NICE 2013 QS25 [QS8])
For commissioners / health boards / sustainability transformation partnerships (STPs) and integrated care systems (ICSs)
1. Ensure that your local secondary care providers are participating in the NACAP adult asthma
audit. (NRAD 2014 [Organisation of NHS services - recommendation 6])
2. Ensure that your local secondary care providers have sufficient trained staff in the specialist
respiratory team to review all patients admitted with an asthma attack.
3. Ensure that patients who are current smokers have access to high-quality smoking cessation
services. (BTS/SIGN 2019 [Guideline 6.2.3] / NICE 2013 QS43 [QS1-5])
## For Primary Care
1. Ensure that all asthma patients have a personalised asthma action plan. (BTS/SIGN 2019
[Guideline 5.2.2, 14.3.1])
2. Identify asthma patients in receipt of more than two courses of systemic steroids in the last
12 months, or who are poorly controlled at BTS step 4 or 5, for review. Refer to secondary care if options for optimising care are unclear, or where there is diagnostic uncertainty. (NRAD 2014 [Organisation of NHS services - recommendation 2, 3])
3. Ensure that staff are adequately trained and updated in asthma care. (BTS/SIGN 2019
[Guideline 14.2])
## For People Living With Asthma And Their Families And Carers
1. If you are admitted to hospital with an asthma attack, make sure that arrangements have
been made to follow you up in outpatients after discharge. (NRAD 2014 [Organisation of NHS services - recommendation 3])
2. If you are admitted to hospital with an asthma attack, ensure you ask for, and are provided,
with a copy of your asthma care bundle (this includes having a personalised asthma action plan updated or issued). (BTS/SIGN 2019 [Guideline 9.6])
For more patient-specific recommendations please view the adult asthma clinical audit patient report, available at: *www.rcplondon.ac.uk/adult-asthma-2018-19*.
## Appendix A: Document Purpose
Document
purpose
To disseminate the results of the national adult asthma clinical audit of adults
with asthma attacks admitted to adult hospital services in England, Scotland and Wales 2018/19.
Title
Adult asthma clinical audit 2018/19
Authors
National Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Audit Programme (NACAP), Royal College of Physicians 13 December 2019
Publication date Audiences
Healthcare professionals, NHS managers, chief executives and board members, service commissioners, policy makers and voluntary organisations.
Description
This report presents the results of the cohort of patients that arrived at hospital on or after 1 November 2018, who were admitted to adult services, and were discharged by 31 March 2019. The information, key findings and recommendations outlined in the report are designed to provide readers with a basis for identifying areas that are in need of change, and to facilitate the development of improvement programmes that are relevant not only to secondary care providers but also to commissioners and policymakers. There is no scheduled review date for this report.
Supersedes
Not applicable
Contact
asthma@rcplondon.ac.uk
## Appendix B: References
1
Asthma UK. Asthma facts and statistics. www.asthma.org.uk/about/media/facts-and-statistics/ [Accessed July 2019].
2
British Thoracic Society (BTS) / Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). SIGN 153: British guideline on the management of asthma - A national clinical guideline. [Updated July 2019]. https://www.brit-thoracic.org.uk/quality-improvement/guidelines/asthma/ [Accessed June 2019].
3
Gibson PG, Powell H, Wilson A *et al*. Self‐management education and regular practitioner
review for adults with asthma. *Cochrane Database Syst Rev* 2003;(1):CD001117.
4
Royal College of Physicians. Why asthma still kills: the National Review of Asthma Deaths (NRAD) Confidential Enquiry report. London: RCP, 2014. www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/why-asthma-still-kills [Accessed July 2019].
5
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Smoking: supporting people to stop. NICE Quality standard 43 (QS43). London: NICE, 2013. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs43 [Accessed June 2019].
6
Smokefree. NHS stop smoking medicines. www.nhs.uk/smokefree/help-and-advice/prescription-medicines [Accessed July 2019].
7
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Asthma. *NICE Quality standard 25 (QS25)*. London: NICE, 2018. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs25 [Accessed June 2019].
8
O'Driscoll BR, Howard LS, Earis J, Mak V. BTS guideline for oxygen use in adults in healthcare and emergency settings. *Thorax* 2017;72:i1–i90.
9
Rowe BH, Spooner C, Ducharme F, Bretzlaff J, Bota G. Early emergency department treatment of acute asthma with systemic corticosteroids. *Cochrane Database Syst Rev.* 2001;
(1):CD002178.
## National Asthma And Copd Audit Programme (Nacap)
Royal College of Physicians 11 St Andrews Place Regent's Park London NW1 4LE Tel: +44 (020) 3075 1526 Email: asthma@rcplondon.ac.uk www.rcplondon.ac.uk/nacap
@NACAPaudit #AdultAsthmaAudit #AsthmaAuditQI | en |
2708-pdf |
##
If you are about to embark on the business of fundraising - be it for core services or a project; this course is a brilliant first step. Attendees will learn about the language, financial models and governance structures which contribute to successful fundraising. This in turn will help archives to make informed decisions about their fundraising strategies and targets. In short, this course will enable you to ensure that you have the right building blocks in place to begin fundraising.
## Learning Objectives
The course will enable participants to
Understand and articulate their own organisational funding model and benchmark its position relative to the sector.
Understand how to analyse their cost base and productivity and how this informs their financial planning and options.
Engage with key decision makers to influence the outcome of governance reviews, options appraisals and commissioning.
Know where to go for best practice guidance from leaders in the sector and case studies of transformation.
Take forward a development plan for improving financial resilience.
## Summary Of Content
Understanding your finances
Total budget
o Understanding your cost drivers o Full cost recovery
Assessing the alternatives: what to start and what to stop
Evaluating the options
Developing a business case
Developing your own plan
o o | en |
1961-pdf |
## Outbreak Control Plan Why Do We Need An Outbreak Plan?
- We want to keep our residents as safe
as we can from COVID-19 until better treatments and/or a vaccine is available.
- The initial phase of COVID-19 was
countrywide. As national restrictions are
lifted, sporadic cases are likely which will need local action to prevent spread.
- Building on local knowledge and trusted
partnerships our local plan adds to national programmes.
## Outbreak Control Plan Themes
1. Care homes and schools
•
Prevent and manage outbreaks in specific individual settings (e.g. schools, care homes)
2. High risk places, locations and communities
•
Prevent and manage outbreaks in other high-risk locations, workplaces and communities
3. Local testing capacity
•
Deploy local testing capacity optimally
## Outbreak Control Plan Themes
4. Contact tracing in complex settings
•
Deliver contact tracing for complex settings and cohorts
5. Data integration
•
Access to the right local data to enable the other themes
and prevent outbreaks
6. Vulnerable people
•
Support vulnerable people and ensure services meet the needs of diverse communities
## Outbreak Control Plan Themes
7. Local Boards including Communication & Engagement
•
Take local actions to contain outbreaks and communicate with the general public
8. Workforce
•
Keeping our workforce safe
## Managing Risks Locally Rotection. Managing Risks Locally
•
Some settings are more risky, for example where infectious people are being cared for, where social distancing and isolation are more challenging or where there are people at particular risk of harm from COVID-19.
•
It is likely that COVID-19 will be harder to spot and control in the winter and we need to be prepared.
## Managing Risks Locally
In the Royal Borough we are developing focussed outbreak plans for a range of settings and population groups including:
•
Schools
•
Leisure facilities
•
Care Homes
•
Vulnerable groups
•
Residential settings
•
BAME communities
•
Workplaces
•
Transport
•
People facing homelessness
•
Retail
•
Tourism
•
Places of worship
## What Actions Might Be Taken Or Recommended?
- Alert messaging - Focussed testing of people with and without symptoms - Special testing facilities set up - Closure of premises - Restricting visiting
- Cancelling events - Closing playgrounds or other facilities - Enhanced monitoring of people isolating - Specific advice on PPE and infection prevention and control
measures
- Contact tracing
## How Will We Respond To An Outbreak In The Royal Borough?
- We will watch data on cases and risks closely, so we spot
outbreaks early.
- We will support our residents to stay safe, encouraging
handwashing, social distancing and isolation and assisting those who need help to comply.
- The actions we take will be those most likely to be effective,
based on evidence.
- We will act swiftly to put local actions in place to support
Public Health England's recommendations on controlling
spread.
- We will communicate with local people and organisations to
help them keep safe.
## Managing A Local Outbreak Is A Team Effort Outbreak Notification And Response What If More Action Is Needed?
RBWM GOLD Command will work with local Public Health England Health
Protection teams to develop a local response and allocate resources
The local authority response team will help manage the local response
Thames Valley Local Resilience Forum will test plans and command & control
arrangements to support actions across Berkshire
East Berkshire Health Protection Board will oversee the development of the
outbreak control plan and deploy mobile testing units when necessary
South East Regional Oversight Group will share learning from one area to another,
monitor outbreak management and oversee NHS Test & Trace
Action at a National level if needed
## When To Get In Touch
If you are self-isolating or vulnerable and need help with shopping or medication delivery please contact the Community Response Hub on 020 3514 8117. If you think someone has Covid-19 in your workplace, school or other setting please contact the council on 01628 683820
(Monday - Friday 9am-5pm) and for urgent referrals on Saturday and Sunday between 9am to 5pm please email Env.Health@RBWM.gov.uk If you have symptoms, stay home and contact NHS Test & Trace to get tested:
www.nhs.uk/coronavirus or call 119 if you have no internet access
## Communication With Residents
- Our outbreak engagement board will be held every month,
and more often if needed, involving local councillors accountable to the public.
- We will keep our website up to date with the latest
information and guidance.
- We will use social media to spread the word. - We will work with services, businesses and organisations to
make sure information is clear and accurate.
- We will make information available in accessible formats and
languages other than English.
## Governance
- Overseen by our two Berkshire Health Protection Boards,
key partners will work together to control spread locally.
- Our Local Outbreak Engagement Board will listen and keep
the public informed about COVID-19.
- The Thames Valley Local Resilience Forum will put
Command and Control arrangements in place to act across a broader geography if needed.
- The South East Regional Oversight Group will help us learn
from other areas.
## Refine Refine The Plan With Partners Next Steps
for the Royal Borough of Adapt Windsor and Maidenhead Outbreak
## Control Plan
Review Adapt the plan as we learn more about COVID-19 and local outbreaks Review our plans alongside new national programmes such as the Joint Biosecurity Centre
## The Latest Covid-19 Information At Your Fingertips:
www.berkshirepublichealth.co.uk
- Understand the tier level restrictions in RBWM and across Berkshire - The latest COVID-19 data for RBWM and Berkshire at your fingertips - Access our information centre to find information about public health in
Berkshire | en |
1806-pdf |
## Case Study: Bodleian Library, University Of Oxford January 2015 Abstract
This case study covers the Bodleian Library and the University of Oxford, and their provision of a 'private cloud' local infrastructure for its digital collections including digitised books, images and multimedia, research data, and catalogues. It explains the organisational context, the nature of its digital preservation requirements and approaches, its storage services, the technical infrastructure, and the business case and funding. It concludes with the key lessons they have learnt and future plans.
## Organisational Context
The Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford has been a legal deposit library for 400 years. In addition to its books and journals it holds a wide range of archives and special collections. For example, the BEAM service within the library looks at personal archives that are hybrid collections of analogue and digital material.
The Library was involved with the Google Books digitisation project and a OS map digitisation project, and is currently part of a project with the Vatican to digitise maps.
The Library's role in supporting researchers includes services for managing their research data. The University's research data management strategy involves a top level, multi-agency approach - the Library, Research Services, Oxford e-Research Centre, and central IT services have all been involved. The Research Support Portal offers a central reference point for Research data management to Oxford academics. In general, the central IT service provides operational support and the Library deals with archiving of data.
The Library, Oxford e-Research Centre, and central IT service all offer their own storage services that have been described as 'private cloud': IT services offers conventional storage for research data on a monthly rental basis; the Library offers archival storage for deposits (usually from humanities scholars) which may or may
not have a related web presence: and the Oxford e-Research Centre offers storage with access to the academic Data Grid. Data for long term deposit goes into the archival storage, but currently there is a one-off volume-related payment which covers on-going storage costs and an administrative fee per item deposited (and assigned a record/DOI). They are also looking currently at alternative cost models for small deposits and unfunded research.
The options for storage and archiving are set out via the Research Support Portal.
The Library will provide a quote for archiving digital material generated from a research grant, costed on the standard basis for a 'Small Research Facility'. For larger/more complex datasets they can collaborate with other institutions, e.g. the Oxford eResearch Centre.
## Digital Preservation: Significance
Digital Preservation is of major importance to the Library. As a legal deposit library
'that's what we do'. The University also needs to comply with Research Council mandates for retention of data. The requirement is typically for ten years preservation of most digital research data, but in practice storage costs diminish so much that after ten years it may be more costly to review the data than to continue preserving it. For digitised materials they are working mostly with humanities, but born digital research datasets are coming from different disciplines such as sciences and social sciences, which don't have the same metadata standards, traditions or expertise, and therefore this needs new skills in the Library.
They are at a transition stage where over the next 4-5 years the largest collections will be born digital rather than digitised.
## Current Approaches
For hybrid archives the material is very varied. They are given old devices from which they have to extract the data and do format translation/migration. If digitising themselves, they have more control, and so far have only had to migrate from TIFF
to JPEG 2000, a choice which was driven more by engineering and costs than preservation imperatives. The Library use their own platform based on simplified FEDORA. The FEDORA system doesn't actually do preservation processes, so they do checksums and use JOVE, Open Planets etc. for characterisation and other preservation functions. For hybrid archives/personal digital materials, they use Forensic Toolkit software on incoming data - this is costly software but identifies valuable files and the formats for possible migration. This decision is under review as significant progress has been made with open and/or community-based toolkits.
There is a diversity of research data formats which are often machine-specific and proprietary so they can't be migrated easily. They have looked at bit stream preservation and keeping context information for these formats. To this end, preliminary research on software and methodological preservation is being undertaken.
## How They Would Want This To Change Over The Next Three Years
Currently they have different approaches to different material. They would like to see more packaged tools that could be applied across the board and more automation, e.g. for the workflow involved in characterisation. Currently, they have long workflows with lots of dependencies. Cloud Virtual Machines could help speed up dealing with processing and checking images at ingest, etc.
## Range Of Content Types And Volumes Of Digital Material
Currently they have 300 Tb of which a small amount is born digital material.
Over the next three years they are planning to start to archive data at a Petabyte scale. Currently, the content is overwhelmingly images and text but that range is expanding with the addition of AV and other file formats over time.
## Private Cloud Storage For Digital Preservation
Oxford has been managing its own local virtualised storage and compute for preservation and describes this as private cloud. They are not procuring cloud storage from an external service. They do not view most external cloud providers as a viable proposition for them currently, as their ongoing revenue payment models do not match the research funding model of fixed duration payments for projects, and are therefore potentially too costly over time. They are also worried about getting data out and any costs for this being affordable. Some external specialist archiving services are interested in proper long term storage and might be a better match. For example they might consider Arkivum if the cost profile was favourable.
The Bodleian are actively looking for partners for a consortium approach but the infrastructure is not there yet. They have some discussions with other institutions in a similar position which would be obvious partners, and also have strong ties with the US digital preservation community. They can see preservation advantages in having a copy of the data elsewhere, stored in a geographically distant location with a preservation partner institution.
## Technical Infrastructure
They use FEDORA, home-grown software, PRONOM, and DROID. They also use Forensic Toolkit and implementing some HYDRA tools. They don't plan on having a single ingest or delivery route as the material is too diverse.
The private cloud is based on VMware ESX running across a number of clustered servers at multiple sites with a mix of disk and tape storage tiers.
## Business Case And Funding
The main issues in a business case for cloud storage for digital preservation in the University are the cost and risk profiles. To fit in with fixed term research project grant funding they need the ability to pay up front for perpetual and/or 10+ year storage of research data rather than by annual payments. Most third-party cloud services have an ongoing revenue cost that is
harder to fit in to this funding model (Arkivum is currently the main exception to this as it offers a single payment option for 10-20 years along with a guaranteed cost reduction profile that allows the calculation of a lifetime cost). Local storage however can charge capital costs to a grant proposal and provide a degree of upfront payment for the costs. However, this is not the sole funding model as services are also needed for unfunded projects and some current and future costs may be funded or partly funded via overheads on research grants.
##
They feel there can be asymmetric risk in using an external provider: the risk can be higher for the client than the provider. If the provider goes bust there may beno mechanism to get data out in good time. The exceptions to this are cloud providers that have an escrow copy as part of their service, or where an institution can operate two separate cloud service providers in parallel to mitigate the risk (but this has costs and management overheads).
## Key Lessons They Have Learnt
- Archiving and digital preservation is often much less well developed than
people think.
- The Open Archival Information System (OAIS) Reference Model is a mixed
blessing - fine as model but in practice not necessarily scalable, and too rigid if adhered to slavishly;
- It is not simple, if like a university you are working with very large data
volumes. At scale you need to have the network infrastructure and bandwidth
to use the cloud;
- The balance of risk when using external providers can be asymmetric; there is
no guarantee of longevity for commercial providers and in the event of data loss, far more damage would be done to the institution's reputation than to
that of the cloud provider. You need to mitigate these risks in your chosen implementation and exit strategies;
- Using a shared private cloud (perhaps similar to the Digital Preservation
Network in USA) or a consortiums of like-minded institutions might be more
viable for archives. The US and Australia are at a more advanced stage in this.
## Future Plans
The growth in research data and the need to archive it will require a significant reengineering of provision at all levels across the University in coming years.
## Further Information
Research Data Management at Oxford: http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/rdm/ Bodleian Library: http://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/bdlss VMware ESX: http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/VMware-ESX-and-VMware-ESXi-
DS-EN.pdf Arkivum: http://www.arkivum.com/ The Digital Preservation Network: http://www.dpn.org/ The Open Archival Information System (OAIS) Reference Model: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=5 7284 Preservation and Archiving Special Interest Group (PASIG): http://www.asis.org/Pasig/ | en |
0465-pdf |
## Social Distancing Changes In Transport Use (Great Britain)
Transport data is indexed to the equivalent day in either January or February 2020 (Traffic and Buses) or 2019 (Rail). Shaded areas represent weekends.
Source: Department for Transport. Further details on data sources can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/slides-and-datasetsto-accompany-coronavirus-press-conferences
## Testing And New Cases (Uk)
Testing Includes tests conducted and shipped. Some people are tested more than once.
tests as of 27 May
117,013
tests in total
3,798,490
Confirmed cases Only includes cases tested positive. There are more cases than confirmed here.
2,013
cases confirmed as of 27 May in total Source: NHS England and devolved administrations. Further details on data sources can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/slides-and-datasetsto-accompany-coronavirus-press-conferences
## Data From Hospitals
Source: NHS England and devolved administrations. Further details on data sources can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/slides-and-datasetsto-accompany-coronavirus-press-conferences
## People In Hospital With Covid-19 (Uk)
8,879 people are in hospital with COVID-19, down from 10,037 this time last week.
Source: NHS England and devolved administrations. Further details on data sources can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/slides-and-datasets-toaccompany-coronavirus-press-conferences
## Daily Covid-19 Deaths Confirmed With A Positive Test (Uk)
The numbers presented here from the Department for Health and Social Care relate to deaths where COVID-19 was confirmed with a positive test.
Weekly registered deaths from the Office for National Statistics include cases where COVID-19 is mentioned on the death certificate but was not confirmed with a test. On 15 May, ONS reported 45,231 cumulative registered deaths from COVID-19. This was 11,233 more than the DHSC figure for the same date.
Source: DHSC, sourced from NHSE, PHE, devolved administrations. Further details on data sources can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/slides-and-datasets-toaccompany-coronavirus-press-conferences
## Annex: Statistical Notes
Social distancing Transport use (Great Britain): Bus (excl. London), TFL tube and Bus data has been adjusted to compare against typical usage for the Easter break, whereas motor vehicles and national rail have not. DfT have published information on data sources and methodology. Data on TfL Buses is not available from Sunday 19 April due to the change in boarding policy. DfT revised the previous week's National Rail usage data on 8 May. Data for Buses (excl. London) on 8 May is not available. Testing and new cases (UK) Tests: The number of tests includes; (i) tests processed through our laboratories, and (ii) tests sent to individuals at home or to satellite testing locations. Tests processed through laboratories are counted at the time of processing in the laboratory and not when they are issued to people. Tests sent to individuals at home or to satellite testing located are counted when tests are dispatched and not at the time of processing in the laboratory. Cases: Cases are reported when lab tests are completed. This may be a few days after initial testing. Chart date corresponds to the date tests were reported as of the 24 hours before 9am that day. Only includes cases tested positive. There are more cases than confirmed here. There may be a small percentage of cases where the same person has had more than one positive test result for COVID-19. Data from hospitals Estimated daily admissions with COVID-19 (England): England data captures people admitted to hospital who already had a confirmed COVID-19 status at point of admission, and adds those who tested positive in the previous 24 hours whilst in hospital. Inpatients diagnosed with COVID-19 after admission are assumed to have been admitted on the day prior to their diagnosis. Ventilator beds with COVID-19 patients (UK): Reporting on bed capacity has shifted from critical care bed capacity to ventilator bed capacity, which is a clearer indicator of our ability to care for COVID-19 patients. Overall percentage of Mechanical Ventilation beds that are occupied by COVID patients, by nation. This measure includes both Nightingale hospitals and Dragon's Heart/Ysbyty Calon y Ddraig field hospital. The trends in this graph are impacted by both reserved and devolved policies. For Wales, mechanical ventilator beds and critical care beds are identical. For Scotland, mechanical ventilator beds and critical care beds are identical. Scottish figures include a small number of patients who are not on mechanical ventilation. For England, the denominator is the number of beds which are capable of delivering mechanical ventilation. The numerator is the number of COVID patients in beds which are capable of delivering mechanical ventilation. For Northern Ireland, the denominator is the number of beds which are capable of delivering mechanical ventilation, based on its current maximum surge capacity. The numerator is the number of COVID patients in beds which are capable of delivering mechanical ventilation.
## Annex: Statistical Notes
People in hospital with COVID-19 (UK) Community hospitals are included in figures for Wales from 23 April onwards. England and Scottish data includes 'confirmed' cases, Northern Ireland and Welsh data includes 'confirmed' and 'suspected' cases. Due to the way Northern Ireland report, the UK figure is calculated by taking the most recent day for Great Britain plus the previous day for Northern Ireland. National data may not be directly comparable as data about COVID-19 patients in hospitals is collected differently across nations. From 22nd May, a change in reporting resulted in some patients in Wales being reclassified as COVID patients. Prior to this date, some COVID positive patients who had been in hospital for 14 days and recovered were reported as non COVID patients. Daily COVID-19 deaths confirmed with a positive test (UK) Figures on deaths relate to those who have tested positive for COVID-19. The 7-day rolling average (mean) of daily deaths is plotted on the last day of each seven day period. UK deaths are reported when paperwork is filed, rather than time of death. Deaths are reported in the 24 hours up to 5pm on the previous day. Figures for deaths reported on 25 May may represent a small undercount as the electronic data system used to collect NHS data was unavailable for part of Sunday 24 May. Access to the system was kept open to 7pm rather than the usual 5pm to allow late reporting, but figures may represent a small undercount. For more information please see: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public | en |
3283-pdf |
## Information For Passengers Guidance On Meeting The Licence Condition1
Version 2: June 2016
## Introduction
1.
This guidance supports the passenger information licence condition (condition 4) in passenger, station and network operator licences by giving more information about what is expected and how it will be enforced. This second edition replaces guidance issued when the licence condition was first introduced in 2012.
2.
Since the licence condition was introduced the industry has worked hard to deliver improvements in this area. However, at the same time, passenger expectations have increased. As new technology is introduced, the industry must continue to review the services that can be provided, whilst also ensuring that the basic information at the heart of the system is correct.
3.
We have a duty to protect the interests of passengers and this is an important area where continuous improvements are needed. We have other duties including to enable service providers to plan their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance and not to make it unduly difficult for network licence holders to finance proposed activities. In framing and enforcing these obligations we must take account of all our duties.
4.
We are updating the guidance following the super-complaint about compensation for passengers that have been delayed. While the licence condition itself has not been changed, we have clarified the coverage of the condition with the industry. The revisions to this document are to ensure that it is clear that the condition applies to all parts of a passenger journey. We have also taken the opportunity to remove some out of date references and to make sure that delivered actions from the industry's plan are reflected.
## Purpose & Scope
5.
The Purpose of the licence condition is "to secure the provision of appropriate, accurate and timely information to enable railway passengers and prospective passengers to plan and make their journeys with a reasonable degree of assurance, including when there is disruption."
6.
The scope of the obligations covers the need to provide good information for all parts of a passenger journey, whether in advance, on the day of travel or after the journey has taken place.
This can be broken down into various stages which include:
planning a journey;
buying a ticket;
before arriving at the station;
waiting at the station;
boarding the train;
making the train journey;
arriving at the destination station, and
claiming compensation if necessary
7.
This recognises that giving passengers good information about compensation in the event of delay is accepted as an important component of the overall passenger experience (whether this information is given during or after the journey itself).
8.
The obligations do not prescribe how such information should be provided, nor do they define absolute measures of delivery. Instead they set out the part that each licence holder must play in developing the timetable and passing on relevant information to passengers about the national timetable as well as planned and unplanned changes to it. They require Network Rail to run efficient and effective timetable planning processes and to provide accurate and timely information to train operators. They require train operators to publish and follow codes of practice setting out how they will pass that information on to passengers at every each stage of their journey, outlined above. 9.
Timetabling services and providing information to passengers are difficult, complex tasks. On the day disruption in particular requires a flexible, collaborative approach between Network Rail and train operators to assess what has gone wrong, plan service recovery and disseminate information as soon as possible. It also means that information is seen in the context of other objectives a train operator is seeking to achieve at times of disruption. The obligations are aimed at incentivising licence holders to continuously improve how they manage information, through codes of practice, post incident reviews, reviews of industry processes and improvement plans. 10. We have made it clear in the licence condition that the duty to achieve the purpose of the condition "*having regard to all relevant circumstances*" includes taking into account the funding available.
## Passenger Train Operator Licences Codes Of Practice And Plans
11. In this section we refer to a number of different plans. They are:
Local plan - licence holders that follow the ACOP (as set out in paragraph 13) are
obliged to produce a local plan which sets out how its requirements will be delivered in their business.
Industry action plan - a specific plan of actions developed by the industry's National
Task Force to address recommendations from the Transport Focus report2 published
in September 2014. This is sometimes referred to as the PIDD action plan and is
published on train operator websites as part of their local plans.
Improvement plan - any plan produced by a licence holder to set out how it will work to address specific issues that mean it is currently not compliant.
12. The obligations provide a flexible framework for licence holders to develop codes of practice and improvement plans, individually or collectively. These should set out what they will do to make sure passengers get useful and timely information and should also show how they plan to improve over time. 13. The Association of Train Operating Companies publishes a code of practice for passenger information during disruption3 (the ACOP). We consider that the ACOP is good practice and we are content for train operators to adopt this and publish it collectively. Similarly we consider that initiatives (such as the industry action plan) to embed and reinforce this code of practice are appropriate and should also be published. The ACOP requires each train operator to produce its own local plan which should be sent to ORR when issued or updated. The local plan (or a passenger friendly version of it) should be published on the train operator's website, along with an annual progress statement. 14. Should a licence holder wish to develop its own code of practice it would need to satisfy us that the bespoke arrangements would enable it to meet its obligations equally as well or better than the ACOP. A separate code of practice must still cover the journey stages listed in paragraph 6
above and be published. 15. ORR does not formally approve these codes of practice or local plans but we may require the train operator to amend them if we think it necessary. We would do this if, for example, we believed
a code would not enable the train operator to comply fully with the general duty4. This could be if it had become out-dated due to technological advances, or if there were repeated problems despite the train operator following its code and they were not being addressed in an improvement plan.
## Station Licences
16. Station licence holders have an important role in providing information to passengers. This would normally be covered by the local plan where the licence holder is also a train operator. Train information must include all services calling at the station, not just those operated by the licence holder (if it is a train operator). We recognise that to meet these obligations a station operator depends on train operators providing them with the relevant information.
17. Where stations are operated separately to the trains, e.g. at Network Rail managed stations, the station operator should have its own customer information plan that sets out how information will be provided, both in normal operation and in disruption. This should be signed off by all the train operators that use the station and sent to ORR when issued or updated.
## Network Rail'S Network Licence
18. Network Rail is responsible for running an efficient and effective timetabling process and for getting accurate information to train operators at least 12 weeks before any changes are made to planned services. Network Rail will be considered compliant with these obligations if changes are made later than this due to emergencies or if providing the information would conflict with its obligations under condition 1 of its licence. We will also consider it to be compliant if delays in providing the relevant information are caused by a train operator providing its information late.
19. During times of disruption, the licence requires Network Rail to cooperate to get information about the disruption to the relevant train operators as quickly as possible so that decisions can be made about changes to services, and to respond expeditiously to timetabling matters a train operator considers urgent. In assessing compliance we would look at whether Network Rail had in place, and was following, good plans and communication strategies.
## Relationship With Infrastructure Managers Other Than Network Rail
20. Some train operators run services on infrastructure such as High Speed 1 that is not regulated by ORR in the same way as Network Rail. We have not explicitly required cooperation with other infrastructure managers as there is no reciprocal obligation. However, we consider it would be good practice for such train operators to include in their codes of practice information on how they intend to cooperate with the infrastructure manager, and other users of that network, to ensure relevant information is shared as quickly as possible.
21. A failure to provide appropriate, accurate and timely information could be due to lack of information or cooperation from the infrastructure provider. In assessing compliance, we would consider this to be a relevant circumstance but we would still expect the train operator to do what was reasonably practicable to get the relevant information from its infrastructure provider and to keep its customers informed.
## National Rail Enquiries (Nre) And Other Suppliers
22. Licence holders will often rely on NRE or other suppliers, e.g. Nexus Alpha or Worldline, to help them deliver information to passengers. The obligation to comply remains with the licence holder rather than the third party supplier.
## Enforcement Of Licence Obligations
23. ORR's approach to enforcement is set out in our Enforcement Policy and Penalties Statement5. This regulatory statement forms part of our enforcement policy and provides more detail on how we will monitor and enforce licence obligations relating to timetable planning and passenger information and what we expect licence holders to do to comply with these requirements. In general, our policy is to monitor delivery of licence requirements and to take effective enforcement action if required to resolve serious or systemic issues. We aim to ensure that monitoring and enforcement is proportionate to the issue and will take a stepped approach of investigation and escalation.
24. The provision of good quality information is by its nature partly subjective and it would be difficult to set absolute targets or benchmarks against which to measure compliance. In assessing compliance we will use our reasonable judgement, based on the evidence, on a case by case basis. We would expect to intervene if it is clear that a licence holder is substantially failing to follow its code of practice or deliver its improvement plans to the detriment of passengers, or is not engaging with the review process. We will not normally get involved in individual complaints which should be addressed directly to the train operator or the relevant passenger representative body.
25. The licence obligations are not intended to undermine the primary objective of providing the best available service for passengers. Making justified changes to the train plan to meet passengers' needs should not be conditional on providing perfect advance information about these. However, we would expect licence holders to use reasonable endeavours to get such information out as widely as possible and as quickly as possible. We will take the circumstances into account during any assessment of compliance.
26. Where a franchise authority has included specific commitments in a franchise or concession that go beyond the licence commitments for passenger information, it is for the franchising authority to enforce these. Our economic enforcement policy is clear that we will not subject an operator to double-jeopardy, so we would expect to liaise with the franchising authority to clarify who should lead if contract and licence requirements overlap.
## © Crown Copyright 2016
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at orr.gov.uk Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at orr.gov.uk | en |
0800-pdf | # Raikes Farm Barns Mill Lane, Sheen, Staffordshire
Historic Building Record September 2019
Draft v1
Document No: TJC2019.118
Planning Application No: NP/SM/1018/0965
OASIS No: thejesso1-367698
Office contact details
The JESSOP Consultancy Cedar House 38 Trap Lane Sheffield South Yorkshire S11 7RD Tel: 0114 287 0323
The JESSOP Consultancy The Old Tannery Hensington Road Woodstock Oxfordshire OX20 1JL Tel: 01865 364 543
The JESSOP Consultancy The Garden Room Coleshill House (No.3)
75 Coleshill Street Sutton Coalfield Birmingham B72 1SH
Tel: 01543 479 226
Disclaimer
This document has been prepared with the best data made available at the time of survey and research. It is, therefore, not possible to guarantee the accuracy of secondary data provided by another party, or source. The report has been prepared in good faith and in accordance with accepted guidance
issued by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists 2014. Digital versions of this document may
contain images that have been down-sampled and are reduced in quality.
Copyright
The copyright of this document is assigned to the Client, however the JESSOP Consultancy must be acknowledged as the author of the document.
TJC
The JESSOP Consultancy is the trading name of TJC Heritage Limited, a United Kingdom Registered Company - No.9505554.
## Summary Of Project Details
OASIS ID:
thejesso1-367698
Planning Reference:
NP/SM/1018/0965
TJC Project Code:
C41
Project Type(s):
Historic Building Record National Grid Reference:
SK 11851 59715
County:
Staffordshire District/Unitary Authority:
Staffordshire Moorlands Parish:
Sheen 235m
Elevation
(above
Ordnance
Datum):
Designation Status(s):
Curtilage of Grade II The Raikes Farmhouse and Attached Stables (NHLE: 1252613) In the Peak District National Park
Prepared by:
James Thomson MCIfA
Reviewed by Oliver Jessop MCIfA
Date:
20/09/2019
Version:
Draft
## Non-Technical Summary
This report presents the results of a programme of historic building recording of two outbuildings at Raikes Farm, Mill Lane, Sheen, Staffordshire, situated at National Grid Reference SK 11851 59715.
The record comprises a photographic survey and was undertaken to address a condition of planning permission for the conversion of the building to domestic use.
Raikes Farm comprises an early 19th Century farmstead with the buildings where alterations are proposed (Buildings 1 and 2) comprising additions of the second half of the 19th Century. These buildings formed part of a period of gradual expansion of the farm, adding a new combined cart house, cowhouse and fodder store (Building 1) and calf house (Building 2).
The farmhouse is Grade II Listed, comprising a nationally important building of special architectural and historical interest. Buildings 1 and 2 contribute positively to the significance of the farmstead but are intrinsically of lower significance as they date to a period when such buildings were increasingly common and are not special examples of their type. Nonetheless, their vernacular character is of architectural merit and the relatively complete condition of the farmstead is of historical interest, upon which basis they are considered to possess regional heritage significance.
The proposals seek to refurbish Buildings 1 and 2, conserving the structures and making limited considerate changes to bring them into domestic use. Also proposed is the demolition of an existing lean-to on the east elevation of Building 1, with the proposed replacement of a high-quality modern structure which will maintain the legibility of the historic structures whilst not detracting from their significance.
It is considered that the proposed scheme of works to the barns at Raikes Farm will lead to the conservation of the existing structures, preserving their significance and the contribution they make to the setting of the Grade II Listed farmhouse. The overarching design philosophy has sought to avoid and minimise harm and seeks to balance residual harm against securing a use that is appropriate to the building's long-term conservation.
## 1 Introduction Background
This report presents the results of a programme of historic building recording of two outbuildings at Raikes Farm, Mill Lane, Sheen, Staffordshire, situated at National Grid Reference SK 11851 59715
(Figure 1).
The record comprises a photographic survey and was undertaken in accordance with an approved
Written Scheme of Investigation (TJC Heritage, 2019) prepared to address a condition of planning permission for the conversion of the building to domestic use (Peak District National Park Authority planning reference: NP/SM/1018/0965 - condition No.4)
## Aims
This programme of building recording has been designed to provide a photographic record of the current character of the barns at Raikes Farm prior to conversion. In addition to this new element of recording, the report also reproduces the historic background and analysis of the structures produced as part of a previous heritage statement (TJC Heritage, 2018).
## Dissemination
Copies of this report will be distributed to the Client, the Staffordshire Historic Environment Record, and the Peak District National Park Historic Buildings, Sites and Monuments Record. In addition a digital copy will be uploaded to the OASIS (Online AccesS to the Index of archaeological investigationS) with the reference number: thejesso1-367698.
The project archive, including all record photography and a copy of the report, will be deposited with Staffordshire Archives.
## Designation(S)
Raikes Farmhouse is Grade II Listed (NHLE ref: 1252613). The full listing description is included in Appendix 3.
## 2 Site Location Site Location
Raikes Farm is located on the northern side of Mill Lane, west of the River Dove which forms the border between Staffordshire and Derbyshire. The topography of the site slopes from the northwest towards the south-east, forming the valley of the River Dove, with the site possessing views south across low lying farmland towards where the Dove cuts a narrow passage between Wolfscote Hill and Gratton Hill.
The farm comprises a rectangular farmhouse, situated parallel to the road beyond a lawn, with a small yard to its southwest delineated by a small single storey outbuilding to the north (Building 1), and a two-storey building to the west (Building 2). A separate detached barn to the south of the road formerly formed part of the farm but is now in separate ownership.
Both Building 1 and Building 2 were disused but structurally sound at time of survey.
## Geology
The soil at the site, and within its immediate vicinity, is classified as slowly permeable seasonally wet acid loamy and clayey soils mostly seasonally wet pastures and woodland suitable for growing grassland for cattle (Cranfield University, 2018). The 1939 Land Utilisation Survey of Britain records the land around Raikes Farm as meadowland and permanent grass (Vision of Britiain). The bedrock geology of the site is mudstone, siltstone and sandstone of the Bowland Shale Formation, formed approximately 319 to 337 million years ago (British Geological Survey, 2018).
## Historic Landscape Character
The landscape surrounding Raikes farm comprises a combination of typically large straight edged enclosures indicative of surveyed enclosure of the 18th or early 19th Century, and more irregular enclosures with dog-legged or slightly curvilinear boundaries suggestive of earlier piecemeal enclosure. There is no parliamentary enclosure of land in the Parish of Sheen, within which the site is located, indicating that this enclosure was carried out on a private basis. Curvilinear, narrow, enclosures east of the Dove lie across the county boundary in Derbyshire and most likely reflect the extent of a medieval open field agricultural system surrounding Hartington. The nearest ancient settlement in Staffordshire is the village of Sheen, 1.7km to the north.
To the south is an area of landscaped grounds associated with Beresford Hall. The hall dates to the
16th Century but may have been emparked during the 18th or 19th Century.
The land surrounding Raikes Farm most likely lay in an area of unimproved and unenclosed moorland and seasonal wetlands situated on the periphery of the Parish of Sheen prior to its enclosure in the early 19th Century. Whereupon it was enclosed into regular fields and divided between newly formed dispersed farmsteads such as Raikes Farm.
## 3 Methodology Standards
The project has been undertaken in accordance with best practice guidelines as set out by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA 2014a & 2014b); and Historic England (2016). The overall recording strategy was designed to be compliant with a Level 2 (descriptive) record established by Historic England (2016).
## Photographic Record
The photographic record comprised:
1. General views of the building in its wider setting (HE 2016, photography item 1);
2. The building's external appearance (HE 2016, photography item 2);
3. Further views to reflect the original design intentions of the builder or architect (HE 2016,
photography item 3);
4. The overall appearance of the principal rooms and circulation areas (HE 2016, photography
item 4);
5. Any external or internal detail, structural or decorative (HE 2016, photography item 5);
6. Any dates, signage, graffiti, makers plates etc. within areas where works are proposed (HE
2016, photography item 7).
7. A plan or plans identifying the location and direction of accompanying photographs (HE
2016, drawn record item 8).
## Documentary Research And Measured Survey
This report reproduces a historical description of the building and annotated floor plans originally prepared as part of a Heritage Statement supporting an application for conversion of the buildings at the site (TJC Heritage, 2019).
## 4 Historical Development Historical Baseline
Sheen was first recorded in 1003 in an endowment to Burton Abbey, and again in the Domesday Survey of 1086, appearing as Sceon. This place-name derives from the Old English word sceon meaning 'sheds or shelters' (Mills, 2010). A second settlement had formed in the south-east of the parish by the 17th Century, most likely around Beresford Manor to the south of the site. A farm is also recorded at Raikes by 1651 (Currie et al., 1996: 239-50), although its exact location is not known.
The road between Warslow and Hartington was turnpiked in 1770, until then having passed further to the south through Alstonfield township. This new road crossed the Dove and passed north of Raikes Farm, possibly replacing or extending earlier lanes with records of Hartington Bridge, over which the road passes, dating back to 1620 (Currie et al., 1996: 239-50). The alignment of the road was changed to pass to the south of Raikes Farm in c. 1850.
Raikes Farm appears on a plan of the parish of Sheen produced for the calculation of tithes in 1847
(Appendix 1.1), illustrating a single linear range on the site of the existing house (no. 862 on the plan). The farm is shown situated within a large irregular enclosure (no. 864), although it is possible that the adjacent closes around the farm may not have been fully surveyed beyond a single separate square enclosure shown to the south (no. 863). The earlier course of the Warslow-Hartington road is also shown passing to the north of the farm. The apportionment accompanying the plan lists the details of the above plots, and identifies the extent of the land occupied by the same tenant:
| No. | Owner | Tenant | Name of Piece | Use |
|--------|--------------------|------------------|------------------|---------|
| 862 | Viscount Beresford | Edmund Wooddesse | Homestead | - |
| 863 | Viscount Beresford | Edmund Wooddesse | Homestead | - |
| 864 | Viscount Beresford | Edmund Wooddesse | Green | Pasture |
| 870 | Viscount Beresford | Edmund Wooddesse | Lime piece | Pasture |
| 871 | Viscount Beresford | Edmund Wooddesse | Farfield | Pasture |
From the 1851 Census a property known as the "Rakes" is listed under two entries, potentially relating to the present Raikes Farm and Little Raikes, both of which appear on the 1847 Tithe map. The 1871 Census differentiates the two properties as "Rakes" and "Rakes House", with Rakes House associated with the larger landholding (70 acres, in comparison to 26 acres for the "Rakes")
and the larger household. It has not been possible to ascertain with certainty which property was which, although on the basis of size alone it is likely that Raikes Farm was associated with the larger household (the family associated with the largest household and landholding is marked with an [*]
in the paragraph below).
In 1851 these residences were occupied by the Bainbridge family* (Job Bainbridge listed as farmer)
and the Bennit family (Matthew Bennit listed as agricultural labourer). Over the following decades the occupants changed relatively frequently, with the Raikes occupied by the Austin and Woodise*
families in 1861 and 1871, the Austin and Goodwin* families in 1881, and the Cotton* and Gibbs families in 1891. Throughout this period the occupants' principal occupation is recorded as farmer.
The 1880 Ordnance Survey (OS) map illustrates the site in detail (Appendix 1.2), showing the main house with extensions to its northern side, a detached building to the southwest (Building 2), and a detached rectangular building to the south of Mill Lane (the barn). Differences in the style of construction between the barn on Mill Lane and Building 1, suggest that they were not undertaken at the same time, with Building 1 stylistically appearing the later of the two. By the production of the 1891 OS map (Appendix 1.3) a new short range is shown to the west of the house (Building
2), and a narrow enclosure is shown to the north of Building 1.
The 1901 Census records the Gibbs family still resident at Rakes (listed as a farmer) with the other resident Walter Woolley, a farmer and wheelwright, and his brother John, a wheelwright. Kelly's trade directory for 1896 also lists a Joshua Woolley as wheelwright in the parish of Sheen. That a wheelwright was based at Raikes Farm is information that has been passed down by previous owners (Mr Hawton, pers. comm.). No reference to a wheelwright was found against any of the known occupants of the Rakes in an 1870 directory, providing a suggested start date for this business between 1870 and 1896 which would coincide with the depiction of the narrow enclosure north of Building 1 on the 1891 OS map which could have been a saw pit.
By the 1911 Census, Raikes appears under one entry, occupied by the Broomhead family. This entry provides some additional information on the activities as the farm, with Ellen Broomhead recorded as working in the dairy.
Later Ordnance Survey maps illustrate a few changes occurred at the site during the later 20th Century, including the addition of an extension onto the eastern side of Building 1 on the 1972 OS
(Appendix 1.5). No further changes to the plan form of the farm have been undertaken, although alterations have occurred internally including the conversion of the western end of the farmhouse
(formerly a stables) to accommodation in around 1987.
## 5 Description Of Raikes Farm Barns Introduction
The following section presents a description of the phased development of the barns and a discussion regarding archaeological features that survive within the built fabric. Floor plans showing the phasing is presented as Figure 2. Rooms are referred to by an applied numbering scheme for ease of reference, which are also shown on Figures 2-3.
The photographic record is reproduced as Appendix 2, with a scaled site plan included as Figure 3.
## Phased Development
The building appraisal identified three principal phases of alteration at Raikes Farm which have been attributed to the following periods:
Phase 1: 1850-1880
Construction of Building 1
Phase 2: 1880-1898
Construction of Building 2 & Conversion of Building 1
Phase 3: 1922-1975
Extension of Building 1
## Phase 1: 1850-1880
The construction of Building 1 to the south-west of the main farmhouse occurred between the production of the 1847 Tithe map and 1880 OS map. The building was possibly built as a combination barn but was converted to a workshop for a wheelwright when the property was acquired by the Woolley family between 1891 and 1901. The east and south elevations of the building are built with more finely dressed stone, indicating that it was intended to be viewed from the southeast and therefore suggesting it was constructed following the realignment of Mill Lane from the north to the south of the farm.
## Phase 2: 1880-1898
Building 2 was constructed between the production of the 1880 and 1898 OS maps, comprising a small cow house or dairy.
During this period Building 1 was converted to a wheelwright's workshop, potentially changing the use of the ground floor northern room and first floor loft. No diagnostic fixtures or fittings remains from the workshop machinery, although a heavy degree of wear to the first floor is illustrative of where activities would have taken place.
Phase 3: 1922-1975
A single-storey lean-to extension was made to the side of Building 1 during this period, with structural evidence suggesting it may have been built in stone and then partially rebuilt at a later date in wood and blockwork.
Building 1 went out of use as a cow house towards the beginning of this phase, or just before, and was converted to a workshop or store.
## Building 1
Building 1 has evidently seen a number of uses in its past, potentially built between 1850 and 1880
as a combination barn with four stalls for livestock, cart shed and first floor hay-loft, granary or garret.
Whilst it is possible that the stalls were used for draft horses, the lack of windows into this room is more typical of cow houses (Brunskill, 2007). Whether the window into the southern and eastern first-floor windows are original or inserted into pitching holes is uncertain, although the windows in the west elevation are certainly insertions of the early to mid 20th Century. The later use of the building as a workshop is evidenced by the insertion of additional windows and the degree of scars in the floor and walls that likely relate plant and heavy use.
## Exterior
The building is a two-storey structure built of sandstone with half hipped blue slate roof. The southern and eastern elevations are of square dressed stone laid to regular courses, whilst the northern and western elevations are rubble built. Finely dressed sandstone ashlar blocks form quoins and the frames to the first phase windows and doors within the building. Within the south elevation is a central board and batten door at ground floor with strap hinges, and small multi-paned timber framed casement window at first floor level. Disused iron pintles beside the door indicate it had originally had a stable door. East elevation has a double door at its northern end with early 20th Century garage doors, and first-floor window identical to that of the south elevation. The north elevation has an external staircase running up it to a first-floor doorway with board and batten door. There is evidence within the stonework forming the stairs for an under-stair cupboard with north facing door. The western elevation has a row of three blocked ventilation slots at ground floor level, with two inserted wide rectangular windows at first floor with vertical strip glazing of an early to mid-20th Century design.
Abutting the east elevation is a single storey lean-to with rounded rubble-built wall to north, blockwork wall to south and timber panelled wall to east. The roof is of corrugated metal sheet. Internally the lean-to forms a single space. There are two blocked ventilation slots evident in the eastern wall of the barn.
## Interior
The interior of the ground floor is divided into two rooms, comprising a garage to the north (G1)
and small cow house to the south (G2). G1 has concrete floor, and bare stone walls. There are two recessed storage holes in the north wall and a low stone shelf in the southeast corner below a blocked ventilation slot. G2 has setts with raised concrete stalls against the east and west walls. Floor scars indicate that the stalls were subdivided, whilst evidence for hay racks and troughs is evident against the head of either pair of stalls. An interconnecting doorway with board and batten door between the two rooms is an insertion.
The interior of the first floor comprises a single open space (F1), with timber boarded floor of machine sawn timbers, and lime plastered and painted walls. There are numerous scars in the floor indicating patched repairs and removed plant between floors. The presence of inserted timbers in the walls and other scars most likely correspond to removed plant or shelving. The ceiling is now open to the rafters, although the extent of wall plastering indicates a ceiling would have been present. Exposed is a single joggled king post truss of machine sawn timbers with bolted joints and clasped purlins.
## Building 2
As with Building 1, Building 2 has evidently seen a number of uses in its past, potentially built between 1880 and 1898 as small loose boxes for small livestock with a first floor hay-loft. It was most likely built to accommodate calves, but there is some oral evidence that it may have housed donkeys used to turn a gin to power machinery in the wheelwrights (Mr Hawton pers. comm). No evidence has been identified for a gin, or for power transmission into the barn, however this does not necessarily exclude this interpretation. The building was then converted to a store or workshop, possibly in the early 20th Century. Evidence for possible heating apparatus would fit with the later use of the barns on the site by a wheelwright as iron tyres needed to be heated to expand them prior to fitting them.
## Exterior
Building 2 is a single storey structure built of sandstone with pitched blue slate roof. The southern elevation is of squared stone laid to regular courses, whilst the other elevations are rubble built. Finely dressed sandstone ashlar blocks form quoins and the frames to the windows and doors within the building. Along eaves level is a dressed stone cornice. The south elevation is divided into three bays, originally comprising three evenly spaced doors, the central one of which has been partially blocked with a multi-pane timber framed window inserted. The east elevation is blind with the exception of three terracotta pipes in the top of the gable forming ventilation. The northern elevation has two ventilation slots comprising decorative double-bulb loopholes cut through single sandstone blocks. At eaves level on the north elevation are two terracotta ventilation pipes, whilst lower in the wall, towards its western side, is an inserted salt-glaze stoneware pipe which possibly formed part of a flue for heating apparatus internally. The west elevation has a single upper level window with inserted multi-paned timber frame with top casement. Iron pintles and a latch hook indicate the opening was previously fitted with a shutter.
## Interior
The interior of the building comprises a single space (G1), with flagstone floor incorporating a slight step laterally along the centre of the room, and rubble-built walls faced at ground floor level with lime plaster. Part of a timber floor survives within the eastern end of the room, with former joist holes indicating it had originally continued the full length, probably forming a hay loft. There is evidence for removed stalls which would have divided the building into three stalls, matching the doors in the south elevation. An inserted brick-built structure in the northwest corner of the room may form the remains of a furnace structure, corresponding to the salt glaze pipe flue through the north elevation.
## 6 Conclusion Statement Of Significance Historical And Archaeological Interest
The range of buildings at Raikes Farm illustrate the phased development of a post-medieval farmstead from a highly traditional linear-plan farmstead, that remains the dominant form of historic farms in the Peak District, towards a loose courtyard plan that reflected 19th Century developments in farming (PDNPA, 2017: 19). Within this group, Buildings 1 and 2 correspond to the later development of the farm in adding improved facilities during the latter half of the 19th Century including a cart house, additional cow house, calf house, and storage for fodder. The use of these buildings in their intended function was relatively short lived, as they were converted to use by a wheelwright around the turn of the century. The plan of the present farm has a clear distinction between the house and domestic gardens and the working yard and agricultural buildings, which relays some evidence of how the farm operated in the later 19th Century. Buildings 1 and 2 back on to the fields, with a former pitching hole in the west elevation of Building 2 illustrating how hay from the fields could be brought directly into the building. The legibility of the relationship between Building 1 and the yard has been adversely affected to a small degree by the addition of the single-storey lean-to which obscures the building.
The operation of the original linear-plan farmstead is less legible owing to its evident piecemeal conversion to residential space. Although the cattle accommodation in both buildings lacks the improvements brought in by the improved hygiene regulations of the mid-20th Century, very little survives of their original furniture beyond scars in the walls and floors. This archaeological evidence suggests the layout of the spaces was typical of their period.
## Architectural And Artistic Interest
The buildings at Raikes Farm are built of local materials and of traditional forms which are reflective of the regional geology and vernacular building traditions of the late 18th to mid-19th Century. Whilst the doors and windows within the building are later additions, relating to the conversion of the buildings to workshops, they possess a historic character and do not adversely affect the architectural interest of the building.
The buildings at Raikes Farm have been purposefully designed and orientated in respect to the natural topography and location of the main road in order to make the most of views along the Dove Valley and to present a fair face to passers-by. The vernacular character of the buildings, utilising local materials in traditional forms, firmly establishes them in their setting which enhances the artistic qualities of the surrounding natural and human shaped landscape.
## Conclusion
At its core, Raikes Farm comprises an early 19th Century linear-plan farmstead with the buildings where alterations are proposed (Buildings 1 and 2) comprising additions of the second half of the
19th Century. These new buildings formed part of a period of gradual expansion of the farm, adding a new combined cart house, cowhouse and fodder store (Building 1) and calf or donkey house
(Building 2).
The farmhouse is Grade II Listed, comprising a nationally important building of special architectural and historical interest. Buildings 1 and 2 contribute positively to the significance of the Grade II
Listed Raikes Farmhouse but are intrinsically of lower significance as they date to a period when such buildings were increasingly common and are not special examples of their type.
Nonetheless, their vernacular character is of architectural merit and the relatively complete condition of the farmstead is of historical interest, upon which basis they are considered to possess regional heritage significance.
## 7 Supporting Information Authorship
The programme of building recording and reporting was undertaken by James Thomson MCIfA, with editing by Oliver Jessop MCIfA.
## Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Mr and Mrs Hawton, the client, and Nick Marriot for providing background information.
## Sources And References Consulted
Census Returns (www.ancestry.co.uk): 1841, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901 & 1911.
Historic Tithe Maps (www.thegenealogist.co.uk): Sheen Tithe Map and Gazetteer, 1847.
Historic Trade Directories (http://specialcollections.le.ac.uk): 1896 Kelly's Directory of Staffordshire
## Bibliography
British Geological Survey
2018.
Geology of Britain Viewer.
Available:
mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritainviewer/home.htm. Accessed 09/10/18.
Brunskill, R.W. 2007. Traditional Farm Buildings of Britain and their Conservation. Yale University Press.
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists 2014. Standards and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk Based Assessment.
Cranfield University 2018. Soilscapes. Available: www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes. Accessed 09/10/18.
Currie, C.R.J. and Greenslade, M.W. (eds.) 1996. A History of the County of Stafford: Volume 7, Leek and the Moorlands. London: Victoria County History.
Historic England 2016. Understanding Historic Buildings: A Guide to Good Practice.
Peak District National Park Authority, 2017a. Farmstead Assessment Framework. Peak District National Park Authority, 2017b. Farmstead Character Statement. Vision of Britain, n.d. Geographical Publications Limited Land Utilisation Survey of Britain, Sheet 45
- Buxton and Matlock, 1939. Available: http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk. Accessed 09/10/18.
CONTENTS OF FIELDWORK ARCHIVE
1. Copy of The JESSOP Consultancy, 2019. Raikes Farm Barns, Mill Lane, Sheen, Staffordshire:
Written Scheme of Investigation for a Level 2/3 Historic Building Record. Document ref
TJC2019.57.
2. 1x Photography register 3. 1x Photography location plan
4. 1x film 35mm black and white negatives
5. 33x 6x4 inch black and white prints
6. 1x copy of the final report (TJC 2019.118).
© OS map reproduced under Licence No.100056148. Ordnance Survey ® Crown Copyright ©
© OS map reproduced under Licence No.100056148. Ordnance Survey ® Crown Copyright ©
APPENDIX 2:
SITE PHOTOGRAPHY
(NB: numbers refer to film number, see Appendix 2.35 to cross reference to appendicies)
(NB: numbers refer to film number, see Appendix 2.35 to cross reference to appendicies)
| Film No. | Appendix |
|--------------|-------------|
| Building No. | |
| (room no.) | Description |
| 1.1 | n/a |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.2 | 2.23 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.3 | 2.24 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.4 | 2.25 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.5 | 2.27 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.6 | 2.28 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.7 | 2.26 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.8 | 2.3 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.9 | 2.29 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.10 | n/a |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.11 | 2.30 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.12 | 2.9 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.13 | 2.10 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.14 | 2.11 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.15 | 2.4 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.16 | n/a |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.17 | 2.12 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.18 | 2.5 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.19 | 2.6 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.20 | 2.7 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.21 | 2.8 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.22 | 2.1 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.23 | 2.2 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.24 | 2.13 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.25 | 2.14 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.26 | 2.18 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.27 | n/a |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.28 | 2.15 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.29 | 2.17 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.30 | 2.20 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.31 | 2.19 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.32 | 2.21 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.33 | 2.22 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.34 | 2.32 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.35 | 2.31 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.36 | 2.33 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| 1.37 | 2.16 |
| 16.08.19 | |
| | |
| | |
LISTED BUILDING DESCRIPTION
## The Raikes Farmhouse And Attached Stables
DETAILS
Grade: II
List Entry Number: 1252613 Date first listed: 05-Jun-1985
LOCATION
County: Staffordshire District: Staffordshire Moorlands (District Authority)
Parish: Sheen National Park: PEAK DISTRICT
National Grid Reference: SK 11863 59740
DETAILS
Farmhouse and attached stables. Early C19. Coursed stone; block dressings; blue machine tile roof; brick end and centre stacks to house. House: two-storey, three-window front; glazing bar sash windows; trellised entrance to right of centre; hipped porch and 6-panelled door with glazed top lights. Stable: under continuous ridge to left; boarded door and glazing bar sash window, similar to house, boarded hay loft door to first floor. | en |
3279-pdf |
## Justice System Defendants
proceedings and convictions are made up of males, with
75% being male in 2013.
## Tv Licence Evasion
Television licence evasion made up:
36% of female prosecutions in 2013, compared to only of prosecutions for males.
## Indictable Offences Shoplifting Convictions For Indictable Offences, 2013
Shoplifting convictions as a proportion of all indictable convictions, 2013.
## Drug Offences Mitigating Factors
22% 9%
## Immediate Custody
17%
7%
## Aggravating Factors
33% 15%
11%
16%
11%
9%
10%
20%
## Prison Proven Re-Offending Self-Harm In Custody Summary Offences
In 2013, just under three quarters of self-harm incidents in prisons were committed by males. | en |
2435-pdf |
## Efficiency Of Highways England'S Operating
# Expenditure: Analysis Of Productivity And Unit Cost Change
REPORT FOR THE OFFICE OF RAIL AND ROAD 31ST MARCH 2017
## Final Report
Submitted by:
Cambridge Economic Policy Associates In association with:
The UK's Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) Ltd
## Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... i 1.
Introduction and approach
........................................................................................ 2
1.1.
Background ................................................................................................................
2
1.2.
Objectives of this study
..............................................................................................
2
1.3.
Approach
....................................................................................................................
3
2.
Context and key issues .............................................................................................. 5
2.1.
Highways England's Resource Expenditure ...............................................................
5
2.2.
The Cook Report ......................................................................................................
11
2.3.
Scope for efficiency savings .....................................................................................
12
2.4.
Scope of Highways England's operating activities
...................................................
13
2.5.
Performance and cost trade-off ..............................................................................
14
2.6.
Summary ..................................................................................................................
15
3.
Approach ................................................................................................................ 17
3.1.
Overview ..................................................................................................................
17
3.2.
Background ..............................................................................................................
17
3.3.
Benchmarking of Real Unit Operating Expenditure ................................................
18
3.4.
Forming conclusions ................................................................................................
20
4.
Highways England's Performance to Date
................................................................ 21
4.1.
Introduction .............................................................................................................
21
4.2.
Analysis of historic costs ..........................................................................................
21
4.3.
Historic benchmarking of Real Unit Operating Expenditure ...................................
22
4.4.
Efficiency savings in practice ...................................................................................
24
4.5.
Summary ..................................................................................................................
25
5.
Highways England's Potential Performance in RIS1
.................................................. 26
5.1.
Introduction .............................................................................................................
26
5.2.
Benchmarking of top down productivity metrics ....................................................
27
5.3.
Benchmarking of partial factor cost measures
........................................................
32
5.4.
Further consideration of Real Unit Operating Expenditure ....................................
34
5.5.
Highways England's forecast performance .............................................................
35
5.6.
Comparison ..............................................................................................................
37
5.7.
Summary ..................................................................................................................
37
6.
Considering Efficiency Savings in RIS2
...................................................................... 38
6.1.
Introduction .............................................................................................................
38
6.2.
Highways England's performance............................................................................
38
6.3.
Performance of regulated companies in the third control period ..........................
38
6.4.
Sense check - regulatory precedent ........................................................................
39
6.5.
Summary ..................................................................................................................
39
7.
Conclusions and Scope for Further Analysis ............................................................. 41
7.1.
Conclusions ..............................................................................................................
41
7.2.
Scope for further analysis ........................................................................................
42
ANNEX A
Detailed explanation of approach ................................................................ 43
ANNEX B
Detailed analysis
.......................................................................................... 60
## Disclaimer
This report has been commissioned by the Office of Road and Rail (ORR) from Cambridge Economic Policy Associates (CEPA) Ltd and TRL Ltd for the exclusive use of ORR. However, the views expressed are those of CEPA and TRL alone. Information furnished by others, upon which all or portions of this report are based, is believed to be reliable but has not been independently verified, unless otherwise expressly indicated. Public information, industry, and statistical data are from sources we deem to be reliable; however, we make no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of such information, unless expressly indicated. The findings enclosed in this report may contain predictions based on current data and historical trends. Any such predictions are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties. The opinions expressed in this report are valid only for the purpose stated herein and as of the date of this report. No obligation is assumed to revise this report to reflect changes, events or conditions, which occur subsequent to the date hereof. CEPA Ltd and TRL Ltd do not accept or assume any responsibility in respect of the Report to any readers of the Report (Third Parties), other than the client. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CEPA Ltd and TRL Ltd will accept no liability in respect of the Report to any Third Parties. Should any Third Parties choose to rely on the Report, then they do so at their own risk. CEPA Ltd and TRL Ltd reserve all rights in the Report. © All rights reserved by Cambridge Economic Policy Associates Ltd and TRL Ltd
## Acronyms
| Acronym | Full Description |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| CAA | Civil Aviation Authority |
| Capex | Capital Expenditure |
| CATRIN | Cost Allocation of Transport Infrastructure Cost, European transport project. |
| CEPA | Cambridge Economic Policy Associates, the prime contractor of this study. |
| CU | Catch-Up, efficiency improvements made in order to catch-up to current best |
| practice. | |
| DfT | Department for Transport |
| EU KLEMS Database on measures of economic growth, productivity, employment creation, | |
| capital formation and technological change at the industry level for all European | |
| Union member states from 1970 onwards. | |
| FS | Frontier Shift, ongoing efficiency achieved over time. |
| GO | Gross Output, measures whereby intermediate input impacts are included. |
| HE | Highways England |
| LEMS | Labour, Energy, Material, Services, a partial productivity measure which considers |
| labour and intermediate inputs. | |
| LEMSP | The 'residual' output growth that is not accounted for by the growth of labour and |
| intermediate inputs (LEMS). | |
| LP | Labour Productivity, the growth of output per unit of labour input growth. |
| NACE | The statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community. |
| NATS | National Air Traffic Services |
| OBR | Office of Budgetary Responsibility |
| Opex | Operating Expenditure |
| ORR | Office of Rail and Road |
| PFI | Private Finance Initiative, the creation of public-private partnerships through funding |
| public infrastructure projects with private capital. | |
| PS | Performance Specification, the objectives that Highways England must deliver. |
| RIS1 | Road Investment Strategy 1, sets out the major strategic road network improvements |
| Highways England is to deliver from 2015/16 to 2019/20. | |
| RIS2 | Road Investment Strategy 2, the second road investment period starting in 2020. |
| RUOE | Real Unit Operating Expenditure, operating expenditure divided by an indicator of |
| output. | |
| SR10 | Spending Review 10, a review of the Highways Agency to set out its budget from |
| 2010. | |
| SRN | Strategic Road Network, made up of the motorways and the trunk roads in England |
| that are Highways England's responsibility. | |
| TFP | Total Factor Productivity, the 'residual' output growth that is not accounted for by |
| input growth, taking into account all factors of production. | |
| TRL | Transport Research Laboratory, a sub-contractor for this study. |
| VA | Value-added, a measure whereby the impacts of intermediate inputs are removed. |
## Executive Summary Introduction
Highways England (HE) is responsible for operating, maintaining and improving the Strategic Road Network (SRN) in England. It was established in April 2015 as a government-owned strategic highways company, with the intention of giving it greater commercial freedom to make decisions and drive efficiencies than was possible while operating as the Highways Agency, an executive agency of the Department for Transport. At the same time, a Highways Monitor was established, which then became the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), to monitor progress in delivering a five year Road Investment Strategy (RIS) and Performance Specification (PS). The ORR has commissioned CEPA to report on the efficiency of HE's operating expenditure (opex). The objective of this work is to assess how HE has performed against RIS1 so far and identify scope for delivering further efficiency. This report includes an analysis of HE's operating expenditure, an assessment of how these expenditures compare with suitable comparators/benchmarks, and considers the potential for further efficiencies.
ORR's recent evaluation1 shows Highways England to have made good progress so far on RIS1
in relation to operating performance. DfT and HE have now embarked upon a research program to develop RIS2 and ORR is tasked with assessing the levels of efficiency proposed in RIS2. The aim of RIS2 is to continue and further build upon the progress made under RIS1 but with new targets set. ORR's assessment of the proposals in RIS2 will be informed by a series of benchmarking activities, of which this report is an input.
## Approach
Our approach has been to undertake a range of different analyses of operating costs, each of which offer a view of HE's cost efficiency performance to date, and indicate the potential for future savings. The components of our analysis are described in the figure below.
## How Has He Performed To Date? How Should We Assess He'S Potential Performance Over Ris 1? What Magnitude Of Efficiencies Might Be Appropriate For Ris 2? Scope For Future Efficiencies
## Expenditure In Ris1
HE's opex is classified in its accounts within a category it describes as "Resource Expenditure", which are the funds required by HE to operate its network, as opposed to renewing or enhancing it. For 2015/16 HE's resource expenditure budget was £1.072bn. Separately, HE receives a capital funding allowance which covers renewals and enhancements, which in 2015/16 was approximately £1.8bn. Below we provide a breakdown of HE's RIS1 resource expenditure budget for 2015/16, sourced from HE's Delivery Plan.2
| Cost area | Description |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
| allowance | |
| £255m | Routine |
| Maintenance | |
| Day-to-day repairs of surface defects requiring early attention, | |
| winter maintenance (e.g. road gritting), maintaining road-side | |
| technology systems, vegetation management, etc. | |
| £24m | Renewal |
| investigations | |
| Renewals, which includes road resurfacing, are not classified as | |
| opex. But the cost of routine inspections of the network, to | |
| establish what renewals work might be needed, is charged to | |
| resource expenditure. | |
| £74m | General |
| operations | |
| Local network management schemes, other small local projects, | |
| and some technology spend. | |
| £179m | Traffic |
| management/ | |
| customer | |
| operations | |
| This reflects the cost of the Traffic Officer Service, including the | |
| Regional Control Centres and the National Traffic Operations | |
| Centre. Costs include pay, equipment and training for Traffic | |
| Officers and control centre staff. It includes an element of PFI | |
| costs relating to the National Roads Telecommunications | |
| Services. | |
| £394m | Private Finance |
| Initiative (PFI) | |
| Service payments on PFI contracts, where sections of road are | |
| managed under long-term (30 year) concessions. | |
| Cost area | Description | 2015/16 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| allowance | | |
| £107m | Support Costs | Running costs incurred by Highways England indirectly |
| supporting the activities listed above. This includes finance, | | |
| procurement, HR and IT costs. Research and Development costs | | |
| are also included here, as are customer communications and | | |
| third party claims. | | |
| £39m | Protocols | Costs of performing specific tasks assigned to Highways England |
| by DfT with funding streams provided. This includes the Dart | | |
| Charge, Severn River Crossing and maintaining the Historic Rail | | |
| Estate. | | |
| Total resource expenditure | £1,072m | |
Source: Description provided by HE via email. Costs sourced from HE's Delivery Plan 2015-2020, Annex C
Over the remainder of RIS1 (up to 2019/20), HE's resource expenditure budget is broadly flat in nominal terms. Therefore, when inflation forecasts are taken into account, forecast resource expenditure declines in real terms by 12% between start and the end of RIS1 (i.e.
between 2015/16 and 2019/20).3 However, we note that resource expenditure at the start of RIS1 was higher than the preceding year (2014/15). If we consider the period between 2014/15 and 2019/20, total resource expenditure is set to decline by 7.5% in real terms.
## Data Adjustments
We made two adjustments to the data series. First, amendments have been necessary to identify costs which HE can control; we could not expect HE to be targeted to achieve efficiencies on areas of cost that cannot be changed. The key adjustment related to controllability is to remove contracted, and therefore committed, PFI costs. Second, we have removed costs which relate to activities which are outside of HE's core role. In this category costs are associated with the British Rail estate that HE has responsibility over for historic reasons. Taking opex from 2012/13 onwards, and making the two adjustments noted above, gives us an adjusted opex measure which we refer to as **'core costs'** - which would ideally form the primary basis of our analysis. A further issue for this project has been obtaining information in a consistent time series, because reporting structures and applicable accounting rules have altered since the organisation's status changed. As a result, it has been difficult to extend the data series back in time on a consistent basis. Despite considerable engagement with HE, we have been unable to undertake analysis of costs before 2012/13 as it included the renewals component of resource expenditure. This is because the renewals component of opex prior to 2012/13
included substantial items now classified as capex, and neither we nor HE have been able to offer a usable adjustment for this. By further excluding the renewals component, which we call '**core costs - R'** (i.e. core costs minus renewals), we obtain a consistent time series and can undertake an analysis of costs over a longer time period, back to 2009/10. Inevitably this analysis is restricted to a proportion of the core opex cost base. But renewals is today fortunately a relatively small proportion, less than 2.5%, of HE's resource expenditure.
## Efficiency Expectations
The Cook Report4 (2011) has been a key driver of reform for the Strategic Road Network in England. Cook undertook an analysis of HE (when previously the Highways Agency) and made several recommendations, including the need for long term planning (to 2040) to support increased investment, improved performance, efficiency savings, and a change in company structure to become a Government-owned standalone company. Cook identified the opportunity for HE to realise annual efficiency savings across a number of areas. Cook combined top down and bottom up evidence to recommend that HE should be able to achieve its objectives while reducing its maintenance, renewal and operating expenditure (excluding major projects and PFI) by £200m by the end of RIS1, based on expenditure of £1bn in this area, i.e. annual expenditure at the end of RIS1 is circa £800m. This corresponds to a 20% reduction in expenditure by the end of the 5 year RIS1 period, i.e. 4-5% per annum, cumulative over 5 years. We consider in this report how HE is performing to date against the efficiency expectations set by Cook noting however, that things have changed e.g. there has been higher than anticipated traffic growth, since those expectations were set. We also note that there is a potential for a trade-off between costs and performance. For this report, we have not reviewed the changes in HE's key performance indicators. HE's performance regime changed substantially once RIS1 started. During 2010-15, HE did consciously reduce some aspects of its service as part of its opex cost reduction efforts in that period.
## Analytical Approach
All three analytical stages of our work draw on an analysis of Real Unit Operating Expenditure (RUOE) over time. We use this method to compare HE's unit costs to other companies/industries with similar characteristics and make an assessment of the scope for efficiency based on its performance, compared to those other companies/industries. This method is widely used by regulators as it provides an independent assessment of the scope for efficiency that does not rely on detailed benchmarking exercises, for which the regulator
may have insufficient granular data. Its use by regulators has provided evidence that the scope for efficiency savings for regulated companies tends to be largest soon after privatisation, and then diminishes over time once the 'low hanging fruit' (easy to achieve efficiencies) have been realised. Therefore, part of the analysis that we undertake is to split efficiency gains by the time period after privatisation in which they occurred. HE is not regulated to the same degree as some other sectors, nor has it been privatised. Therefore, the comparison between HE and other regulated companies is not a perfect match - HE does not have the same incentive of seeking to generate profits for shareholders, nor does it have the ability to raise finance via capital markets. Our analysis is based on consideration of the change in Real Unit Operating Expenditure (RUOE), which is operating expenditure divided by an indicator of output. We calculate the change in RUOE as this provides a measure of changes in unit costs over time. We calculate changes in RUOE for HE and a selection of industries with similar characteristics. This enables us to compare HE's historic performance against such industries/companies. We take into account both productivity gains and changes in input prices. In calculating HE's RUOE, the output metric is an important decision. The main options are:
Vehicle-km - the quantity of traffic that HE's network facilitates; or Lane-km - the quantity of road that HE manages, taking into account different road
widths.
In practice we present results for both of these as there are arguments for use of each. We also undertake an adjustment for economies of scale within our RUOE calculations, to account for opex reductions arising from output growth, rather than genuine improvements in efficiency, e.g. HE could accommodate an increased volume of traffic on its network without having to increase opex by the same proportion. The adjustment is made through the application of a cost elasticity value, specific to each industry, to the RUOE calculations.
## Highways England'S Performance To Date
The chart below shows the historic costs that we include in our efficiency analysis. It includes HE's 'core costs' for the period 2012-13 to 2015-16, and HE's 'core costs - R' for the period 2009-10 to 2015-16. (We also show forecast costs as dotted lines.)
Source: Data received directly from Highways England.
'Core costs' (and 'core costs - R') have risen since 2012-13. This is due primarily to increases in traffic management costs, support costs, and general operations. However, due to accounting changes prior to 2015/16, we cannot say in which areas these cost increases occurred. However, by focusing on 'core costs - R', we demonstrate that costs fell significantly prior to 2012-13. From discussions with HE, we understand that the SR10 efficiency challenge (discussed in Section 2.1) drove several changes in HE's maintenance practices between 2009- 10 and 2012-13, and that lower maintenance costs are the source of the observed cost reductions before 2012-13. HE has provided us with some additional explanation on this issue which suggests that HE managed to reduce its maintenance costs via a mix of efficiency gains, scope reduction, and changes to standards for maintenance activities.
## Historic Benchmarking Of Real Unit Operating Expenditure
The following chart shows the average annual reduction in real unit operating costs for HE and our comparators. We show it as a reduction consistent with the common convention that *efficiency improvements* are shown as *positive* numbers. We calculate the average as a geometric mean, a common method for averaging percentage changes. In the chart below, HE's efficiency performance is shown based on historic data available, including the first year of RIS1. 'Core costs' (grey bars) include data for 2012/13 to 2015/16, whilst 'core costs - R' (yellow bars) include data for 2009/10 to 2015/16.
The chart shows that all of our chosen comparator sectors (with the exception of airports and NATS) have made efficiency gains. Focusing on 'core costs - R', HE has significantly increased productivity - this result is driven in particular by a large fall in maintenance costs before 2012/13. If we focus on 'core costs' including opex renewals, and the time period from 2012/13 onwards when this data is robust, HE appears to have become less productive, a result of its rising costs in over this period. We also compare HE's performance for the period immediately prior to RIS1 to provide a view of HE's performance against comparator industries' first control period after privatisation.
Source: CEPA Database (full details of all data sources available in A.3.1). Note: Gas transmission/distribution and NATS are not included due to 1st control period data not being available. Time periods for the data included in this chart are: HE 'core costs' 2012/13 to 2014/15; HE 'core costs - R' 2009/10 to 2014/15; Rail 2002/03 - 2003/04; Water and Sewerage E&W 1993/94 - 1994/95; Water and Sewerage Scot 2003/04 - 2005/06; Electricity Transmission 1991/92 - 1992/93; Electricity Distribution 1991/92 - 1994/95; Airports - 2001/02.
HE shows evidence of significant productivity gains based on the measure of 'core costs - R'. Other comparable industries made operating productivity gains of 1.8% per annum on average during their first regulatory period after privatisation,5 which could be considered as a high level benchmark for HE, if HE had maintained a constant level of service provision. Based on the 'core costs' measure, and the shorter time period, HE became less productive during the period 2012/13 - 2014/15. The loss of productivity is -1.5% when lane-km is the chosen output metric, or -1.2% when vehicle-km is the metric. However, by excluding renewals (i.e. focusing on 'core costs - R'), these results highlight significant productivity gains since 2009/10. This trend is mainly driven by a substantial reduction in maintenance costs, which is likely due to a mix of efficiency gains, some reduction in the scope, and changing standards for maintenance activities. In part, some of those scope and standards changes might have been justifiable as the expenditure was not delivering value for money or contributing effectively to the performance society requires of HE. So the distinction between what is a change in output and what is an efficiency gain is not clear, even if we could quantify it. But we would also note that after the large cost reductions in the first three years, HE's productivity appears to have fallen slightly since 2012/13.
## Performance To The End Of Ris1
Having reviewed HE's historic performance above, we now consider HE's projected performance, and specifically its forecast expenditure as per its current Delivery Plan. Our aim is to consider that if HE meets the budget in the Delivery Plan, whether the revised costs are likely to represent an efficient level of performance. We have chosen several benchmarks to provide a broad comparator base. These are as follows:
**Top-down productivity metrics**. These measure the change in the value of outputs
relative to the change in the cost of inputs. We assessed sectors that exhibit most similarity to the components of HE's opex.
**Partial factor cost measures**. These calculate changes in selected input costs, relative
to the value of output. As with the productivity metrics, this is undertaken for sectors that are most similar to the components of HE's opex.
**RUOE**. We review the historic efficiency performance of comparators with similar
characteristics to HE.
It is important to note a key difference between the three benchmarks that we utilise. The top-down productivity metrics and partial cost measures tend to suggest lower efficiency gains for the benchmarks against which HE is compared than the RUOE metric. This is because they are based on industry data from across the whole UK economy, including many competitive markets where the scope for efficiency gains tends to be lower, whereas our data sources for RUOE are mainly companies in regulated sectors (to increase comparability with HE). Having established a number of benchmarks, we then consider HE's forecasted resource expenditure under different scenarios.
**Meets the budget**. HE performs in line with the RIS1 budget as per its Delivery Plan,
i.e. a reduction in real costs of 9.5% over RIS1. This may not be dissimilar to the recommendations in the Cook Report, which was a reduction in real costs of 20% over RIS1, but relevant to only *certain aspects* of resource expenditure.
**Stable in real terms**. HE performs with resource expenditure stable in real terms
throughout the remainder of RIS1. Given the apparent lack of any cost efficiency savings for the period 2012/13 to 2015/16, we have also considered this cost projection as a more conservative forecast scenario.
## Benchmarking Of Top Down Productivity Metrics
We considered several measures of productivity for which UK-wide data is available across a number of years.
**Total Factor Productivity (TFP)**: 'Residual' output growth that is not accounted for by
input growth, taking into account all factors of production. TFP is calculated using either a gross output or a value added measure - the former includes the contribution from intermediate inputs, whereas these are excluded from the latter.
**Labour and intermediate inputs (LEMS) Productivity (LEMSP)**: The abbreviation LEMS
refers to Labour Energy Materials Services. LEMSP is 'Residual' output growth that is not accounted for by the growth of labour and intermediate inputs. This is calculated under both flexible and constant capital assumptions.
Labour Productivity **(LP)**: The growth of output per unit of labour input growth. Or,
consistent with the explanations above, 'residual' output growth that is not accounted for by the growth of labour inputs.
We also calculate a number of variants of these measures. All data was sourced from releases of the EU KLEMS dataset. For each of these three productivity measures, we identified sectors of the UK economy which we consider (having discussed choices with ORR and HE) are the most similar to the components of HE's opex, and used these to develop a composite index specific to HE that is matched to HE's activities. We considered which measures would provide the best benchmark for HE's opex:
Some intermediate inputs are included within HE's operating cost base (i.e. energy for
providing signage and materials used for light maintenance), whilst the remainder are likely to sit within HE's capex base (i.e. materials and capex-related services such as construction). Therefore, we consider that both LEMS productivity and labour productivity should be taken into account when estimating the scope of efficiency.
There is a choice between productivity with either constant capital, or with variable
capital, and we think both results should be taken into account. Changes in capex are likely to be taken into account when setting opex efficiency targets, which favours using a variable capital approach. However, the relationship between capex and opex efficiencies is difficult to determine, so it is also prudent to take into account the constant capital productivity metric.
Our 'base case' estimates for LEMS and labour productivity gains with variable capital are in the range 0.6% to 0.9% per annum, i.e. outputs grow by 0.6-0.9% per annum more than inputs. These are our preferred results. If we were to take into account the 'base case', LEMS and labour productivity gains under the assumption of *constant capital*, this would widen the range of productivity gains to 0.3% (low end) to 0.9% (high end) per annum. Applying this to HE, the implication is that a reasonably competitive company with similar activities to HE would make productivity gains at around 0.6% to 0.9% per year. Therefore, this is a reasonable proxy benchmark to apply to HE's future performance.
## Benchmarking Of Partial Factor Cost Measures
Our methodology for calculating these cost measures is the same as the methodology used for the top-down productivity metrics, i.e. we have used the same data sources, comparator weightings, time periods, permutations (gross output and value-added, variable and constant capital). Consistent with our analysis for the top-down productivity metrics, our preferred results for cost efficiency are based on measures which allow for variable capital. When taking into account both LEMS and labour productivity measures, the annual productivity gains (under our base case estimates) are in the range of 0.1% to 0.9%. If we were to include constant capital, the bottom of the range would move to -0.3%. Given that the LEMS cost measure with constant capital is the only point that implies negative efficiency, this implies an efficiency target range from 0% (low end) to 0.9% (high end) per annum.
## Further Consideration Of Real Unit Operating Expenditure
We calculate changes in RUOE above to show the level of operating efficiencies achieved by relevant comparator industries in their first control period. In this section we calculate efficiency gains for the comparators companies/sectors in their *second* price control period after privatisation because, we regard the second price control period as a proxy benchmark for RIS1. We also present efficiency gains made by companies in their *third* price control period after privatisation, as this would correspond to RIS2, and we refer to this result in our conclusions. The average efficiency gain across the observed comparators is 3.1% for the second control period post-privatisation, and is 1.3% for the third period. Based on changes in RUOE for our comparator sectors, our benchmark for HE's efficiency gains in RIS1 is 3.1% per annum. The average efficiency gain for the third control period, 1.3%, would be applicable to any future cost efficiency targets that HE might set for RIS2 and onwards. This 1.3% target is slightly (although only marginally) higher than the efficiency targets implied by our top down productivity measures and partial factor cost measures. This is because, as noted earlier, these latter two measures are based on industry data from across the whole UK economy, including many competitive markets where scope for efficiency gains tends to be lower. Given that HE is not (and has not been) subject to competitive pressures there may be some greater scope for catch-up efficiencies over time, as observed in other regulated industries.
## Projecting The Efficiency Performance Of Highways England
HE's current forecasts suggest that it will broadly (i.e. almost) meet the RUOE productivity benchmark implied by our analysis if it manages to reduce its 'core costs' in line with its Delivery Plan (although the precise result is somewhat sensitive to the output measure chosen to assess HE's expenditure). Based on HE's performance to date - large cost reductions up to 2012/13 but slightly rising costs since then - it is currently uncertain whether the efficiency savings in the delivery plan are likely to be met.
## Setting Efficiency Expectations For Ris2
If HE is able to meet its Delivery Plan in RIS1, we consider that a relevant benchmark for unit cost efficiency in RIS2 could be in the region of the following:
1.3% per annum, as implied by the RUOE analysis for the average efficiency gain across
relevant regulated networks for the third price control period post privatisation (which is broadly consistent with our analysis of top down productivity measures and partial cost factors); *plus*
An additional annual 'catch-up' efficiency component, if it is determined that the
reduction in maintenance costs prior to 2012/13 was primarily driven by scope
reductions and/or changing standards, as opposed to genuine efficiencies.
However, if HE fails to meet its Delivery Plan for RIS1, this would present a further
argument for increasing the efficiency target for RIS2.
Overall our analysis suggests an efficiency target of 'at least 1.3% per annum' but with scope for adjustment based on the outcome of RIS1. This figure is broadly consistent with regulatory precedent, although we note that there is considerable variation between industries.
## 1. Introduction And Approach 1.1. Background
Highways England (HE) is responsible for operating, maintaining and improving the Strategic Road Network (SRN) in England. It was established in April 2015 as a government-owned strategic highways company, with the intention of giving it greater commercial freedom to make decisions and drive efficiencies than was possible while operating as the Highways Agency, an executive agency of the Department for Transport. At the same time, a Highways Monitor was established, which then became the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), to monitor progress in delivering a five year Road Investment Strategy (RIS) and Performance Specification (PS). These documents set out how the Department for Transport (DfT), which funds HE, desires its funding to be spent, and specifies the performance it requires. Highways England is currently nearly halfway through the first period Road Investment Strategy (RIS1), which runs from 2015/16 to 2019/20. The strategy details eight sectors across which Highways England is to deliver £15.2 billion of major highway improvements, in addition to its on-going operating costs (opex) of about £1 billion per year. Its performance, both in terms of outputs and cost-effectiveness, is monitored by ORR through the use of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), other Performance Indicators (PIs), and additional less precise requirements, which are set out in the PS. One objective of RIS1 is for HE to reduce its costs of delivery so as to achieve, in effect, £1.2bn in efficiencies, in total over the five year period.
ORR's recent evaluation6 shows Highways England to have made good progress so far on RIS1
in relation to operating performance. DfT and HE have now embarked upon a research program to develop RIS2 and ORR is tasked with assessing the levels of efficiency proposed in RIS2. The aim of RIS2 is to continue and further build upon the progress made under RIS1 but with new targets set. ORR's assessment of the proposals in RIS2 will be informed by a series of benchmarking activities, of which this report is an input.
## 1.2. Objectives Of This Study
The ORR has commissioned CEPA to report on the efficiency of HE's operating expenditure (opex). This includes routine maintenance (such as pothole repair and gritting), investigation costs related to renewals, traffic management, customer/general operations and support costs. It also includes payments under PFI road management contracts, which are substantial. HE's opex budget is separate from its capex budget and therefore opex excludes renewals such as road resurfacing7 and enhancement works.
The objective of this work is to assess how HE has performed against RIS1 so far and identify scope for delivering further efficiency. This may assist in preparing RIS2 or the related PS. This report includes an analysis of HE's operating expenditure, an assessment of how these expenditures compare with suitable comparators/benchmarks, and considers the potential for further efficiencies.
## 1.3. Approach
Our approach has been to undertake a range of different analyses of operating costs, each of which offer a view of HE's cost efficiency performance to date, and indicate the potential for future savings. The components of our analysis are described in the figure below. These different components are discussed further in the analysis (Section 4 onwards), where our approach, results and assessment are presented. Further technical details of our approach to each component of the analysis are provided in ANNEX A.
How has HE performed to date?
How should we assess HE's potential performance over RIS 1?
## What Magnitude Of Efficiencies Might Be Appropriate For Ris 2? Scope For Future Efficiencies
Structure of the document The document is structured as follows:
**Section 2** provides the context to this study. **Section 3** gives an overview of our approach. **Section 4** contains our analysis of how HE has performed to date. **Sections 5 and 6** contain our analysis of top-down productivity and cost metrics for
sectors that have similar characteristics to HE, as well as regulatory precedent.
**Section 7** presents our conclusions based on an overall review of our analysis.
The annexes contain the details underpinning our approach and analysis, as follows:
**Annex A** contains a detailed explanation of the approach undertaken within each of
the components of our analysis.
**Annex B** contains additional results that support the analysis presented in the main
body of this report.
## 2. Context And Key Issues
Highways England (HE), formerly the Highways Agency, is a government-owned company formed in April 2015. It is primarily responsible for the management and maintenance, as well as improvement, of all motorways and major roads in England, totalling around 4300 miles and carrying a third of all road traffic (by mileage). HE is currently halfway through its first Road Investment Strategy (RIS1), and is working to deliver the requirements of the associated Performance Specification (PS1). These documents set out a challenging and growing investment programme, alongside aims to increase performance, including delivering cost efficiencies, over the course of the 2015/16 to 2019/20 period.
## 2.1. Highways England'S Resource Expenditure
In the following subsections we describe:
HE's current resource expenditure in 2015/16, including an explanation of its various
components.
HE's expenditure in previous years (as the Highways Agency). HE's forecast expenditure for future years. The scope of costs that we consider when assessing cost efficiency. The cost trend used in our assessment, based on the scope identified.
## 2.1.1. Expenditure In Ris1
HE's opex is classified in its accounts within a category it describes as "Resource Expenditure", which are the funds required by HE to operate its network, as opposed to renewing or enhancing it. For 2015/16 HE's resource expenditure budget was £1.072bn. Separately, HE receives a capital funding allowance which covers renewals and enhancements, which in 2015/16 was approximately £1.8bn. Below we provide a breakdown of HE's RIS1 resource expenditure budget for 2015/16, sourced from HE's Delivery Plan.8
| Cost area | Description |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
| allowance | |
| £255m | Routine |
| Maintenance | |
| Day-to-day repairs, winter maintenance (e.g. road gritting), | |
| maintaining road-side technology systems. | |
| £24m | Renewal |
| investigations | |
| Renewals are classified as capex. However, the cost of routine | |
| inspections of the network, to establish what renewals work | |
| might be needed, is charged to resource expenditure. | |
| Cost area | Description | 2015/16 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| allowance | | |
| £74m | General | |
| operations | | |
| Local network management schemes, other small local projects, | | |
| and some technology spend. | | |
| £179m | Traffic | |
| management / | | |
| customer | | |
| operations | | |
| This reflects the cost of the Traffic Officer Service, including the | | |
| Regional Control Centres and the National Traffic Operations | | |
| Centre. Costs include pay, equipment and training for Traffic | | |
| Officers and control centre staff. It includes an element of PFI | | |
| costs relating to the National Roads Telecommunications | | |
| Services. | | |
| £394m | Private Finance | |
| Initiative (PFI) | | |
| Service payments on PFI contracts, where sections of road are | | |
| managed under long-term (30 year) concessions. | | |
| £107m | Support Costs | Running costs incurred by Highways England indirectly |
| supporting the activities listed above. This includes finance, | | |
| procurement, HR and IT costs. Research and Development costs | | |
| are also included here, as are customer communications and | | |
| third party claims. | | |
| £39m | Protocols | Costs of performing specific tasks assigned to Highways England |
| by DfT with funding streams provided. This includes the Dart | | |
| Charge, Severn River Crossing and maintaining the Historic Rail | | |
| Estate. | | |
| Total resource expenditure | £1,072m | |
| Source: Based on description provided by HE via email. Costs sourced from HE's Delivery Plan 2015-2020, Annex C | | |
It is important to distinguish between items which fall into Resource Expenditure and those considered capital expenditure. HE's renewals activities (e.g. road resurfacing) are today mostly categorised as capital expenditure rather than Resource Expenditure - these are sometimes referred to as 'capital maintenance' in HE's Delivery Plan. The routine maintenance activities within Resource Expenditure (noted above) items such as repair of road defects requiring early attention, as winter maintenance (salting, etc.), vegetation management, and maintaining/managing road-side technology systems (e.g. variable message signs, CCTV cameras, emergency telephones, etc.).9 Similarly the renewals costs counted as opex are only the investigatory and support work in planning and preparation for them. Over the remainder of RIS1 (up to 2019/20), HE's resource expenditure budget is fairly flat in nominal terms. Therefore, when inflation forecasts are taken into account, forecast resource expenditure declines in real terms by 12% between start and the end of RIS1 (i.e. between
2015/16 and 2019/20).10 However, we note that resource expenditure for the start of RIS1 is higher than the preceding year (2014/15). Therefore, if we consider the period between 2014/15 and 2019/20, total resource expenditure is budgeted to decline by 7.5% in real terms.
## 2.1.2. Expenditure In Previous Years
HE has provided data on its resource expenditure in previous years. However, in order to get it into a useable format, we have had to discuss and clarify several issues. First, HE reports its costs under a different categorisation compared to that the Highways Agency used to use. After discussions with HE, we were able to take the historic trend for Highways Agency's costs and adjust it to make it more consistent with HE's current categorisation of resource expenditure for a number of years. Second, and of greater significance in terms of magnitude, before 2012 the Highways Agency used to classify all road pavement maintenance and renewal projects below a certain value (then £100,000) as Resource Expenditure. In contrast, HE now consistently classifies maintenance or renewals as capital or operating expenditure according to *intention*, not scale. HE advises that this is the result of the transition to International Financial Reporting Standards in 2011/12, which impacted Highways Agency's accounting treatment (classification) of its renewals costs. This is clearly identifiable in the chart below (based on HE's classification of renewals), which shows a significant drop in renewals costs post 2011- 12. For the present assessment, it is important to have a consistent measure of resource expenditure over time, so that we can identify changes in costs that truly result from efficiency, as opposed to simply group or accounting classification. HE were clear on the reasons for the inconsistency shown above (i.e. the accounting changes in 2012), but after considerable engagement were not able to provide the required consistent data. Therefore, we are unable to undertake robust analysis before 2012/13 on opex if it includes the renewals component of resource expenditure. This is because the data before 2012/13 would include a major cost area now excluded from opex, which we have been unable to adjust for. However, if we exclude the renewals component of resource expenditure, we can undertake an analysis of costs over time. From discussions with HE, this accounting classification change only occurred for renewals, and therefore no other areas of resource expenditure have been materially affected. In the following sub-sections we describe how we have undertaken additional analysis by excluding the renewals component of resource expenditure. In summary, we have:
Used the HE classification of data prior to RIS1, which represents an adjustment to the
Highway's Agency cost data.
Excluded data prior to 2012/13 where we have analysed a measure of resource
expenditure that includes the renewals component. This ensures that the opex considered for the purposes of this study excludes all road pavement maintenance tasks that today are classified as capital expenditure.
As a variant, excluded the renewals component of resource expenditure, in order to
undertake analysis that utilises data back to 2009/10.
Finally, it is important to note that there was an efficiency challenge applied to HE's operating costs for the period 2010-2015 as part of the preceding Spending Review (SR10). The Highways Agency's Business Plan for 2012/13 indicates that the maintenance and renewals components of resource expenditure were budgeted to fall significantly during 2010-2015.11
Therefore, even when the renewals component of resource expenditure is excluded from our analysis, we still take into account the change in maintenance costs during 2010-2015.
## 2.1.3. Scope Of Costs To Include When Assessing Cost Efficiency
We asked HE to provide cost data that was consistent over time. We also considered whether there were any other issues around the measure of costs that we should use when assessing cost efficiency, e.g. whether any particular components of resource expenditure should be excluded when we consider HE's cost efficiency. Following discussions with HE, we identified two key issues:
**Controllability**. There are some categories of expenditure where HE has limited ability
to influence the cost, which can be termed 'non-controllable'. The main example is long term PFI contracts which were entered into some time ago, and where the expenditure is contracted throughout the RIS period. Consistent with the Cook Report (2011), which is discussed in the following section, we consider that it is only reasonable to set an efficiency target for cost areas that are under HE's control. Therefore we remove these costs from our analysis.
**Relevance to core activities**. HE has some categories of expenditure known as
"protocols" which have been assigned to it recently, in some cases because another public body has ceased operating. Examples include railway bridges and the storage of salt for gritting. We have attempted to remove all such cost elements from consideration as they are not part of HE's core activities.
We consider the remainder to be costs reasonably within HE's control and relevant to HE's core activities. For the purposes of our analysis, we refer to these costs as '*core costs'* hereafter. As noted above, it is also relevant to consider a measure of opex that excludes renewals costs, in order to provide a consistent data series back to 2009/10. By taking 'core costs' and removing the renewals components of resource expenditure, we obtain an alternative measure of costs, which we refer to as '*core costs - R'* hereafter (i.e. core costs minus renewals).
| Cost area | Included within opex measure for analysis? |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Routine Maintenance | Yes. We considered whether maintenance costs are uncontrollable, |
| given that the majority of maintenance spend is under regional contracts | |
| which are only renewed every few years (on a rolling basis). However, | |
| following discussions with HE and ORR, we agreed that these are | |
| sufficiently controllable over the course of RIS1, given that contracts can | |
| be changed every few years, i.e. much more frequently than PFI. | |
| Varies between 'core costs' and 'core costs - R' | Renewals |
| investigations | |
| | |
| | |
| 'Core costs': For the current year and opex forecasts, | |
| expenditure has been included in full. For previous years, we | |
| would have included these costs if an | adjusted |
| been available, however it has not been able to collect data on a | |
| consistent accounting basis for years prior to 2012/13. | |
| Therefore, whilst we include these renewals costs within 'core | |
| costs', we only analyse 'core costs' back to 2012/13. We have | |
| not analysed 'core costs' in previous years to ensure the | |
| renewals resource expenditure does not include any renewals | |
| costs that would currently be classified as capex. | |
| | |
| | |
| 'Core costs - R'. As noted above, the renewals component of | |
| resource expenditure is excluded from 'core costs - R'. | |
| General Operations | Yes |
| Traffic Management | Yes |
| PFI | No - it is not controllable as contracts are very long term. It would not be |
| reasonable to set HE an efficiency challenge for this cost area. | |
| Support Costs | Yes |
| Protocol | No - protocol costs are not a core area of HE's resource expenditure. |
| Therefore it would not be reasonable to provide. | |
## 2.1.4. Cost Trend Used In Our Assessment
The diagram below shows the impact of the adjustments that we make in order to achieve the measures 'core costs' and 'core costs - R'. The blue line shows the data originally received from HE which corresponds to the Highways Agency's classification of costs; the orange line shows the trend after HE reclassified the Highways Agency's costs to fit with its own categorisation for resource expenditure; the grey line shows the 'core' cost trend after we have subtracted PFI and protocol costs from the HE classification of resource expenditure; and the yellow line shows core costs minus the renewals component of resource expenditure. The trend post 2015-16 is shown as a dotted line because these are HE forecasts. With the exception of 'core costs - R', figures before 2012-13 are also shown as a dotted line because we have concerns about the reliability of renewals data for this period, as noted above. In our efficiency analysis for 'core costs' we use the figures for 2012-13 to 2015-16, and the HE forecasts. In our efficiency analysis for 'core costs - R' we use all years of available data, including HE forecasts. In real terms (i.e. after adjusting for inflation forecasts), core costs are budgeted to fall by 9.5% between 2014/15 and the end of RIS1. Core costs - R are forecast to fall by 6.3% over the same period.
## 2.2. The Cook Report
The Cook Report12 (2011) has been a key driver of reform for the Strategic Road Network in England. Cook undertook an analysis of HE (when previously the Highways Agency) and made a number of recommendations, including the need for long term planning (to 2040) to support increased investment, improved performance, efficiency savings, and a change in company structure to become a Government-owned standalone company. Amongst its various recommendations, Cook identified the opportunity for HE to realise annual efficiency savings across a number of areas. In particular, Cook combined top down and bottom up evidence to recommend that HE should be able to achieve its objectives while reducing its maintenance, renewal and operating expenditure (excluding major projects and PFI) by £200m by the end of RIS1, based on expenditure of £1bn in this area, i.e. annual expenditure at the end of RIS1 is circa £800m. This corresponds to a 20% reduction in expenditure by the end of the 5 year RIS1 period, i.e. 4-5% per annum, cumulative over 5 years. Cook also excluded major projects and PFI costs on the grounds that they are not sufficiently under HE's control. Cook's recommendation was in part based on a (top down) analysis of observed efficiencies from companies operating in other regulated infrastructure sectors, e.g. rail, water and energy. Cook observed that such businesses have typically been able to achieve year-on-year cost efficiencies of c. 3–6% per annum (on average) over extended periods of time. Therefore, cumulative efficiencies of c.15–35% efficiencies should be feasible after five years. Whilst this top-down approach means that it is hard to say exactly where Cook thought the efficiencies would come from, the recommendation was also informed by identifying scope for efficiencies in specific areas of operating costs:
Providing greater visibility to supplier of the 'pipeline' (and funding levels) of future
roads investment has the potential to generate savings of c.15–20% within HE's renewals programme.
Developing a new model for maintenance contracting could generate savings in the
region of c. 20–40%. This would involve a less bureaucratic model, with maintenance undertaken based on asset condition rather than legalistically.
Improvements in asset management could save around 5% per annum.
Therefore Cook's £200m savings are in fact not uniform over all the costs he considered, but some areas offer greater potential than others.
## 2.3. Scope For Efficiency Savings
Cook's recommended efficiency savings related to a broader category of expenditure than lie within our definition of core costs. In the following figure, on the left hand side, we list the categories of cost that Cook considered, distinguishing those where he recommended scope for efficiency savings (in blue), and other costs (in grey). On the right hand side we show a breakdown of HE's resource expenditure: The 'core' costs are costs that are both in scope and sufficiently controllable that efficiencies are possible. This figure shows that the £1bn of expenditure discussed by Cook (on the left hand side) is not the same as the circa £1bn of resource expenditure in 2015/16 (on the right hand side). In particular, HE's resource expenditure today does not include any renewals (e.g. road resurfacing) - this is currently included within HE's capex budget. Therefore, the 20% efficiency savings applied by Cook are not *directly* applicable to HE's current resource expenditure. Further information would be needed in order to say exactly the level of efficiency savings that Cook would propose for HE's resource expenditure alone, and this may not be available since Cook used a top down approach. However, we can consider Cook's arguments for the proposed 20% saving to see whether they might apply to *some components* of HE's resource expenditure. The first of Cook's reasons for efficiency savings (i.e. greater visibility for renewals) is not applicable, because renewals are part of capex, not resource expenditure. The second and third reasons for savings (more efficient maintenance contracting and improved asset management) do overlap with the light maintenance and renewals inspections components of resource expenditure, although they would also be applicable to the heavier maintenance activities and renewals, which are included in capex. In 2015-16, HE's 'core costs' were £630m, of which £280m (45%) was due to maintenance and renewals costs. Therefore, if we apply a 20% efficiency challenge solely to the maintenance and renewals components, this equates to a 9% efficiency challenge to resource expenditure in total.13 HE's Delivery Plan proposed a 9.5% reduction in 'core costs' over the course of RIS1.14 The estimate of Cook's efficiency challenge to total resource expenditure (9%) is broadly consistent with this. Clearly this is only an approximation, and there may well be scope for efficiency savings in other areas of resource expenditure. However, at a high level, it implies that if HE is able to meet its Delivery Plan for RIS1, it will have made efficiencies that are broadly equivalent to those proposed in the Cook Report. We consider this further later in the report.
## 2.4. Scope Of Highways England'S Operating Activities
The scope for efficiency is impacted by cost pressures that were not considered when Cook reported or when the business plan was developed. We understand, from discussions with HE, that it considers that there are cost pressures arising from:
Significant traffic growth which is expected over the next couple of decades, and will
increase the requirement, to some extent, for routine maintenance and traffic management. Accidents are also more prevalent as congestion increases, so there may also be greater pressure on the traffic officer service.
Customer expectations are rising in relation to information provision (e.g. in relation
to accidents and delays on motorways).
Smart motorways are becoming more common, which requires greater signage and
cameras, increased monitoring of traffic flows and potential accidents, and faster accident reaction times as the hard shoulder is not available (so traffic will build up faster without intervention).
HE has been tasked with undertaking an ambitious £15.2 billion capital expenditure
programme in RIS1. Undertaking this capital programme will involve some additional operating costs, e.g. motorway roadworks require greater traffic management. The resulting increase in network length, and installation of new services such as increasing quantities of smart motorway, will also increase the demand for services categorised as opex. On the other hand, the increasing volume of resurfacing projects completed should reduce the number of defects requiring immediate repair, classified as opex maintenance.
Since 2014, HE has started to undertake greater 'fence-to-fence' maintenance. Where
an issue is identified that requires maintenance, HE undertakes maintenance on the entire surrounding forming the highway, i.e. from fence to fence. This means that a whole area can be repaired/maintained at once, reducing the need for HE to revisit that stretch of highway again in the near future. Whilst this approach will generate savings in the future, it requires HE to undertake a comprehensive sweep of repairs and maintenance in the short term, which may create short term cost pressures.
For reference, the recent history and forecasts increases in traffic growth and lane length are shown below. Lane length is expected to increase about 3% over the decade, whereas traffic growth is expected to be about 19%.
2Forecast Lane Km: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/424467/DSP2036-
184_Highways_England_Delivery_Plan_FINAL_low_res_280415.pdf
3Historic Vehicle Km: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523558/tra0204.xls
regional-plus-welsh-traffic-growth-and-speeds-forecasts-scenario-1.xlsx
However, there may also be some offsetting impacts, i.e. factors that will reduce pressure on HE's resource budget in RIS1. In particular, the significant capital programme should reduce routine maintenance costs in the short term as road surfaces are replaced and renewed. This 'capital substitution' effect may reduce opex to some degree in the short term, but it may then increase again later as the new surfaces age.
## 2.5. Performance And Cost Trade-Off
Another consideration is the trade-off between cost reduction and quality of service. If a company is reducing its costs, it could be achieving this either via genuine efficiency savings and/or by reducing the quality of its outputs. If expenditure is rising, this could be viewed as inefficiency, but this might be used to deliver an improvement. This is a key reason for monitoring company performance. HE's performance is monitored by ORR under the Performance Specification. This comprises of 8 performances areas, within which there are a small number of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) with additional supplementary Performance Indicators (PIs). HE's main KPIs are shown below.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/408514/ris-for-2015-16-roadperiod-web-version.pdf
HE's Performance Specification is relatively new, implemented in April 2015, and as such it will take time to build confidence in the metrics. More generally, a potential difficulty with some kinds of performance monitoring is that there can be a delay between a reduction in expenditure and deteriorating performance. If companies are experiencing costs pressure they may seek to delay certain activities in the knowledge that they will not face the performance consequences in the short term. As such, PIs are not necessarily a true reflection of current performance. For this report, we have not reviewed the changes in HE's KPIs, as there is not a long enough consistent series.
## 2.6. Summary
This chapter has identified several pieces of contextual information that inform our analysis, as well as highlighting several key issues. These are summarised below:
There is a significant break in the data between the Highways Agency and Highways
England. Different accounting approaches were used and these have proved difficult and in some cases impossible, to reconcile.
The Cook Report proposed that a 20% reduction in HE's operating and maintenance
costs was achievable over 5 years. Whilst this does not align with our definition of core costs there is some overlap, primarily for maintenance and renewals-related costs. At a high level, we estimate that Cook anticipated about a 9% reduction in operating expenditure over RIS1.
The main conclusions we draw from this part of the exercise are as follows:
Data collection from HE was time-consuming and relatively slow, and the data prior
to 2012-13 had to be excluded in our measure of 'core costs' as it did not appear to
be consistent with data from 2012-13 onwards. By excluding the renewals component of resource expenditure from 'core costs', we have been able to identify a consistent opex trend back to 2009/10 ('core costs - R'). Given these data issues, the efficiency gains and/or losses implied by HE's reported costs, particularly where HE has reclassified the Highway's Agency's data, should be considered with a degree of caution. The Highways Monitor may wish to mandate use of core costs as defined in this report for use in similar exercises.
Some cost components of resource expenditure are not within HE's control, at least
within the short term, and so it is not reasonable to subject HE to an efficiency challenge in these areas.
However, HE's RIS1 resource expenditure budget (as per the Delivery Plan) shows a
9.5% reduction (in real terms) in 'core costs'. This appears consistent with the expectation from Cook.
There are likely to be some emerging external cost pressures (e.g. increasing quantity
of assets under management, rising traffic levels), although these may be offset to some degree by emerging opportunities for reducing opex (e.g. renewals reduce the need for maintenance).
Overall, given the efficiency assumptions built into HE's future budget for resource expenditure, plus the potential cost pressures from rising passenger traffic and the considerable capital programme, RIS1 set a reasonably challenging efficiency target for HE to meet.
## 3. Approach 3.1. Overview
Having developed a reliable data set and having understood the context provided by Cook and HE's current business plan, we have used a range of different methods to assess the efficiency of HE's operating expenditure, as well as the scope for potential opex efficiency savings in the future. These are summarised in the figure below.
How has HE performed to date?
Historic cost trend: Review and analysis
Real Unit Operating Expenditure (RUOE) analysis: Compare HE's unit cost trend with comparable industries.
How should we assess HE's potential performance over RIS 1?
HE Delivery Plan Efficiency forecasts
Top down unit cost metrics Observed changes in unit costs for
competitive industries
RUOE analysis Performance of other comparator
industries
Cook Report Recommended efficiency savings
Top down productivity metrics Observed changes in productivity for competitive industries
What magnitude of efficiencies might be appropriate for RIS 2?
Qualitative discussion: Takes into account historic and RIS 1 performance
RUOE analysis Other industries
Sense check: Regulatory precedent
Scope for future efficiencies
Further detailed explanation of our approach is included within ANNEX A.
## 3.2. Background
All three stages of our work rely on an analysis of Real Unit Operating Expenditure (RUOE) over time. We use this metric to benchmark HE's unit costs to other companies/industries with similar characteristics and make an assessment of the scope for efficiency based on its performance compared to those other companies/industries. This high level benchmarking method is widely used by regulators as it provides an independent assessment of the scope for efficiency that does not rely on detailed benchmarking exercises, for which the regulator may have insufficient granular data. Its use by regulators has provided evidence that scope for efficiency savings for regulated companies tends to be largest soon after privatisation, and then diminishes over time once the 'low hanging fruit' (easy to achieve efficiencies) have been realised. Therefore, part of the analysis that we undertake is to split efficiency gains by the time period after privatisation in which they occurred. HE is not regulated to the same degree as some other sectors, nor has it been privatised. Therefore, the comparison between HE and other regulated companies is not a perfect match - HE does not have the same incentive of seeking to generate profits for shareholders, nor does it have the ability to raise finance via capital markets. However, the requirement for ORR to assess the levels of efficiency assumed in HE's budget means that the current budget setting process, has some similarity to other regulated environments in GB (such as rail and energy). Therefore, at a high level, we can compare HE's recent performance against regulated companies after privatisation. Since HE was under significant cost pressure between 2010 and 2015, as a result of the Government Spending Review, we consider 2010-15 to be comparable to the first period post-privatisation for other regulated networks. Following this, we take RIS1 to be comparable to the second 5-year period after privatisation.
## 3.3. Benchmarking Of Real Unit Operating Expenditure
Real Unit Operating Expenditure (RUOE) is operating expenditure divided by an indicator of output. We calculate the change in RUOE as this provides a measure of changes in unit costs over time. We calculate changes in RUOE for HE and a selection of industries with similar characteristics. This enables us to compare HE's historic performance against such industries/companies. We take into account both productivity gains and changes in input prices. For a full summary of our process in making this analysis, see annex A.3. The change in RUOE is a proxy for cost efficiency, rather than being a precise measure. Further, in comparing its evolution with other highways networks and other industries, we need to bear in mind that each of these have some specific characteristics. For example, in comparison with other industries, the growing levels of road congestion are a cost pressure specific to road networks. However, there are enough similarities between HE and our chosen comparators to make this observation relevant at a high level, e.g. all regulated sectors face pressures to improve quality.
## 3.3.1. Overview Of Methodology
Our methodology for estimating RUOE metrics is summarised in the figure below.
Building on our previous work across various sectors, we have developed a detailed dataset of costs and output measures for a large number of companies. We identified relevant comparators for HE and then collected new data where appropriate. For a road sector comparator, we have selected Transport Scotland whom hold a similar role in terms of their road responsibility, and have the required data available. We have also selected the following comparators, as discussed in Annex A.3.2:
rail network electricity distribution and transmission gas distribution and transmission water and sewerage airports air traffic control
## 3.3.2. Output Metrics
In calculating HE's RUOE, an important decision is what output metric we should use. The main options are
Vehicle-km - the quantity of traffic that HE's network facilitates, or Lane-km - the quantity of road that HE manages, taking basic account of the different
widths of road.
In practice, we will present results for both of these as there are arguments for each. What we are looking for is ideally some measure of output which opex would be related to. Many of HE's opex costs are related to the quantity of road it has to manage - for example winter gritting costs. Other costs might vary with traffic - for example road damage repair. However these things are not always clear. HE has explained to us, for example, that the size of a traffic officer team for a given road section will not change for a wide range of road traffic. Also, there are opex costs which are related to the quality rather than the quantity of output. Similar issues affect the comparator industries too. Thus, we need to understand that this is a rather approximate tool and we need to be aware of the shortcomings.
## 3.3.3. Adjustment For Economies Of Scale
We also undertake an adjustment for economies of scale within our RUOE calculations to account for opex reductions that may occur as a result of output growth, as oppose to genuine improvements in efficiency. For example, HE might be able to accommodate an increased volume of traffic on its network without having to increase opex by the same proportion. The adjustment was achieved through the application of a cost elasticity value, specific to each industry, to the RUOE calculations. These cost elasticities represent the percentage change in costs that would arise from a one percent increase in output. From research on relevant literature, we have assumed the following cost elasticities for HE:
0.3, with respect to vehicle km. This implies that large economies of scale exist, so an
increase in vehicle km would require a smaller increase in opex.
0.84, with respect to lane length. This implies that there are only limited economies
of scale - if road length increases, opex will need to rise by a similar proportion.
Further explanation is provided in Annex A.3.
## 3.4. Forming Conclusions
In our conclusions we take the results from the different components of our analysis and combine them in order to reach an overall view. This is not a mechanistic process - some judgement was required. In the subsequent sections we set out our findings in each area of analysis before making summary observations and drawing conclusions.
## 4. Highways England'S Performance To Date 4.1. Introduction
In this section we consider how HE has performed to date in terms of its level of 'core costs'. As noted in Section 2.1, establishing a consistent opex series for HE has been challenging. In order to create a consistent time series from 2009/10 onwards we have concentrated on the narrower cost category 'core costs - R'. We are only able to analyse all 'core costs' in a consistent time series from 2012-13 to 2015-16 inclusive.
## 4.2. Analysis Of Historic Costs
The chart below shows the historic costs that we include in our efficiency analysis. As noted earlier, we assess both 'core costs - R' (using all years for the period 2009-10 to 2015-16) and 'core costs' (using data from 2012/13 onwards, due to the inconsistency of renewals data prior to 2012/13). Below, we also show forecast costs as dotted lines.
'Core costs' (and 'core costs - R') have risen slightly since 2012-13. This is due primarily to increases in traffic management costs, support costs, and general operations. However, there were also some changes in accounting practices prior to 2015/16, so we cannot say for sure in which specific area these cost increases occurred. HE has stated that "figures for General Operations, Traffic Management and Support costs are split based upon apportionment of
15/16 actuals due to changes in account code structure making figures incomparable".15
However, by focusing on 'core costs - R', we demonstrate that costs fell significantly prior to 2012-13. From discussions with HE, we understand that the SR10 efficiency challenge (discussed in Section 2.1) drove several changes in HE's maintenance practices between 2009- 10 and 2012-13, and that lower maintenance costs are the source of the observed cost reduction before 2012-13.
HE has provided us with some additional explanation on this issue.16 From 2010, HE designed a new type of contract for maintenance opex, known as an Asset Support Contract (ASC). This was more focused on outcomes, rather than outputs, encouraging contractors to focus on undertaking activities which had the greatest impact on outcomes, rather than prescriptively following a list of pre-specified activities. In some cases, these contracts also changed the standards that contractors were required to achieve, e.g. reducing accident response time targets from 20 minutes to 30 minutes, or only requiring grass close alongside carriageways to be cut, as opposed to grass further away from the highway as in the past. As an example, within technology maintenance, HE switched to maintenance contracts which were "more targeted and outcome-based", known as Regional Technology Maintenance Contract
(RTMCs).17 Previously, contracts were more bureaucratic/legalistic.18 Overall, this suggests that HE managed to reduce its maintenance costs via a mix of pure efficiency gains (ie doing the same thing for less cost), scope reduction and changes to standards for maintenance activities. Some of these scope and standard changes may nevertheless amount to removing outputs that were not an effective use of funds in terms of the outcomes users require. Thus the distinction between an efficiency gain and a scope reduction is not clean.
## 4.3. Historic Benchmarking Of Real Unit Operating Expenditure
The following chart shows the average annual reduction in real unit operating costs, for HE and a number of comparators. We show it as a reduction consistent with the convention that efficiency improvements are shown as *positive* numbers. We have calculated the average as a geometric mean. In the chart below, HE's efficiency performance is shown based on historic data available, including the first year of RIS1. For 'core costs' this includes data for 2012/13 to 2015/16, whilst for 'core costs - R' this includes 2009/10 to 2015/16.
The chart above shows that all of our chosen comparator sectors (with the exception of airports and NATS) have made efficiency gains. If we focus on 'core costs' only (and therefore only include data from 2012/13 onwards), HE has become less productive; a result of its rising costs. However, it we focus on 'core costs - R', HE has significantly increased productivity - this result is driven by the large fall in maintenance costs before 2012/13. We can also compare HE's performance for the period immediately prior to RIS1 to provide a view of HE's performance against comparator industries' first control period after privatisation. The chart below shows this comparison.
Source: CEPA Database (full details of all data sources available in A.3.1). Note: Gas transmission/distribution and NATS are not included in this figure due to 1st control period data not being available for these comparators. Time periods for the data in this chart are as follows: HE 'core costs' 2012/13 to 2014/15; HE 'core costs - R' 2009/10 to 2014/15; Rail 2002/03 - 2003/04; Water and Sewerage E&W 1993/94 - 1994/95; Water and Sewerage Scot 2003/04 - 2005/06; Electricity Transmission 1991/92 - 1992/93; Electricity Distribution 1991/92 - 1994/95; Airports - 2001/02.
Based on the 'core costs' measure, HE became less productive during the period 2012/13 - 2014/15. The loss of productivity is –1.5% when lane-km is the chosen output metric, or -1.2% when vehicle-km is the metric. However, HE shows evidence of significant productivity gains based on the measure of 'core costs - R'. Other comparable industries made operating productivity gains of 1.8% per annum on average during their first regulatory period post privatisation.19 This could be considered as a high level benchmark for HE, if HE had maintained a constant level of service provision. Overall, by excluding renewals (i.e. focusing on 'core costs - R'), these results highlight that HE shows signs of significant productivity gains since 2009/10. As noted earlier, this is driven by a reduction in maintenance costs, which is likely due to a mix of efficiency gains, scope reduction and changes to standards for maintenance activities. However, without further analysis it is not possible to say which factor was the main cause. We also note that HE's productivity has fallen since 2012/13.
## 4.4. Efficiency Savings In Practice
It is important to consider the extent to which efficiency savings can be realised in practice. For example, the traffic officer service involves traffic officers physically being present at an accident or traffic event. Some efficiencies are clearly possible, e.g. improved rostering, whether to have officers driving or stationary, etc. However, after such efficiencies are realised, it becomes harder to achieve additional savings. Another example is back office (support) costs - the company has to have a finance/IT/HR department, and while some efficiencies are possible (e.g. automated software packages), it is difficult to *continu*ously achieve cost savings in these areas. As noted in Section 4.3, we could consider that annual efficiency savings of 1.8% (based on historic efficiencies observed for comparator sectors) could be considered as a benchmark for HE's 'core costs' prior to RIS1. We acknowledge that this metric is 'top-down' in nature, and does not provide an explanation for how these savings could be realised in practice. However, we have sought to mitigate for this in two ways:
*We have compared HE to industries with similar characteristics*. We have primarily
included large network industries/companies that have similar activities, e.g. for water companies, leakages can only be addressed by staff visiting the site and undertaking repairs, so there is some similarity with HE in terms of the potential for efficiency savings in relation to operating costs.
*We use data from the early years of these industries' regulatory cycle*. As noted above,
efficiency savings may fall over time, and this is particularly evident where public
industries/companies have been privatised and then regulated. As such, when determining an appropriate benchmark for HE, we consider how companies have performed in the period shortly after privatisation.
Whist we attempt to make our recommendations practical to the extent possible, the remit of this report does not extend to considering in detail the practical details of implementing efficiency savings. This is an area in which HE should take the lead, and it will no doubt have considered how to practically achieve efficiency savings when preparing its Delivery Plan. However, this is also an area where ORR may wish to undertake further investigation.
Overall, our RUOE analysis indicates HE's operating efficiency has (based on 'core costs - R'), has increased with evidence of significant productivity gains by HE. These were driven by lower maintenance costs, but without further analysis it is not possible to say whether efficiency gains, scope reduction or changing to the standards of maintenance activities were the main cause. Over the shorter period since 2012/13, i.e. both 'core costs' and 'core costs - R' have risen by more than the chosen output measures (vehicle traffic or lane length), such that unit costs have also risen. We have found some indication that HE has been producing additional output in some areas, which may be impacting this. For example, since 2013/14, HE has been undertaking greater 'fence-to-fence' maintenance, as noted earlier. This is likely to have increased HE's recent costs, but should generate efficiency savings in future years. Depending on whether we include performance prior to 2012/13, it affects how HE compares to the other industries/companies in our analysis. Therefore, without a further understanding of the drivers behind HE's lower maintenance costs prior to 2012/13, it is not possible to make a definitive statement of how HE compares against these other industries/companies.
## 5. Highways England'S Potential Performance In Ris1 5.1. Introduction
Having reviewed HE's historic performance in the previous chapter, we now consider HE's future projected performance, and specifically its forecast expenditure as per its Delivery Plan. We calculate a number of benchmarks for HE's future performance over RIS1. Our aim is to consider that if HE meets the budget in the Delivery Plan, whether the revised costs are likely to represent an efficient level of performance. This is important context for setting efficiency targets in RIS2, because any underperformance in RIS1 may suggest greater scope for catch-up efficiencies in RIS2. We have chosen several benchmarks to provide a broad comparator base. These are as follows:
**Top-down productivity metrics**. These measure the change in the volume of outputs
relative to the change in the volume of inputs. We assessed sectors that exhibit most similarity to the components of HE's opex.
**Partial factor cost measures**. These calculate changes in input costs, per value of
output. As per the productivity metrics, this is undertaken for sectors that are most similar to the components of HE's opex.
**RUOE**. We review the historic efficiency performance of comparators with similar
characteristics to HE.
It is important to note a key difference between the three benchmarks that we utilise. The top-down productivity metrics and partial cost measures tend to suggest lower efficiency gains than the RUOE metric. This is because they are based on industry data from across the whole UK economy, including many competitive markets where scope for efficiency gains tends to be lower, whereas our data sources for RUOE are mainly companies in regulated sectors (to increase comparability with HE). However, even the most efficient companies can be expected to make efficiency improvements over time - for example, by employing new technologies or working processes. We describe such companies as 'operating at the frontier of efficient performance', and the efficiency gains they make over time are known as 'frontier shift' efficiencies. Companies that are not as efficient will need to 'catch-up' to others if they themselves wish to be considered as efficient. This is referred to as 'catch-up' efficiency. These concepts are explained in more detail in Annex A.1. Having established a number of benchmarks, we then consider HE's forecast resource expenditure under different scenarios.
**Meets the budget**. HE performs in line with the RIS1 budget as per its Delivery Plan,
i.e. a reduction in real costs of 9.5% over RIS1. As noted earlier, this may not be
dissimilar to the recommendations in the Cook Report, i.e. a reduction in real costs of 20% over RIS1, but relevant to only certain aspects of resource expenditure.
**Stable in real terms**. HE performs, with resource expenditure, stable in real terms
throughout the remainder of RIS1. Given the apparent lack of any cost efficiency savings for the period 2012/13 to 2015/16, we have also considered this cost projection as a more conservative forecast scenario.
## 5.2. Benchmarking Of Top Down Productivity Metrics 5.2.1. Introduction
One way of examining what level of productivity changes HE should be able to achieve is to consider the overall rate of productivity growth in the economy. A potential difficulty in applying such information is that different sectors of the economy achieve different rates of improvement in productivity. We can correct for this in part by looking at sectoral rates of productivity growth, and potentially forming a weighted average aiming to reflect HE's own components of production. We have studied three productivity metrics based on UK-wide data across a number of years. These metrics reflect different measures of productivity. Data is sourced from the EU KLEMS
dataset.20 As noted above in Section 5.1, the data relates mainly to competitive industries, and thus could be argued to relate mainly to 'frontier shift' efficiency. We considered several measures of productivity for which UK-wide data is available across a number of years.
**Total Factor Productivity (TFP)**: 'Residual' output growth that is not accounted for by
input growth, taking into account all factors of production. TFP is calculated using either the gross output or value added measure - the former includes the contribution from intermediate inputs, whereas these are excluded from the latter.
**Labour and intermediate inputs (LEMS) Productivity (LEMSP)**: The abbreviation LEMS
refers to Labour Energy Materials Services. LEMSP is 'Residual' output growth that is not accounted for by the growth of labour and intermediate inputs. This is calculated under both flexible and constant capital assumptions.
Labour Productivity **(LP)**: The growth of output per unit of labour input growth. Or,
consistent with the explanations above, 'residual' output growth that is not accounted for by the growth of labour inputs.
Further explanation of how these metrics were calculated is below and in Annex A.2.
## 5.2.2. Variants Of The Productivity Metrics
We calculate each productivity metric in a number of variants. These are summarised in the table at the end of this sub-section. The variants arise from three distinctions we make when calculating them, as follows.
**The measure of output** - either gross output or value added. Under the gross output
measures of productivity, intermediate inputs are assumed to contribute to productivity growth, whereas their impact is removed in the value-added measure. These measures generally give similar results, as shown further below.
**Capital variability** - either variable capital or constant capital. Capital is an important
factor of production, however the effect of capital growth is sometimes distortionary. To mitigate that, the measures can also be calculated using a constant capital assumption. In considering the efficiency of HE's opex, we consider both are relevant:
o On one hand, HE's resource expenditure budget is set at the same time as its
capital budget, and DfT/ORR are likely to take into account growth of the capex budget *to some extent* when setting opex targets. Therefore there is an argument for assessing productivity benchmarks that allow for capital to vary.
o On the other hand, the relationship between capex and opex is not always
clear, and opex budgets are often set with reference to opex efficiency gains observed in other sectors. Therefore it is also relevant to develop an opex productivity benchmark for HE that holds capital constant.
**The period of data coverage** - either using all available years of data (denoted "1") or
selected years of data (denoted "2"). The variant "1" is a fixed period. However for variant "2", there are a number of options available, and these are used as sensitivities. We explain this in more detail in the following text.
## Data Coverage
The EU KLEMS database provides an extended coverage of years, and there are also several releases of the data which do not provide the same information each time.
National productivity data has been released within the EU KLEMS database on several
occasions over the last decade - in 2009, 2012 and 2016. We have used all of these sources in our analysis. We refer to these as different **data releases**.
Within each data release, the data covers different **time periods**. The 2009 release is
the largest dataset and contains data between 1970 and 2007. Given that productivity can be pro-cyclical, we believe it is appropriate to calculate changes in productivity based on complete business cycles, and thus there is an argument for selecting the average of the period rather than simply using all of the available data.
For completeness, our approach has been to calculate productivity benchmarks firstly using all of the available data (variant "1"), and secondly using our view of the most relevant data (variant "2"), but in a number of sensitivities.
For the value-added measures, all three data releases provide useful information. In
general, we consider the latest data releases to be the most accurate. However, because the 2016 release also contains the period 2006-2014, which was unusual from an economic perspective due to the global recession, we do not think it is appropriate to focus solely on the 2016 data release. Therefore, in our variant "2" metrics we have used both the 2012 and 2016 data releases, but have not included the single most recent business cycle on its own (2006-2014). For the same reason, our "**base case**" (main estimate) for value-added measures (VA), within the period options for variant "2", is the period 1998-2014. This base case uses the most up-to-date 2016 dataset, but calculates an average across the two most recent business cycles.
For the gross output measures, only the 2009 data release provides useful
information, because the 2012 and 2016 releases only have value-added data. Our "**base case**" (main estimate) for gross output measures (GO), within the period options for variant "2", is therefore the most recent business cycle available in the 2009 release, which is 1997-2006.
We summarise this in the following table.
Gross output or value added
Metrics included
Data releases used
Business cycles covered by the data release
Gross output
TFP GO LEMSP var K LEMSP con K
2009 data release
*1997-2006 (1 business cycle) 1986-2006 (2 cycles) 1978-2006 (3 cycles)
1972-2006 (4 cycles)
2016 data release
2006-2014 (1 business cycle) * 1998-2014 (2 cycles)
Value-added
TFP VA (1 and 2) LP var K (1 and 2) LP con K (1 and 2)
2012 data release:
1997-2006 (1 business cycle) 1986-2006 (2 cycles)
2009 data release
1997-2006 (1 business cycle) 1986-2006 (2 cycles) 1978-2006 (3 cycles) 1972-2006 (4 cycles)
Finally, in order to calculate a relevant benchmark for HE, we selected the most appropriate comparator sector (or multiple comparator sectors, if appropriate) within the EU KLEMS database. We employed judgement in determining the comparator sectors, so we considered whether the comparator sectors could be varied. As such, we calculated **sensitivities** for each variant of the measures. The sensitivities use a different weighting or basket of the comparators. As noted above, we also, in some cases, used the data coverage period as a sensitivity for the variant "2" measures.
## Summary Of Metrics
The following table summarises all the variants of the productivity metrics we calculated.
| Acronym | Output |
|--------------------------|---------------|
| measure | |
| Capital | |
| variability | |
| Period of | |
| averaging | |
| Metric | Factors of |
| production | |
| included | |
| TFP GO | Gross output |
| years | |
| Total factor | |
| productivity | |
| (TFP) | |
| TFP VA 1 | Value-added |
| years | |
| Total | |
| (Capital, | |
| Labour and | |
| intermediate | |
| inputs) | |
| Selected years TFP VA 2 | |
| LEMSP var K 1 | Gross output |
| years | |
| LEMS | |
| productivity | |
| (LEMSP) | |
| Selected years | LEMSP var K 2 |
| Partial | |
| (Labour and | |
| intermediate | |
| inputs) | |
| LEMSP con K 1 | Constant |
| capital | |
| All available | |
| years | |
| Selected years | LEMSP con K 2 |
| LP var K 1 | Value-added |
| years | |
| Labour | |
| productivity | |
| (LP) | |
| Partial | |
| (Labour | |
| only) | |
| Selected years | LP var K 2 |
| LP con K 1 | Constant |
| capital | |
| All available | |
| years | |
| Selected years | LP con K 2 |
## 5.2.3. Approach
For each of these three productivity measures (in Section 5.2.1), we identified sectors of the UK economy which we consider (having discussed choices with ORR and HE) are the most similar to the components of HE's opex, and used these to develop a composite index specific to HE that is matched to HE's activities as follows:
We divided HE's opex into cost areas, and calculated the percentage within each area. For each cost area, we selected the most appropriate comparator sector (or multiple
comparator sectors, if appropriate) for which productivity data was provided. (As sensitivities, we selected various alternative weightings of the comparator sectors.)
For each of these relevant sectors, we calculated initial (unweighted) productivity
metrics based on the EU KLEMS database.
We used the percentages in the first step to weight the selected sector productivity
metrics and calculate a weighted composite index (specific to HE) to act as a suitable comparator for HE.
We calculated each of the variants to the metrics described in the previous section. We carried out sensitivity analysis as follows. For each metric we calculated a number
of sensitivities based on comparator sector weights. For some of the variant "2" metrics, we calculated sensitivities based on the number of business cycles covered. This produced a range of results. Within that range, we report the **Maximum**, Minimum, **Average**, and our **Base Case** (described above).
These methodological issues are discussed in more detail in Annex A.2.
## 5.2.4. Results And Analysis
The results for our TFP, LEMS productivity and labour productivity analysis are provided below, detailed explanations of these tests, as well as further detailed analysis, can be found in the Annexes. All of our base case results are in the range 0.3% to 0.9% per annum. We have considered which measure is most appropriate in relation to HE's resource expenditure:
TFP, by nature, measures productivity for all factors of production, including capital.
However, we are considering resource expenditure (which excludes capex), so TFP is less appropriate than the LEMS or LP metrics.
The difference between LEMS productivity and labour productivity is the efficiency
gain made due to intermediate inputs (energy, materials and services). Whilst some intermediate inputs are included within HE's operating cost base (i.e. energy for providing signage and materials used for light maintenance), the remainder are likely to sit within HE's capex base (i.e. materials and capex-related services such as construction). Therefore, we consider that both LEMS productivity and labour productivity should be taken into account when reaching a final estimate for the scope of efficiency.
Finally, there is a choice between LEMS (or labour) productivity at either constant
capital, or with variable capital. Given that DfT/ORR are likely to take into account changes in capex when setting opex efficiency targets, this favours using a variable capital approach. However, the relationship between capex and opex efficiencies is difficult to determine, so it is also prudent to take into account the constant capital productivity metric.
## 5.2.5. Summary
The 'base case' LEMS and labour productivity gains with variable capital are in the range 0.6% to 0.9% per annum, i.e. outputs grow by 0.6-0.9% per annum more than inputs. These are our preferred results. However, if we were to take into account the 'base case' LEMS and labour productivity gains under the assumption of *constant capital*, this would widen the range of productivity gains to 0.3% (low end) to 0.9% (high end) per annum. Applying this to HE, the implication is that a reasonably competitive company with similar activities to HE will have made productivity gains at around 0.6% to 0.9% per year. Therefore this is a reasonable proxy benchmark to apply to HE's future performance.
## 5.3. Benchmarking Of Partial Factor Cost Measures 5.3.1. Introduction
Partial factor cost measures calculate the percentage annual changes in operating costs. They are based on the top-down productivity metrics and adjusted for variations in input prices to provide a measure of *cost* efficiency. Partial factor cost measures can be compared to the change in RUOE, because they take into account changes in both physical productivity and input prices. Given that we are considering HE's opex efficiency, we focus on partial factor cost measures that include changes in labour and intermediate inputs, but exclude capital inputs. There are some further reasons why whole economy or whole sector partial factor cost measures do not compare exactly with the RUOE we calculated for comparator regulated industries:
Many of the comparator industries for which we calculated the average change in
RUOE are regulated industries, operating within a monopoly environment, or at least having significant market power. Therefore, they are likely to have greater potential for catch-up efficiency over the course of the period we considered. In contrast, these partial factor cost measures are derived by considering productivity across a much wider range of sectors in the UK economy, many of which are more competitive than the selected comparators we chose when calculating the average change in RUOE. So on average whole industry/sector partial factor productivities are likely predominantly to represent frontier shift when applied to regulated/public sector companies. Therefore, on average we might expect these cost measures to exhibit lower productivity gains than we saw looking at changes in RUOE for selected comparator industries.
The simple change in RUOE we calculated did not involve any adjustment for capital
substitution. So to the extent that the comparator companies engaged in capital substitution, that would appear to represent a unit productivity gain. This again is likely to mean that the change in RUOE for our selected comparators is larger than the partial factor productivity measures under the constant capital assumption, i.e. where the impact of capital inputs on outputs is controlled for.
## 5.3.2. Methodology
Our methodology for calculating these cost measures is the same as the methodology used for the top-down productivity metrics, i.e. we have used the same data sources, comparator weightings, time periods, permutations (gross output and value-added, variable and constant capital). As such:
The LEMS cost measure is based on gross output productivity data. Therefore our base
case (main estimate) is based on the 2009 data release, and the most recent business cycle (1997-2006) within this dataset.
The Labour cost measure is based on value-added productivity data. Therefore our
base case (main estimate) uses the 2016 data release, and is based on data for the period 1998-2014, i.e. the two most recent business cycles.
## 5.3.3. Results And Analysis
The results are presented below. This shows the average annual unit cost efficiency gains for industries similar to HE, based on a weighted average of relevant industries. Acronyms are provided below the chart. For the labour cost metric we have included two ranges:
Based on all data: The number "1" is used in the acronym. Based on the most relevant data, having removed (in our judgement) the least
relevant data points (i.e. the results from the 2009 data release, given it is the oldest
data; and the 2006-2014 result, given was a highly unusual period). Here, the number "2" is used in the acronym. This does not affect our base case assumption.
Taking all results together, in the following chart we present our base case, the range, and the average (based on the different time periods and sensitivities discussed above). Based on our base case choices, the chart shows that LEMS cost efficiencies were -0.3% to 0.1% per annum on average, whilst labour cost efficiencies were circa 0.9% per annum on average.
## 5.3.4. Summary
Consistent with our analysis for the top-down productivity metrics, our preferred results for cost efficiency are based on measures which allow for variable capital. When taking into account both LEMS and labour productivity measures, the annual productivity gains (under the base case) are in the range of 0.1% to 0.9%. If we were to include constant capital, the bottom of the range would move to -0.3%. Given that the LEMS cost measure with constant capital is the only point that implies negative efficiency, we propose a range of 0% (low end) to 0.9% (high end) per annum.
## 5.4. Further Consideration Of Real Unit Operating Expenditure 5.4.1. Methodology21
In Section 4.3 we calculated changes in RUOE to show the level of operating efficiencies achieved by relevant comparator industries in their first control period. In this section we calculate efficiency gains for the comparators companies/sectors in their *second* price control period after privatisation because (as noted in Section 3.2), we are using the second price control period as a proxy benchmark for RIS1. We also present the efficiency gains made by companies in their *third* price control period after privatisation, as this would correspond to RIS2, and we refer to this result in the following chapter.
## 5.4.2. Results And Analysis
The chart below shows the productivity gains for different regulated networks in their second and third price control periods after privatisation.
Source: CEPA Database (full details of all data sources available in A.3.1). Note: Gas distribution is not included in this graph as the available data does not include control periods 2 and 3.
The average efficiency gain across the observed comparators is 3.1% for the second control period post-privatisation, and is 1.3% for the third period.
## 5.4.3. Summary
Based on changes in RUOE for our comparator sectors, our benchmark for HE's efficiency gains in RIS1 is 3.1% per annum. This is applicable when considering HE's potential performance in RIS1. The average efficiency gain for the third control period, 1.3%, would be applicable to any future cost efficiency targets that HE might set for RIS2 and onwards.
## 5.5. Highways England'S Forecast Performance 5.5.1. Introduction
Based on different forecast scenarios for HE's resource expenditure over RIS1, we can calculate what these would imply in terms of annual efficiency savings per unit of output. This allows us to develop metrics that are comparable with the unit cost benchmarks.
## 5.5.2. Methodology
As noted above in Section 5.1, our two forecast cost scenarios are:
Keeping resource expenditure stable in real terms throughout the remainder of RIS1.
This is a more conservative assumption than HE's RIS1 Delivery Plan.
Reducing costs in line with the RIS1 budget as per HE's Delivery Plan, i.e. a reduction
in real costs of circa 10% over RIS1.
For forecasts we are able to focus solely on our measure of 'core costs', because the renewals component of resource expenditure is budgeted consistently over time during RIS1. We have used two different output measures in our modelling. The first is lane km, and the second is vehicle km. As shown in Section 2.4, both measures are expected to rise over RIS1, although vehicle km are forecast to rise by more than lane km. Therefore, using vehicle km will imply higher efficiency savings on a 'cost per unit of output' basis, so the efficiency results using vehicle km are higher. For consistency with our RUOE analysis, we have also adjusted for economics of scale. As noted in Section 3.3, we have used costs elasticities of 0.3 for vehicle km and 0.84 for lane length.
## 5.5.3. Results And Analysis
The annual efficiency gains are show below. The 'low' results correspond to using lane km as the output measure. The 'high' results correspond to using vehicle km as the output measure.
If HE is able to meet its RIS1 budget as per the Delivery Plan, it will have made cost efficiencies of almost 2.5% per annum (with the precise level of efficiency gain dependent on whether lane km or vehicle km is the chosen output measure). Under a more conservative assumption of constant real costs over the remainder of RIS1, the cost efficiencies are smaller, at almost 0.5% per annum.
## 5.5.4. Summary
The Delivery Plan is the basis for HE's planning and therefore should be considered the 'base case' in terms of the forecast we use. HE's recent historic performance shows a combination of significant cost reduction before 2012/13, but no evidence of any efficiency savings since then, so it is uncertain to what extent these savings are achievable. Therefore, we also consider that a more conservative 'constant real costs' scenario.
## 5.6. Comparison
In this section we compare the different forecast scenarios against the different benchmarks that we have calculated for HE. The chart below makes this comparison. Positive numbers equate to significant productivity gains. Benchmarks are shown in blue and forecasts are shown in grey. Bars are used to show ranges, although for the RUOE productivity benchmark we have a point estimate of 3.1%.
Source: CEPA Database (full details of all data sources available in A.3.1). CEPA analysis.
The RUOE productivity benchmark includes both catch-up efficiencies and frontier shift efficiencies. The partial cost measures and productivity gains are based on economy-wide data, which tends to comprise primarily of frontier shift, and therefore does not include the catch-up that we would expect for newly-privatised companies. Given HE is a recently reorganised monopoly network operator, we consider that there is likely to be scope for catch-up, and therefore consider the RUOE productivity benchmark (3.1% efficiency gain per annum) is the most relevant benchmark.
## 5.7. Summary
The forecasts suggest that HE will largely (i.e. almost) meet the RUOE productivity benchmark, implied by our analysis, if it manages to reduce its core costs in line with its Delivery Plan (although the precise result is somewhat sensitive to the output measure chosen to assess HE's expenditure).
## 6. Considering Efficiency Savings In Ris2 6.1. Introduction
In this section we discuss:
Firstly, HE's performance both prior to and during RIS1 Secondly, we consider how regulated companies have performed (on average) during
the third control period 'after privatisation', as this will be a relevant benchmark for RIS2. We assess efficiency gains made by such companies by calculating the change in RUOE over time to develop an efficiency benchmark.
Thirdly, we review recent regulatory precedent from other sectors to provide a sense
check on the magnitude of efficiency targets being applied by other regulators.
Finally, we consider the efficiency benchmark that might be set for RIS2.
## 6.2. Highways England'S Performance
HE's future efficiency target for RIS2 should be informed by its performance both prior to and during RIS1. If HE performs poorly in these periods, a greater level of catch-up should be required during RIS2. Our analysis in Section 4 shows that it is difficult to compare HE's historic efficiency performance against other regulated sectors/companies with similar characteristics. Whilst HE's performance has lagged behind other regulated sectors/companies since 2012/13, HE made productivity gains prior to that (in response to a significant cost challenge from the Government), driven by lower maintenance costs. However, there is uncertainty around whether efficiency gains, scope reduction or changing standards were the main cause of these lower maintenance costs. Our analysis in Section 5 suggests that HE will have achieved a reasonable level of efficiency gains during RIS1 if it manages to reduce its resource expenditure in line with the Delivery Plan. Based on historic performance it is unclear whether HE is likely to achieve this.
## 6.3. Performance Of Regulated Companies In The Third Control Period
As presented earlier in Section 5.4, we have also assessed the average efficiency gain achieved across relevant regulated networks and focusing on the third price control period after privatisation, which we consider is a potential benchmark for RIS2. The average efficiency gain across the relevant comparators in this period is 1.3% per annum. Setting this target for HE in RIS2 would however be contingent on it having realised a sufficient level of catch-up efficiency prior to and during RIS1.
## 6.4. Sense Check - Regulatory Precedent
In the table below we present recent regulatory precedent for the Frontier Shift (FS) and Catch-up (CU) opex efficiency targets set by regulators in recent price controls.
| | Regulator Country | Sector | Price control | Costs | FS | CU |
|-------|------------------------------|--------------------------------------|----------------------|------------|-------|-------|
| ORR | GB | Rail | 2015 - 2019 | Opex | 0.3% | 4.4% |
| Ofwat | Eng & Wal Water and Sewerage | 2010 - 2015 | | | | |
| 1 | | | | | | |
| | Opex | 0.2-0.4% | 2.2-2.9% | | | |
| WICS | Scotland | Water and Sewerage | 2015/16 - 20/21 Opex | 1.9% | | |
| 2 | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| Ofgem | GB | Transmission | 2013 - 2021 | Opex | 1.0% | n/a |
| Ofgem | GB | Electricity Distribution 2016 - 2023 | Totex 0.8-1.1% | Various | | |
| Ofgem | GB | Gas distribution | | | | |
| 3 | | | | | | |
| | 2013 - 2021 | Opex | 1.0% | n/a | | |
| | | | | Totex 0.8% | | |
| 1.6% | | | | | | |
| CAA | GB | Heathrow Airport | 2014 - 2018 | Opex | 1.0% | |
| 1.0% | | | | | | |
| 4 | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| CAA | GB | Gatwick Airport | 2014/15 - 18/19 Opex | 0.9-1.0% | | |
| 0.7% | | | | | | |
| 4 | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| Range | 0.2-1.2% | Up to 4.4% | | | | |
Notes:
1 Ofwat: Not possible to obtain FS and CU figures for the latest price control (2015-2020).
2 Breakdown not available between FS and CU. 3 Gas distribution: Totex is included as it shows the CU target (not available for opex).
4 HAL/LGW: CU is the residual cost reduction after netting off FU, so not the same as CU.
Source: Various regulatory determination documents Regulatory precedent suggests that scope for FS is assessed to be relatively consistent across the regulated sectors, i.e. it tends to be in the range 0.8% to 1.2%. However, it is occasionally lower at circa 0.3% (e.g. ORR's Network Rail determination and Ofwat's determination for England and Wales water and sewerage companies). In contrast, CU efficiency targets vary considerably, as would be expected given that this depends on the specific circumstances of a company or industry at a given point in time. For example, Network Rail's large catch-up efficiency target (4.4%) was influenced by the view that Network Rail was inefficient at the point in time of the determination.22
If HE is able to meet its Delivery Plan in RIS1, we consider that a relevant benchmark for unit cost efficiency in RIS2 could be in the region of the following:
1.3% per annum, as implied by the RUOE analysis for the average efficiency gain across
relevant regulated networks for the third price control period post privatisation (which is broadly consistent with our analysis of top down productivity measures and partial cost factors); *plus*
An additional annual 'catch-up' efficiency component if it is determined that the
reduction in maintenance costs prior to 2012/13 was primarily driven by scope
reductions and/or changing standards, as opposed to genuine efficiencies.
However, if HE fails to meet its Delivery Plan for RIS1, this would present a further
argument for increasing the efficiency target for RIS2.
Overall our analysis suggests an efficiency target of 'at least 1.3% per annum' but with scope for adjustment based on the outcome of RIS1. This figure is broadly consistent with regulatory precedent, although we note that there is considerable variation between industries.
## 7. Conclusions And Scope For Further Analysis 7.1. Conclusions
Overall, the key messages from our work are as follows:
Data has been difficult to acquire on a consistent basis over time. Whilst HE has
endeavored to provide data to the best of its capabilities, the process of data collection was time-consuming and involved various iterations. After a considerable number of discussions with HE, we still do not have a series for HE's resource expenditure (i.e. including the renewals component) for the period 2010-2013 that we are confident is consistent with data from 2013 onwards. As such, our analysis of HE's resource expenditure prior to RIS1 is only partial.
Based on the data that we have received, and our analysis of it, there is evidence of
productivity gains by HE over the period from 2009/10 onwards (excluding the renewals component of resource expenditure). These were driven by lower maintenance costs in response to the SR10 efficiency challenge. However, it is not possible to say what combination of efficiency gains, scope reduction or changing standards were the main cause of this productivity gain. However there is no evidence that HE has made efficiency savings in the period 2012/13 - 2015/16 inclusive, whether renewals are included or excluded.
The Cook Report, HE's Delivery Plan and our benchmarking analysis (against other
comparable industries) all suggest that there is scope for HE to make efficiency savings during RIS1.
If HE manages to reduce its resource expenditure in line with the Delivery Plan prior
to the end of the RIS1 period, our analysis suggests that it will broadly (i.e. almost) have achieved a reasonable level of efficiency gain during RIS1, i.e. on a par with what other regulated industries achieved over a comparable time period post-privatisation.
We have provided initial thoughts on how ORR/HE might set an efficiency target for
RIS2. Whilst this will clearly require further detailed analysis, our initial high level recommendation is a target of 'at least 1.3% per annum', with the precise amount being dependent upon how HE performs during the remainder RIS1 (and further analysis of the period prior to RIS1 if improved data is made available).
As a caveat, efficiency performance is dependent upon the scope of outputs and the
level of service quality. Our analysis seeks to capture output scope by assessing unit costs, although we recognise that there may be other factors influencing costs. In addition, the Performance Specification for HE is relatively new and is still evolving, and as such further analysis of HE's performance indicators would need to be undertaken in order to understand how the efficiency target should be adjusted to take HE's level of performance into account.
## 7.2. Scope For Further Analysis
We consider that there may be scope for further work in several areas:
Further engagement with HE to understand its costs prior to 2013, and therefore to
understand the extent to which efficiency savings were made during the period 2010 - 2013, as opposed to reductions in scope and/or changes in standards, particularly in relation to maintenance activities.
On a related issue, ORR might wish to engage with HE to improve data comparability
between HE's current data and the Highways Agency's data (i.e. before 2015) - the lack of comparability has created an issue for this piece of work. However, given ORR and HE have agreed performance monitoring statements for RIS1 and beyond, and given that the relevance of the Highways Agency's data (i.e. before 2015) is likely to decline over time, value would likely only be achieved by addressing this issue in the short term.
Given that HE is currently undertaking a significant capex programme during RIS1 (and
beyond), it would be relevant to understand how this impacts operating and maintenance costs. The link between opex and capex is complicated: Some capex may increase opex (e.g. Smart Motorways may increase monitoring and signage requirements), whereas other types may reduce opex (e.g. increased road resurfacing reduces the short term requirement for defect repair).
A detailed analysis in the area of performance metrics would aid consideration of the
need to adjust efficiency targets to take performance into account. The time lag between expenditure and performance indicators is also an important factor: It may be possible for HE to reduce expenditure and not experience the consequences until later years, which would make it seem that HE has made opex efficiencies whereas in fact it has simply reduced work scope.
## Annex A Detailed Explanation Of Approach A.1. Frontier Shift Efficiency And Catch-Up Efficiency
Operating cost efficiencies describe the scenario when a company is able to produce the same outputs by spending less on inputs (or producing more outputs with the same inputs). Even the most efficient companies can be expected to make efficiency improvements over time - for example, by employing new technologies or working processes. Typically, regulators assume that a company is able to achieve a degree of ongoing efficiency (or frontier shift) over time, and this is incorporated within the price control allowance. However, at any one time, some companies will efficient (i.e. at the frontier of efficient performance), whereas others will be lagging behind. For the latter group of companies, they will need to catch-up to the other companies if they themselves wish to be considered as efficient. This is referred to as catch-up efficiency. It is defined as efficiency improvements which are made by adopting current technology or efficient working practices, in order to catch-up to current best practice. The chart below illustrates the difference between ongoing and catch-up efficiency improvements. In general, an efficiency is achieved by a movement downwards, i.e. generating the same level of output (e.g. passenger numbers) for lower costs. At t=1, Company X is at the efficient frontier, whereas Company Y is inefficient. At t=2, Company X is still at the efficient frontier - this change between t=1 and t=2 is *frontier shift* efficiency. At t=2, Company Y is closer to the efficient frontier, therefore it has achieved both (i) the ongoing efficiency improvements in line with the shift in the frontier, and (ii) a degree of *catch-up* efficiency, i.e. getting closer to the frontier level of performance. However, whilst a relatively clear distinction can be made in theory, in practical terms it is often not possible directly to observe or distinguish between frontier shift and catch-up efficiency. There is debate around what assumptions - if any - are appropriate for identifying each component. However, there are academic studies from which simplifying assumptions can be obtained for the purposes of undertaking top-down benchmarking. In particular, academic studies23 have suggested that the majority of total factor productivity growth in the wider economy is frontier shift, with the (smaller) remainder due to catch-up efficiency. This also applies to our analysis of partial factor cost measures, which are also based on the EU KLEMS database. Therefore, any cost efficiency gains observed within these cost measures are likely to be predominantly related to frontier shift.
## A.2. Top-Down Productivity Metrics
We analysed historic UK productivity metrics over different time periods to assess the level of productivity achieved by other industries over time. The aim was to calculate high level productivity metrics for sectors that have similarities with Highways England's opex. We considered several metrics based on UK-wide data across a number of years. For each of these metrics we identified the sectors that would be most similar to the components of HE's opex. We considered a number of different permutations, including the type of measure, the choice of relevant comparator sectors, the time period of analysis, etc. These issues are discussed here. Data source. The EU KLEMS, a database containing productivity data for EU members from 1970 onwards, provided data on variables that were used to develop the productivity metrics. For each country in the database the data is at a sector (or industry) level, e.g. transport and storage. Data releases. There have been three data releases: In 2009 (updated in 2011, using the NACE 1.1 classification system), in 2012 and in 2016 (both using the NACE 2 classification system). The 2009 release has data for both *Gross output* and *Value-added* metrics (explained below), whilst the 2012 and 2016 releases only provide data on a *Value-added* basis. NACE is a statistical classification system for economic activities occurring within the European Union. The sectors under NACE 1.1 are similar - although slightly different - to the sectors under NACE 2. Gross output and value-added TFP. There are two different types of TFP statistics: gross output TFP and value-added TFP. Under the gross output measures of productivity, intermediate inputs are assumed to contribute to productivity growth, whereas their impact is removed in the value-added measure. Generally, gross output measures of TFP growth are the preferred concept for industry specific studies because the role of intermediates is acknowledged, and so the measure better reflects the business decisions taken by companies. However, the value-added measure has the advantage that it is not impacted by changes in the vertical structure of an industry. We have calculated both in our analysis, where data has been available, i.e. Gross output measures could be calculated using the 2009 data, but not using the 2012 or 2016 data. Partial productivity measures. Given that we are assessing the efficiency of HE's operating costs, it is not necessarily appropriate to assess TFP, because TFP is a total factor productivity measure, i.e. it includes capital, as well as labour and intermediate inputs. For the purposes of this study, it is preferable to consider partial productivity measures such as labour productivity and LEMS productivity (which considers labour and intermediate inputs). Variable or constant capital assumption. Partial productivity measures have the potential to create misleading results if substitution between inputs occurs. For example, capital substitution (automation) could results in measured gains in a labour productivity. Therefore, we calculate these partial productivity measures under the assumptions of both variable and constant capital. Selection of comparators. The EU KLEMS website provides documents which contain a very detailed explanation of the types of activities contained within each of the sectors. We reviewed this information in detail to determine the likely best comparator sector for each component of HE's opex. In some cases this was relatively straightforward, e.g. under NACE 2, there is a sector entitled Professional, scientific, technical, administrative and support service activities, which is a good proxy for HE's support costs. Choosing comparator sectors is not an exact science, and so judgement was required in some cases.
| Weight | Rationale | EU KLEMS comparator |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
| used | | |
| Construction | 39% | Includes "asphalt paving of roads, road painting and other |
| marking, and installation of crash barriers, traffic signs and | | |
| the like". Likely to be a reasonable proxy for the | | |
| maintenance and renewals components of resource | | |
| expenditure, and possibly some aspects of traffic | | |
| management. | | |
| Transportation and | | |
| storage | | |
| 30% | Includes the "operation of roads, bridges, tunnels", etc. | |
| Used as a proxy for general operations and traffic | | |
| management. | | |
| 19% | Includes "legal, accounting, head office activities, | |
| advertising, employment activities, office admin and | | |
| business support". Used as a proxy for HE's support costs. | | |
| Professional, scientific, | | |
| technical, administrative | | |
| and support service | | |
| activities | | |
| 11% | Includes repairs/maintenance. Therefore, along with | |
| construction, likely to be a good proxy for the maintenance | | |
| and renewals components of resource expenditure. | | |
| Other manufacturing; | | |
| repair and installation of | | |
| machinery and | | |
| equipment | | |
Given that judgement was necessary when selecting comparator sectors, we ran a sensitivity on the weightings ('Sensitivity 1'). In this sensitivity, we increased the weight on the sector entitled "Other manufacturing; repair and installation of machinery and equipment", and reduced the weight on the "Construction" sector. This is because the renewals/maintenance components of resource expenditure are related to light repairs. Therefore, whilst the construction sector is likely to be relevant to some aspects of resource expenditure, it is most applicable to capex enhancements/renewals. The impact of this sensitivity on the weightings is shown below. The key changes are highlighted in bold.
##
| Sector | Weightings |
|----------------------------|---------------|
| Base case | Sensitivity 1 |
| Construction | 39% |
| Transportation and storage | 30% |
| 19% | 19% |
| service activities | |
| 11% | 22% |
| equipment | |
ANNEX B presents full results for our benchmarks for changes in productivity and cost efficiency. Overall, the sensitivity has a noticeable, although not hugely significant impact on the level the changes in productivity/cost efficiency. Time period of analysis. Productivity is a highly cyclical variable which shows marked variation over the business/economic cycle. In general it is pro-cyclical, as productivity growth tends to accelerate during periods of economic expansion and decelerate during periods of recession.25 Hence it is standard practice to consider TFP growth over complete economic cycles. Consistent with our previous work for ORR,26 we consider the following to be complete business cycles, reckoned as a point of zero output gap to another point of zero output gap, including both a peak and a trough. The business cycles since 1972 are, by this definition 1972 - 1978, 1978 - 1986, 1986 - 1997, and 1997 - 2006. This is based on the Office of Budgetary Responsibility's (OBR) data on the output gap,27 shown in the chart below.
Given that the 2016 EU KLEMS data release includes data up to 2014, we considered whether it would be appropriate to include this latest data. We used OBR's latest data to review estimates of the output gap in recent years. As shown by the chart below, the output gap was slightly below (although close to) zero in 2014. Therefore, when using the 2016 EU KLEMS data, we also include the period 2006 - 2014 as the most recent business cycle in our analysis. However, given that it may not precisely be a full business cycle, and because this was a period of highly unusual economic conditions, the estimate for this period may not be as precise as for other periods in our analysis.
We used the following time periods:
2016 data release: 2006-2014 (1 business cycle); and 1998-2014 (2 business cycles). 2012 data release: 1997-2006 (1 business cycle); and 1986-2006 (2 business cycles).
2009 data release: 1997-2006 (1 business cycle); 1986-2006 (2 business cycles). 1978-2006 (3 business cycles); and 1972-2006 (4 business cycles).
Our base case **is 1998-2014** (2 business cycles) using the 2016 data, as it uses the most recent data, and does not focus solely on the period 2006-2014 which was unusual from an economic perspective, i.e. due to the global recession.
## A.3. Top-Down Unit Cost Metric: Ruoe A.3.1. Data Collection
Building on our dataset that we have developed from previous reports on operating efficiency, we refined the existing data, added new comparator sectors and collected new data. Table 7.3 below sets out the new data that was collected within this project, including both new comparator industries, as well as industries from our previous work where existing data has been brought up to date.
| Comparator | Years | Input Type | Source | Output Measure |
|--------------------------|----------------------|-----------------|----------------|-------------------|
| Used | | | | |
| Department | for | 2006/07 - | | |
| 2014/15 | | | | |
| Output | | | | |
| Measure | Transport Website | | | |
| Highways England | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Total Opex | Received | directly | | |
| Vehicle km's and | | | | |
| lane km's | | | | |
| | | | | |
| 2009/10 - | | | | |
| 2015/16 | from | Highways | | |
| England | | | | |
| All | Published | accounts | Airports (All) | 2000/01 - |
| 2014/15 | and annual reports | | | |
| Passenger | | | | |
| numbers | | | | |
| Passenger | train | Network Rail | 2011/12 - | |
| 2015/16 | | | | |
| Output | | | | |
| Measures | | | | |
| NRT Data Portal, ORR | | | | |
| Website | km | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | 2006/07 - | | | |
| 2013/14 | | | | |
| Controllable | | | | |
| Opex | | | | |
| Network Rail | | | | |
| Regulatory Accounts | | | | |
| | 2014/15 | Total Opex | Network Rail | |
| Regulatory Accounts | | | | |
| Transport Scotland | 1993/94 - | | | |
| 2012/13 | | | | |
| Output | | | | |
| Measure | | | | |
| Scottish Transport | | | | |
| Statistics | | | | |
| Vehicle km's | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | 2006/07 - | | | |
| 2015/16 | | | | |
| Total Opex | Transport Scotland | | | |
| Annual Report | | | | |
| Water and Sewerage | | | | |
| (England and Wales) | | | | |
| 2011/12 - | | | | |
| 2012/13 | | | | |
| All | Ofwat Website | Water delivered | | |
| and properties | | | | |
| billed | | | | |
| Water and Sewerage | | | | |
| (Scotland) | | | | |
| 2010/11 - | | | | |
| 2015/16 | | | | |
| All | Regulatory Accounts, | | | |
| WICS Website | | | | |
| Water delivered | | | | |
| and population | | | | |
| connected | | | | |
| Electricity Transmission | 2011/12 - | | | |
| 2014/15 | | | | |
| Output | | | | |
| Measure | | | | |
| DECC Energy Trends | Electricity | | | |
| demand | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | 2002/03 - | | | |
| 2015/16 | | | | |
| Total Opex | NGET Regulatory | | | |
| Accounts | | | | |
| Electricity Distribution | 2010/11 - | | | |
| 2014/15 | | | | |
| Customer | | | | |
| numbers | | | | |
| All | DPCR5 Performance | | | |
| Report, Ofgem | | | | |
| Website | | | | |
| Comparator | Years | Input Type |
|-------------------|-------------------|---------------|
| Used | | |
| Gas Distribution | 2007/08 - | |
| 2015/16 | | |
| Output | | |
| Measure | | |
| Customer | | |
| numbers | | |
| Received directly | | |
| from Frontier | | |
| Economics | | |
| | 2013/14 - | |
| 2015/16 | | |
| Total Opex | RIIO DD1 Model, | |
| Ofgem Website | | |
| Retail Estate | | |
| Management | | |
| 2006/07 - | | |
| 2014/15 | | |
| All | Intu Annual | |
| Accounts | | |
| Number of | | |
| shopping centres | | |
| Staff numbers | NHS England | 2001/02 - |
| 2015/16 | | |
| All | Individual Trusts | |
| Annual Accounts | | |
| NATS | 2006/07 - | |
| 2015/16 | | |
| All | Annual Report and | |
| Accounts | | |
| UK flights | | |
| handled | | |
For non-GB comparators (some airports), exchange rate adjustments were made, whereby we converted foreign currency figures into pounds using annual average spot exchange rates, before secondly adjusting these new figures for inflation, using their domestic CPI rate. This allowed for consistent comparison across the sectors, regardless of the country the comparator resides in. There were several comparators whom we had to exclude some years from our analysis due to unresolvable issues, which are explained in the table below.
| Reason | Comparator |
|------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
| Sector | |
| Region | Excluded |
| Year/s | |
| Airports | Germany |
| which we cannot find an explanation, despite having | |
| undertaken further research. | |
| Electricity | |
| Distribution | |
| GB | 2000/01 |
| in this year, which affects a large number of companies. | |
| | |
| in this year as a result of a reporting change. | |
| Electricity | |
| Transmission | |
| GB | 2000/01 |
| started to include the whole of Great Britain in their | |
| reported electricity volumes (in line with Oxera 2008). | |
| | |
| (by c. 30%) for which we cannot find an explanation, | |
| despite having undertaken further research. | |
| Water and | |
| Sewerage | |
| England | |
| & Wales | |
| 2005/06 | "….reported operating expenditure no longer includes cost |
| for recovering pension deficit…. at the same time, | |
| companies are dealing with volatile energy costs - which | |
| have risen overall since price limits were set…' Ofwat, | |
| 2006: 'Water and sewerage services unit costs and relative | |
| efficiency', December, p.3. | |
## A.3.2. Selection Of Comparators
In this project, we set out the development of efficiency in a number of sectors of industry over time, using them as comparators to Highways England's own possible future efficiency development. The following section will detail the selection process of which comparator industries which have been used for that purpose.
## Comparator Criteria
Six main criteria were applied during the process for selecting Highways England's comparators, with regards to operating costs/efficiencies, which are detailed below.
*Similar activities:* Our analysis in this project is focused on the efficiency of operational
expenditure therefore, bodies that undertake relatively similar operational activities to Highways England are likely to be better suited comparators.
*Similar assets:* Similarly, industries with a similar asset base are likely to experience
similar operational requirements. HE operates the SRN, so other industries that operate large-scale infrastructural networks are likely to be good comparators.
*Similar rate of technological progress:* Highways England's operations exhibit some
progression in technology over time however, the requirement to physically attend accidents and maintain the roads are areas with relatively slow technical progress and high labour intensity. Appropriate comparators for HE are those that have a consistent service offering, with some scope for technological progress.
*Similar level of competition:* Highways England - and previous the Highways Agency
- is a monopoly operator of the SRN, but experiences administrative pressure to reduce operating costs. Therefore, it will be most appropriate to compare it against other regulated monopoly companies.
*Similar policy environment:* Given that Highways England is now regulated by the
Highways Monitor, it would be more relevant to consider companies within other regulated industries.
*Data availability/consistency over time:* In reality the analysis is constrained by what
data is available. It is important that available data is sufficiently consistent over time.
## Assessment Results
We used a three level qualitative assessment metric as follows, with our results summarised in the table below.
Strongly meets criteria =
Meets criteria to some extent =
Does not meet criteria =
| Sector | Activities | Assets | Technology | Competition | Policy |
|---------------------|---------------|-----------|---------------|----------------|-----------|
| Transport Scotland | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Rail Networks | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Energy Networks | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Water Networks | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Telecoms | | | | | |
| Networks | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Airports | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Air Traffic Control | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Hospitals | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Manufacturers | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Retailers | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Following discussions with HE and ORR, we agreed to consider the following as comparators:
Transport Scotland Network Rail Energy Networks Water and Sewerage Networks Airports Air Traffic Control (although this is a more marginal comparator given it is relatively
asset light)
We also considered whether it would be possible to add some other highways comparators (e.g. M6 toll, Welsh Assembly roads, TfL). However, due to a lack of available data, this was not possible.
## A.3.3. Calculations Calculation Of Real Unit Operating Expenditure Metric
The change in RUOE is the percentage change in real unit operating expenditure (costs) from one year to the next. The most simplistic calculation would be to calculate the change in RUOE between the year t+1 and the year t. However, where economies of scale are present within an industry (i.e. average costs fall as the scale of production increases), RUOE may fall simply because outputs have risen. In this case, the fall in RUOE is not a genuine efficiency saving. To correct for this effect, we use a *Corrected RUOE* in year t, which takes into account the growth in outputs.
𝑅𝑂𝐸𝑡+1
∆𝑅𝑈𝑂𝐸𝑡,𝑡+1 = (
𝑂𝑡+1 ÷ 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑅𝑈𝑂𝐸𝑡) −1
(1+∆𝑂𝑡,𝑡+1×𝜀)
Where: 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑅𝑈𝑂𝐸𝑡= 𝑅𝑂𝐸𝑡× (
𝑂𝑡+1
)
## Economies Of Scale Values
Adjusting for 'economies of scale' or the 'volume effect' was undertaken during the RUOE analysis in order to account for opex reductions that may occur as a result of operations growth, as oppose to genuine improvements in efficiency. This allows the results to take into account the marginal cost increases that arise through marginal increases in output, and thus provide a more accurate picture of the efficiency achieved by Highways England and its comparators. The adjustment was achieved through the application of a cost elasticity value, specific to each industry, to the RUOE calculations. These cost elasticities represent the percentage change in costs that would arise from a one percent increase in output. Table 7.6 below sets out the cost elasticity value used for each sector within our analysis. For consistency, most of these are the same as the figures used in our previous opex efficiency work (e.g. for CAA in 2013), whilst we have added values for industries/sectors added since that work.
| Sector | Elasticity | Source |
|------------------------------------|---------------|----------------------------------------------|
| Roads (lane km) | 0.84 | Krause (1981) - see below. |
| Roads (vehicle km) | 0.3 | |
| CATRIN | | |
| project report (2008) - see below. | | |
| Retail Estate Management | 0.5 | Keh and Chu (2003) |
| Air Traffic Control | 0.95 | Pels, et al (2002) |
| Healthcare | 0.76 | Marini and Miraldo (2009) |
| Airports | 0.5 | SDG (2012) and regulatory precedent |
| Electricity Transmission | 0.721 | Burns and Weyman-Jones (1994) |
| Electricity Distribution | 0.721 | Burns and Weyman-Jones (1994) |
| Gas Transmission | 0.9 | Oxera 2008 assumption: TFP elasticity figure |
| Gas Distribution | 0.9 | Oxera 2008 assumption: TFP elasticity figure |
| Rail | 0.2 | CEPA assumption from various sources |
| Water and Sewerage | 0.96 | CC (2000) |
Our cost elasticity assumptions for HE were developed as follows:
**Lane km**. A study by Kraus28 estimated that returns to scale in urban highway network
capital costs (with respect to highway length and number of intersections) to be 0.84. Whilst our work is focused on HE's resource expenditure (opex), we consider that this estimate is reasonable, on the basis that a number of components of opex will need to rise as lane length increases, e.g. maintenance, inspections related to renewals, etc.
**Vehicle km**. A European Commission-funded report as part of the CATRIN29 project
contains a number of road cost elasticity estimates (with respect to vehicle km) based on different academic studies. The cost elasticities in relation to operations and maintenance costs are as follows:
o Schreyer et al. 2002, Switzerland motorways and main roads, cost elasticity of
operational maintenance costs with respect to vehicle km = 0.69.
o Haraldsson 2006, Sweden all roads, cost elasticity of operations costs with
respect to vehicle km = 0.05.
o Haraldsson 2006, Sweden all roads, cost elasticity of maintenance costs with
respect to heavy goods vehicle km = 0.58.
o Bak 2006, Poland national roads, cost elasticity of maintenance costs with
respect to vehicle km = 0.12.
o Haraldsson 2007, Sweden all paved roads, cost elasticity of operations costs
with respect to vehicle km = -0.05.
o Haraldsson 2007, Sweden all paved roads, cost elasticity of maintenance costs
with respect to heavy goods vehicle km = 0.27.
These elasticity estimates are across different countries, and relate to varying activities, e.g. operations or maintenance. As a high level assumption for this study, we have chosen 0.3 as the cost elasticity to use in our study. This is approximately the average of the point estimates stated above.
## A.4. Top-Down Cost Metric: Lems And Labour Cost Measures A.4.1. Introduction
The LEMS and labour cost measures calculate changes in input costs (per unit of output) for the UK sectors deemed most similar to HE. The LEMS cost measure includes both labour and intermediate inputs, whilst the labour cost measure only includes labour. As per our topdown productivity measures (discussed earlier), we identified the sectors that would be most similar to the components of HE's opex. These partial factor cost measures calculate the percentage annual changes in operating costs over time (rather than the level at a point in time). They combine our top-down productivity metrics (see earlier), with variations in input prices, to provide a measure of *cost* efficiency, i.e. taking into account changes in productivity and in factor input prices. LEMS cost measure. The LEMS cost measure calculates the average annual percentage change in input costs (per unit of output) for the UK sectors deemed most similar to HE. The LEMS cost measure includes both labour and intermediate inputs. It calculates the percentage change in operating costs, rather than the level at a point in time. It combines changes in LEMS productivity (from our top-down productivity metrics, presented earlier) with variations in input prices, to provide a measure of cost efficiency. We show reductions in unit costs (i.e. efficiency *gains*) as *positive* numbers. Whilst this may appear slightly counterintuitive, it has been done to achieve consistency with the top-down productivity metrics, where a positive number represents a productivity *gain*. Labour (L) cost measure. The labour cost measure calculates the average annual percentage change in labour input costs (per unit of output) for the UK sectors deemed most similar to HE. It is effectively the same as the LEMS cost measure, except that it only takes into account labour inputs, rather than labour and intermediate inputs. As noted above, we show reductions in unit costs (i.e. efficiency *gains*) as *positive* numbers, for consistency with our top-down productivity metrics.
## A.4.2. Methodology
Given that these cost measures are based on the top-down productivity metrics (see formulas), our approach was consistent with these productivity metrics, in relation to: the data source (EU KLEMS); the data releases used (2009, 2012 and 2016); the application of either variable or constant capital assumption; the selection of comparators and their weightings (including sensitivities); the time period of analysis; and our choice of base case. These cost measures are conceptually similar to the RUOE measure (above), although there are a few differences:
Like the top-down productivity measures, these costs measures are derived from data
in the EU KLEMS database, which is comprised of industries across the whole economy, and therefore will include sectors which are relatively competitive. In
contrast, our selected RUOE comparators feature mostly regulated industries where companies have a degree of market power. Companies in both sectors will have potential for *frontier-shift efficiency*, but there is likely to be an additional catch-up efficiency component for regulated companies. Therefore, on average, we might expect these cost measures to exhibit lower efficiencies than RUOE.
RUOE does not make any adjustment for capital substitution. For industries where
capital growth has been significant (relative to growth of labour and intermediate inputs), the cost efficiencies implied by RUOE will therefore be higher. In these costs measures, we control for this by showing the results both with variable capital, and under a constant capital assumption.
## A.4.3. Frontier Shift And Catch-Up Efficiency
Whilst we are not required in this study to provide a specific estimate for frontier shift and catch-up efficiency, this distinction is relative to the extent that we need to interpret the results of the RUOE analysis and the partial factor cost measures. Following our discussion in Annex A.1, we assume that the majority of any reductions in unit costs within the partial factor cost measures will due to frontier shift, and only a small amount of catch-up, because the industries tend to be relatively competitive. (In contrast, our RUOE analysis contains a number of regulated industries where we would expect higher potential for catch-up, due to the lower competitive pressures.)
## A.4.4. Presentation Of Results
We show reductions in unit costs (i.e. efficiency *gains*) as *positive* numbers. Whilst this may appear slightly counterintuitive, it has been done to achieve consistency with the top-down productivity metrics, where a positive number represents a productivity *gain*.
## A.5. Formulas A.5.1. Productivity Metrics
For productivity metrics: TFP is total factor productivity, **LEMS** represents intermediate inputs (Labour, Energy, Materials and Services), **LEMSP** is LEMS productivity, LP is labour productivity, **var K** stands for variable capital, **con K** stands for constant capital, TFPGO is gross output TFP, TFPVA is value-added TFP, output volume is denoted Y, labour volume is denoted L, capital volume is denoted K, volume of intermediate inputs is denoted M, GO is the value of gross output, LAB is expenditure on labour, CAP is expenditure on capital, II is expenditure in intermediate inputs, and 𝒔𝑳, 𝒔𝑲 and 𝒔𝑴 are labour, capital and intermediate input's share of value respectively.
## Tfp Go
$$T F P_{G O}=Y_{G O}\left/_{\left(L^{s_{L}}\times K^{s_{K}}\times M^{s_{M}}\right)}\right.$$
## Tfp Va
$$T F P_{V A}={\cal Y}_{V A}\Big/(L^{s_{L}}\times K^{s_{K}})$$
Where: ∆𝑌
𝑉𝐴 = ∆𝑌
𝐺𝑂 - II. i.e. the value of output produced in a sector minus expenditure on intermediate inputs used in their production.
## Lemsp Var K
∆𝐿𝐸𝑀𝑆𝑃
𝑣𝑎𝑟𝐾 = ∆𝑌
𝐺𝑂−𝑠𝐿2. ∆𝐿−𝑠𝑀2. ∆𝑀
𝐿𝐴𝐵
𝐼𝐼
Where: 𝑠𝐿2 =
(𝐿𝐴𝐵+𝐼𝐼) and 𝑠𝑀2 =
(𝐿𝐴𝐵+𝐼𝐼)
LEMSP con K
𝐾
∆𝐿𝐸𝑀𝑆𝑃
𝑐𝑜𝑛𝐾 = ∆𝑇𝐹𝑃
𝐺𝑂 / (1 −
𝐺𝑂)
LP var K ∆𝐿𝑃
𝑣𝑎𝑟𝐾 = ∆𝑌
𝑉𝐴−∆𝐿
LP con K
𝐾
∆𝐿𝑃
𝑐𝑜𝑛𝐾 = ∆𝑇𝐹𝑃
𝑉𝐴 / (1 −
𝐺𝑂)
## A.5.2. Cost Metrics
For cost measures30: **RUOE** is Real Unit Operating Expenditure; ROE is Real Operating Expenditure; O is the chosen output measure (e.g. lane length); **Corrected RUOE** is RUOE adjusted for economies of scale; **LEMS** represents intermediate inputs (Labour, Energy, Materials and Services), **LEMS cost** is the LEMS cost measure, **L cost** is the labour cost measure, **var K** stands for variable capital, **con K** stands for constant capital, GO is the value of gross output, LAB is expenditure on labour, CAP is expenditure on capital, II is expenditure in intermediate inputs.
## Ruoe
𝑅𝑂𝐸𝑡+1
∆𝑅𝑈𝑂𝐸𝑡,𝑡+1 = (
𝑂𝑡+1 ÷ 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑅𝑈𝑂𝐸𝑡) −1
(1+∆𝑂𝑡,𝑡+1×𝜀)
Where: 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑅𝑈𝑂𝐸𝑡= 𝑅𝑂𝐸𝑡× (
𝑂𝑡+1
)
LEMS cost var K and LEMS cost con K
∆𝐿𝐸𝑀𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑣𝑎𝑟𝐾 = ∆𝑃
𝐿𝐸𝑀𝑆 − ∆𝐿𝐸𝑀𝑆𝑃
𝑣𝑎𝑟𝐾
∆𝐿𝐸𝑀𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑛𝐾 = ∆𝑃
𝐿𝐸𝑀𝑆 − ∆𝐿𝐸𝑀𝑆𝑃
𝑐𝑜𝑛𝐾
Where: ∆𝑃
𝐿𝐸𝑀𝑆= 𝑠𝐿2. (∆𝐿𝐴𝐵−∆𝐿) + 𝑠𝐼𝐼2. (∆𝐼𝐼−∆𝑀)
𝐿𝐴𝐵
𝐼𝑁𝑇
And where: 𝑠𝐿2 =
(𝐿𝐴𝐵+𝐼𝐼) and 𝑠𝐼𝐼2 =
(𝐿𝐴𝐵+𝐼𝐼)
L cost var K and L cost con K
∆𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑣𝑎𝑟𝐾 = ∆𝑃
𝐿 − ∆𝐿𝑃
𝑣𝑎𝑟𝐾
∆𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑛𝐾 = ∆𝑃
𝐿 − ∆𝐿𝑃
𝑐𝑜𝑛𝐾
Where: ∆𝑃
𝐿= ∆𝐿𝐴𝐵−∆𝐿
## Annex B Detailed Analysis B.1. Top Down Productivity Metrics
Below, we show the annual productivity gains calculated using several different benchmarks: Total Factor Productivity using the Gross Output measure (TFP GO); LEMS productivity allowing for variable capital (LEMSP variable K); and LEMS productivity under a constant capital assumption (LEMSP constant K). Below, we show the annual productivity gains calculated using several different benchmarks: Total Factor Productivity using the Value Added measure (TFP VA); Labour productivity allowing for variable capital (LP variable K); and labour productivity under a constant capital assumption (LP constant K).
## B.2. Partial Factor Cost Measures
Below, we show the annual cost efficiency gains calculated using the LEMS cost measure allowing for variable capital (*LEMS cost measure - variable K*); and the LEMS cost measure under an assumption of constant capital (*LEMS cost measure - constant K*).
## Lems Cost Measure - Variable K Lems Cost Measure - Constant K
Below, we show the annual cost efficiency gains calculated using the labour cost measure allowing for variable capital (*L cost measure - variable K*); and the labour cost measure under an assumption of constant capital (*L cost measure - constant K*).
## L Cost - Variable K L Cost - Constant K
| en |
2278-pdf | Number of contests for rape flagged cases - additional data to Disclosure 17 Request In the figures supplied in the response there are two columns per age group, per year.
Given the caveats would it be correct to calculate the total number of contests following a plea of not guilty from columns B and C. In the example of total rape flagged cases for the age group of 10-13 in 2013/14, there are 6 cases convicted after contest with a "% Convicted after Contest" rate of 60%.
Would it therefore be accurate to say that the total number of contests following a plea of not guilty is 10? Response Please refer to the attached table which shows the total number of contests following a not guilty plea, for rape flagged prosecutions. Information Management Unit 020 3357 0899 | en |
3123-pdf |
Statistical Bulletins are prepared by staff in Home Office Statistics under the National Statistics Code of Practice and can be downloaded from both the UK Statistics Authority website and the Home Office website:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk
# Hate Crime, Cyber Security And The Experience Of Crime Among Children: Findings From The 2010/11 British Crime Survey:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/scienceresearch Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11
© Crown Copyright 2012 You may re-use this information (not Kevin Smith (Ed.), Deborah Lader, Jacqueline Hoare and Ivy Lau
including logos) free of charge in
any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government
Licence. To view this licence, visit
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/o pen-government-licence/
or write to the Information Policy
Team, The National Archives, Kew,
London, TW9 4DU or e-mail:
psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk
March 2012 06/12
# Hate Crime, Cyber Security And The Experience Of Crime Among Children: Findings From The 2010/11 British Crime Survey
Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11
Kevin Smith (Ed.), Deborah Lader, Jacqueline Hoare and Ivy Lau
ISSN 1759-7005 ISBN 978 1 84987 728-2 March 2012
## Acknowledgements
This publication and the accompanying web tables have been prepared by staff in the Crime Statistics Programme, which is part of the Home Office Statistics Unit of Home Office Science. The editor and authors are grateful for the support received from: Maya Bhudia, Andrew Britton, Richard Cheeseman, John Flatley, Jennifer Parfrement-Hopkins, Phil Hall, Jenny Innes, Rachel Murphy, Sarah Osborne and Tim Pateman. Special thanks are due to Irene Ogunbor who coordinated the production of the volume. The editor also thanks David Blunt, the Home Office Chief Statistician and Head of Profession for Statistics for his support and guidance during the preparation of this report. Thanks also to colleagues who commented on a draft report during quality assurance of this bulletin and to colleagues in the Communications Development Section who assisted in preparing the report. We would also like to thank staff involved in the work on the British Crime Survey (BCS) at TNS- BMRB, the interviewers working on the BCS and members of the public who kindly agreed to take part in the survey.
Further information This publication should be read in conjunction with the User Guide to Home Office Crime Statistics, a useful reference guide with explanatory notes regarding the issues and classifications which are key to the production and presentation of the crime statistics: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crimeresearch/user-guide-crime-statistics/ Copies of other Home Office publications are available from the Home Office Science Internet pages: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/research-statistics/
The dates of forthcoming publications are pre-announced and can be found via the UK National Statistics Publication Hub: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/index.html For further information about the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime statistics, please email crimestats@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or write to:
Home Office Statistics, 5th Floor, Peel Building, 2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF
Home Office Responsible Statistician David Blunt, Chief Statistician and Head of Profession for Statistics Contact via crimestats@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics: meet identified user needs; are well explained and readily accessible; are produced according to sound methods; and are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest. Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed. This statistical bulletin is produced to the highest professional standards and is free from political interference. It has been produced by statisticians working in the Home Office Statistics Unit in accordance with the Home Office's Statement of Compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics, which covers our policy on revisions and other matters. The Home Office Statistics Unit works under the direct line management of the Home Office Chief Statistician, who reports to the National Statistician with respect to all professional statistical matters. From April 2012 publication of Crime Statistics bulletins will transfer to the Office for National Statistics.
## Introduction
This bulletin is the third and final in a series of supplementary volumes that accompany the main annual Home Office Statistical Bulletin, 'Crime in England and Wales 2010/11' (Chaplin *et al.*, 2011).
These supplementary volumes report on additional analysis not included in the main annual publication. This bulletin covers three topic areas. These are:
## The Extent Of And Perceptions Towards Hate Crime
This chapter contains analysis of figures from the 2009/10 and 2010/11 British Crime Surveys, including extent and reporting of hate crime, its effects on victims and victim satisfaction with the police. It also looks at a range of public perception measures relating to hate crime. Questions were asked of adults aged 16 or over in England and Wales.
## Use Of The Internet And Cyber Security
This chapter contains information from the 2010/11 British Crime Survey on levels of internet use, concerns people may have about using the internet, and any measures taken to protect personal details when using the internet. Variations by age and sex are highlighted throughout the chapter. Questions were asked of adults aged 16 or over in England and Wales.
## Experimental Statistics On The Experience Of Crime Among Children Aged 10 To 15
This chapter is based on data collected from 10 to 15 year olds who took part in the 2010/11 British Crime Survey. Questions were asked of children in England and Wales who had experienced a crime about the circumstances of the incident, any details on the offender(s) and their views of the incident. Experimental statistics is a designation for statistics still in a development phase.
## Conventions Used In Figures And Tables Table Abbreviations
'0'
indicates no response in that particular category or less than 0.5% (this does not apply when
percentages are presented to one decimal point).
'n/a' indicates that the BCS question was not applicable or not asked in that particular year.
'-'
indicates that the BCS data are not reported because the unweighted base is less than 50.
'**'
indicates for BCS that the change is statistically significant at the five per cent level. Where an
apparent change over time is not statistically significant this is noted in the text.
## Unweighted Base
All BCS percentages and rates presented in the tables are based on data weighted to compensate for differential non response. Tables show the unweighted base which represents the number of people/households interviewed in the specified group.
## Percentages
Row or column percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Most BCS tables present cell percentages where the figures refer to the percentage of people/households who have the attribute being discussed and the complementary percentage, to add to 100%, is not shown. A percentage may be quoted in the text for a single category that is identifiable in the tables only by summing two or more component percentages. In order to avoid rounding errors, the percentage has been recalculated for the single category and therefore may differ by one percentage point from the sum of the percentages derived from the tables.
## Year-Labels On Bcs Figures And Tables
Year-labels on BCS figures and tables identify the BCS year of interview. Respondents' experience of crime relates to the 12 full months prior to interview (i.e. a moving reference period).
## 'No Answers' (Missing Values)
All BCS analysis excludes don't know/refusals unless otherwise specified.
## Numbers Of Bcs Incidents
Estimates are rounded to the nearest 10,000.
## List Of Figures
| Chapter 1 | The extent of and perceptions towards hate crime | 13 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Figure 1.1 | Victim satisfaction with the police, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS 21 | |
| Figure 1.2 | Emotional impact of hate crime incident, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS 22 | |
| Figure 1.3 | Perceptions of crime by ethnic group, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS | 24 |
| | | |
| Chapter 2 | Use of the internet and cyber security 41 | |
| Figure 2.1 | Types of activities that the internet is used for among internet users aged 16 | |
| and over, 2010/11 BCS 44 | | |
| Figure 2.2 | Variation by age in use of activities among internet users aged 16 and over, | |
| 2010/11 BCS | 44 | |
| Figure 2.3 | Proportion of internet users aged 16 and over taking measures to protect | |
| personal details online, 2010/11 BCS 47 | | |
| Figure 2.4 | Proportion of internet users aged 16 and over who experienced a computer | |
| virus in the last 12 months by age, sex and internet usage, 2010/11 BCS | 51 | |
| | | |
| Chapter 3 | Experimental statistics on the experience of crime among children aged | |
| 10 to 15 | 65 | |
| Figure 3.1 | Proportion of violent incidents experienced by children and adults by timing of | |
| incident, 2010/11 BCS 68 | | |
| Figure 3.2 | Proportion of violent incidents experienced by children and adults by | |
| relationship to the offender, 2010/11 BCS | 69 | |
| Figure 3.3 | Variation in violence victimisation rate among children aged 10 to 15 by | |
| household income, 2010/11 BCS 74 | | |
| | | |
## List Of Tables
| Chapter 1 | The extent of and perceptions towards hate crime | 13 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Table 1a | Percentage of incidents that were identified as hate crime by type of incident | |
| | | |
| | 18 | |
| Table 1.01 | Number of incidents of hate crime and all BCS crime, by monitored strand | 27 |
| Table 1.02 | Incidence rate of hate crime and all BCS crime, by monitored strand 27 | |
| Table 1.03 | Proportion of adults and households who were victims of hate crime and all BCS | |
| crime, by monitored strand 28 | | |
| Table 1.04 | Proportion of adults who were victims of hate crime and all BCS crime, by personal | |
| characteristics | 29 | |
| Table 1.05 | Proportion of adults and households who were victims of hate crime and all BCS | |
| crime, by household and area characteristics 30 | | |
| Table 1.06 | Proportion of adults who were victims of racially-motivated hate crime, by ethnic | |
| group | 31 | |
| Table 1.07 | Proportion of adults who were victims of religion-motivated hate crime, by ethnic group | |
| and religion 32 | | |
| Table 1.08 | Proportion of adults who were victims of sexual-orientation-motivated hate crime, by | |
| age and sex 32 | | |
| Table 1.09 | Proportion of adults who were victims of disability-motivated hate crime, by | |
| employment status and presence of long-standing illness or disability | 33 | |
| Table 1.10 | Number of times victims were victimised in previous year 33 | |
| Table 1.11 | Proportion of BCS crime incidents reported to the police | 34 |
| Table 1.12 | Reasons for not reporting crime incident to the police 34 | |
| Table 1.13 | Satisfaction with police handling of crime incidents | 35 |
| Table 1.14 | Emotional impact of crime incident | 35 |
| Table 1.15 | Perceptions of racially-motivated hate crime, by ethnic group 36 | |
| Table 1.16 | Age- and gender-motivated hate crime 37 | |
| Table 1.17 | Proportion of adults who were victims of age-motivated hate crime, by age and | |
| sex 38 | | |
| Table 1.18 | Proportion of adults who were victims of gender-motivated hate crime, by age and | |
| sex 39 | | |
| Chapter 2 | Use of the internet and cyber security 41 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Table 2a | Negative experiences in the last year among internet users aged 16 and over 51 |
| Table 2.01 | Proportion of adults using the internet in the last year, by age and sex |
| Table 2.02 | Frequency of internet use among adults who used the internet in the last year, by age |
| and sex 55 | |
| Table 2.03 | Internet activities among adults who used the internet in the last year, by age, sex and |
| internet usage 56 | |
| Table 2.04 | Proportion of adults who had used the internet in the last year for each activity who |
| were worried about the security of personal details entered online for that activity ... 57 | |
| Table 2.05 | Proportion of adults who had used the internet in the last year for each activity who |
| were worried about the security of personal details entered online for that activity, by | |
| age, sex and internet usage 58 | |
| Table 2.06 | Measures taken by adults who used the internet in the last year to protect personal |
| details online, by age, sex and internet usage 59 | |
| Table 2.07a | Reasons for not using the internet for buying goods or services among adults who |
| used the internet in the last year, by age, sex and internet usage 60 | |
| Table 2.07b | Reasons for not using the internet for online banking or managing finances among |
| adults who used the internet in the last year, by age, sex and internet usage | 61 |
| Table 2.07c | Reasons for not using the internet for online government services among adults who |
| used the internet in the last year, by age, sex and internet usage 62 | |
| Table 2.08 | Negative experiences in the last year among internet users, by age, sex and internet |
| usage 63 | |
| | |
| Chapter 3 | Experimental statistics on the experience of crime among children aged |
| 10 to 15 | 65 |
| Table 3.01 | Experimental statistics: Where incidents experienced by children aged 10 to 15 took |
| place 76 | |
| Table 3.02 | Experimental statistics: Timing of when incidents experienced by children aged 10 to |
| 15 took place | 76 |
| Table 3.03 | Experimental statistics: Offender characteristics in incidents experienced by children |
| aged 10 to 15 | 77 |
| Table 3.04 | Experimental statistics: What injuries were sustained in violent incidents experienced |
| by children aged 10 to 15 78 | |
| Table 3.05 | Experimental statistics: What weapons were used in violent incidents experienced by |
| children aged 10 to 15 78 | |
| Table 3.06 | Experimental statistics: Perceptions of incidents experienced by children aged 10 to |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 15 79 | |
| Table 3.07 | Experimental statistics: Who incidents experienced by children aged 10 to 15 were |
| reported to | 79 |
| Table 3.08 | Experimental statistics: What items were stolen in thefts experienced by children aged |
| 10 to 15 80 | |
| Table 3.09 | Experimental statistics: Proportion of children aged 10 to 15 who experienced |
| victimisation in the last year, by personal characteristics | 81 |
| Table 3.10 | Experimental statistics: Proportion of children aged 10 to 15 who experienced |
| victimisation in the last year, by household and area characteristics | 82 |
| | |
## 1 The Extent Of And Perceptions Towards Hate Crime Deborah Lader 1.1 Summary
This chapter presents findings from the 2009/10 and 2010/11 British Crime Survey (BCS). Data from the two survey years have been combined to provide more robust estimates of hate crime. Hate crime is any crime which is perceived as having been motivated (entirely or partially) by a hostility or prejudice to a personal characteristic or perceived personal characteristic, such as ethnicity or religion.
The 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS showed that 0.5 per cent of adults were victims of hate crime1 in
the 12 months prior to interview. A similar percentage were victims of personal hate crime and household hate crime (0.2%). In comparison, 22 per cent of adults were victims of at least one
BCS crime overall.
The monitored strand most commonly perceived by the victim as an offender's motivation for
committing a crime was the victim's race (accounting for an estimated 136,000 incidents on average per year).
Hate crime was more likely to be repeatedly experienced for household crime offences than for
personal crime offences; 37 per cent of victims of household hate crime had been victimised more than once, compared with 19 per cent of victims of personal hate crime. This difference is larger than that found in the BCS overall (29% of victims of BCS household crime were repeat victims, compared with 21% of victims of BCS personal crime).
The police were more likely to come to know about hate crime than BCS crime overall; 49 per
cent of incidents of hate crime came to the attention of the police compared with 39 per cent of incidents of BCS crime overall.
Fifty-three per cent of hate crime victims were satisfied with the police handling of the hate
crime incident (33% were very satisfied and 21% were fairly satisfied) and 45 per cent were not
satisfied. Victims of hate crime were less satisfied with this police contact than victims of BCS crime overall: 53 per cent and 69 per cent respectively were satisfied (very or fairly).
In only 45 per cent of incidents of hate crime, victims thought the police took the matter as
seriously as they should, compared with 65 per cent of incidents of BCS crime overall.
Victims of hate crime were less likely to think the police had treated them fairly or with respect,
compared with victims of BCS crime overall. For example, in 63 per cent of hate crime incidents victims thought the police treated them fairly, compared with 79 per cent of incidents of BCS crime overall. Similarly, in 76 per cent of incidents of hate crime, victims thought the police treated them with respect, compared with 89 per cent of incidents of BCS crime overall.
Victims of hate crime were more likely than victims of BCS crime overall to say they were
emotionally affected by the incident (92% and 86% respectively).
## 1.2 Introduction
This is the first Home Office Statistics publication to produce information on hate crime, although breakdowns of overall crime and individual crime types have been shown by different characteristics
(age, sex, ethnicity, etc.) in previous publications (Chaplin *et al.*, 2011, Botherby *et al*., 20112).
Challenge it, Report it, Stop it: The Government's Plan to Tackle Hate Crime3 sets out the challenges faced in tackling hate crime. It brings together activity by a wide range of Government Departments -
working with local agencies and voluntary sector organisations, as well as with its Independent Advisory Group on Hate Crime - to meet three key objectives to: prevent hate crime happening in the first place; increase reporting and victims' access to support; and improve the operational response to hate crimes.
In 2007, the police, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Prison Service (now the National Offender Management Service) and other agencies that make up the criminal justice system agreed a common definition of 'hate crime' and five 'strands' that would be monitored centrally:
'Hate crime is defined as any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.' The five monitored strands are:
disability; gender-identity; race; religion/faith; and
sexual orientation.4
These characteristics are referred to as equality strands. Primarily, this was to ensure a consistent working definition to allow accurate recording and monitoring. Crimes based on hostility to age, gender, or appearance, for example, can also be hate crimes, although they are not centrally monitored. Hate crime can take many forms including:
physical attacks such as assault, grievous bodily harm and murder, damage to property,
offensive graffiti and arson;
threat of attack including offensive letters, abusive or obscene telephone calls, groups hanging
around to intimidate, and unfounded, malicious complaints; and
verbal abuse, insults or harassment − taunting, offensive leaflets and posters, abusive gestures,
dumping of rubbish outside homes or through letterboxes, and bullying at school or in the workplace.
Whether a crime or incident is hate-related has a subjective element as it relies on an individual's perceptions and reporting of the incident and so what is included or excluded may vary between individuals.
The police have been recording reported hate crimes since 1 April 2008 for the five monitored strands listed above. Figures (covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland for 2009) were first published by The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in 2010, and figures for 2010 were published in September 2011.5 Further details can be found in Section 1.10.
## Measuring Hate Crime On The British Crime Survey
The British Crime Survey (BCS) is a face-to-face victimisation survey in which people resident in households in England and Wales are asked about their experiences of crime in the 12 months prior to interview.6 Due to the low volume of hate crime offences the figures are too unreliable to report for a single year of the BCS. Data from two survey years (2009/10 and 2010/11) have therefore been combined to give more robust estimates by increasing the number of incidents available for analysis. Hence for the combined 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS, the analysis includes incidents experienced by respondents between April 2008 and February 2011. It should be noted that figures reported in this chapter are 12-month averages of the estimates from the two survey years and so are comparable with 12-month BCS estimates presented elsewhere in this and other Home Office Statistics bulletins.
Given this longer reference period, there are limitations to how findings can be generalised to the population as a whole, so the findings should be used as a guide to the level of hate crime. The BCS question on whether an incident was motivated by race was first introduced in 1988, and has been kept as a separate question since then. BCS information on racially-motivated hate crime has been previously published in the Ministry of Justice's publication on Race and the Criminal Justice System.7
Religiously-motivated hate crime used to be asked about as a separate question (in the 2005/06 and 2006/07 BCS) but was merged into the main BCS question when further hate crime questions referring to sexual orientation, age and disability were introduced in 2007/08. In 2009/10, gender was added as a motivation, and transgender or gender identity was added as a motivation to the 2011/12
survey; hence results are not yet available. Details of the questions are in Box 1.1 overleaf.
Police recorded crime provides good coverage of well-reported crimes committed against the public and enable police force level analysis of hate crime. The BCS crime estimates are higher than the number of crimes recorded by the police as the survey captures offences that are not reported to or recorded by the police. Together the BCS and police recorded crime provide a more comprehensive picture than could be obtained from either series alone.
## Box 1.1 2009/10 And 2010/11 Bcs Questions (Victimisation Module)
The following question was asked of all respondents who mentioned an incident in the screening module:
Do you think the incident was RACIALLY motivated?
Yes
No
Don't Know
Asked of all respondents who responded 'Don't know' above:
Was there anything about the incident that made you think it might have been RACIALLY
motivated?
Yes
No
The following question was asked of all respondents who mentioned an incident in the screening module:
Looking at the things on this card do you think the incident was motivated by the offender's attitude towards any of these factors? (Respondents were asked to choose all options from a card they were shown):
Your religion or religious beliefs
Your sexuality or sexual orientation
Your age
Your gender
Any disability you have
Don't Know
None of these
Asked of all respondents who responded 'Don't know' above:
Was there anything about the incident that made you think it MIGHT have been motivated by
any of these factors?
(Respondents were asked to choose all options from a card they were shown):
Your religion or religious beliefs
Your sexuality or sexual orientation
Your age
Your gender
Any disability you have
None of these
## Limitations Of The Bcs Questions
The BCS does not ask about hate crime directly as the concept is not well understood by the public and is likely to lead to under-reporting. Instead, victims are asked about their perception of the offender's motivation for the incident which is an indirect measure as it represents the victim's perceptions of the offender's motivation for the crime. This may result in some over-reporting since it is possible that some crimes considered here as hate crimes may actually be more a result of the victim's vulnerability to crime, for example, distraction burglary, or an assumption on the victim's behalf that the crime was motivated by the offender's attitude. Conversely, a victim might be unaware that they were targeted due to a personal characteristic covered by the hate crime strands. The BCS may over- or under-represent people who are more susceptible to hate crime. For example, people with a disability might find it more difficult to take part in the survey if their disability impacts on their ability to communicate in particular. Conversely, response rates to the survey might be higher among victims than non-victims as the topic seems more relevant to them. Moreover, there may also be other characteristics underlying those covered by the equality strands which mean that the victim is more at risk of particular crime types. For example, findings from the BCS have consistently shown that young people aged 16 to 24 are more likely to be victims of crime and it is known that particular Black and Minority Ethnic groups have a lower age profile than that for the general population in England and Wales. It should also be noted that although the BCS asks whether or not the victim perceived the incident to be motivated by an equality strand (for example, his or her disability status), it is possible in the cases of household crimes that it was someone else in the household that has the characteristic.
## 1.3 Extent Of Hate Crime
According to the 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS, there were around 260,000 incidents of hate crime a year, compared with around 9,561,000 incidents of crime overall in the BCS8 (Table 1.01).
Of the monitored strands asked about in the 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS (race, religion, sexual orientation and disability), the strand most commonly perceived as an offender's motivation for committing a crime was the offender's attitude to the victim's race (around 136,000 incidents on average a year). The equality strand least commonly perceived as an offender's motivation for committing a crime was the victim's religion (Table 1.01). Incidents relating to the offender's attitude towards the victim's age and gender, which are not monitored strands, are shown in Section 1.9.
The BCS provides estimates of the levels of personal and household crimes experienced by adults in England and Wales. Personal crimes relate to all crimes against the individual and only relate to the respondent's own personal experience (not that of other people in the household). Household crimes are considered to be all property-related crimes and respondents are asked whether anyone currently residing in the household has experienced any incidents within the reference period.9
The 2009/10 and 2010/11 combined BCS shows there were around 151,000 incidents of personal hate crime and 109,000 incidents of household hate crime a year, compared with around 3,700,000 incidents of personal crime and 5,861,000 incidents of household crime a year overall in the BCS
(Table 1.01).
Three per cent of crime incidents overall in the BCS (4% of BCS incidents of personal crime and 2% of BCS incidents of household crime) were perceived to be hate crime incidents. The proportion of incidents that were perceived to be hate crime varied by crime type from one per cent or fewer of household theft incidents to ten per cent of robbery incidents (Table 1a).
Percentages
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Unweighted
Type of incident
base 1
% of incidents that were
perceived as hate crime
PERSONAL CRIME
Assault with minor injury or no injury
6
1,603
Wounding
6
608
Robbery
10
350
Theft from person
1
876
Other theft of personal property
1
1,579
ALL PERSONAL CRIME
4
5,016
HOUSEHOLD CRIME
Vandalism
3
6,145
Burglary
3
2,002
Vehicle-related theft
0
3,651
Bicycle theft
1
1,538
Other household theft
1
3,722
ALL HOUSEHOLD CRIME
2
17,058
ALL BCS CRIME
3
22,074
1. Base is all BCS crime incidents.
According to the 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS there were an estimated:
thirty-four incidents per 10,000 adults of personal hate crime (compared with 827 incidents per
10,000 adults of BCS personal crime overall); and
forty-seven household hate crime incidents per 10,000 households (compared with 2,510
incidents per 10,000 households of BCS household crime overall; Table 1.02).
The combined 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS estimates that 0.5 per cent of adults were victims of hate crime in the 12 months prior to interview. A similar percentage were victims of personal hate crime (0.2%) and household hate crime (0.2%). Overall, 21.5 per cent of adults were victims of BCS crime (Table 1.03).
Analysis of victimisation by personal and household characteristics showed that for personal hate crime (as with BCS crime overall, Chaplin *et al.*, 2011), the risk of being a victim varied by sociodemographic characteristics. The risk of being a victim of personal hate crime was highest, for example, among (Table 1.04):
people aged 16 to 24 (0.6% experienced personal hate crime compared with, for example,
fewer than 0.05% of those aged 75 and over);
people in ethnic groups other than White (0.8% compared with 0.2% of White adults); those whose marital status was single (0.6% compared with 0.1% of married adults); the unemployed (0.8% compared with 0.2% of adults in employment);
those with a long-standing illness or disability that limits their daily activities (0.4% compared
with 0.2% of those with no long-standing illness or disability); or
those who visit night clubs at least once a week (1.0% compared with 0.2% of those who did not
visit nightclubs at all in the last month).
It should be noted that differences in victimisation rates between ethnic groups may be at least partly attributable to factors other than ethnicity. Previous research (Jansson, 2006; Salisbury and Upson, 2004) has shown that people with a Mixed ethnic background are most at risk of crime. However, multivariate analyses identified that, for the key crime types, ethnicity was not independently associated with the risk of victimisation (Jansson *et al*., 2007). The proportion of young people in the Mixed ethnic group was, for example, found to be large in comparison to other ethnic groups; and young people are at a higher risk of victimisation (Flatley *et al*., 2010). There are also interrelationships between other personal characteristics. The risk of being a victim of household hate crime was highest among, for example, people who (Table 1.05):
lived in flats or maisonettes (0.4% experienced household hate crime compared with, for
example, 0.1% of those living in a detached house);
lived in a household with a total income of less than £10,000 (0.5% compared with 0.1% among
those who lived in households with a total income of £50,000 or more);
lived in a 'multicultural' area (0.6% compared with 0.1% of those who lived in a 'countryside'
area); or
lived in an 'urban' area (0.3% compared with 0.1% of those who lived in 'rural' areas).
Tables 1.06 to 1.09 show the prevalence of hate crime for the separate equality strands by key personal characteristics. For example, the prevalence of racially-motivated crime is shown by ethnic group and the prevalence of disability-motivated hate crime is shown by long-term illness or disability. It can be seen that respondents with the personal characteristic they report as being a factor that they perceived motivated the incident were more likely to be at risk of being a victim of hate crime. For example, 0.2 per cent of adults who said they had a long-standing illness or disability that limited their daily activities said they were victims of disability motivated hate crime, compared with fewer than 0.05
per cent of respondents who had no long-standing illness or disability.
## 1.4 Repeat Victimisation
Repeat victimisation10 is defined here as being a victim of the same type of crime more than once in the last year.11 Levels of repeat victimisation account for differences between BCS estimates of incidence rates (see Table 1.02) and victimisation rates (see Table 1.03). For instance, high levels of repeat victimisation will be demonstrated by lower victimisation rates when compared with corresponding incidence rates as is found with domestic violence and vandalism (see for example, Chaplin et al., 2011).
Nearly one-third (31%) of the victims of hate crime were victimised more than once in the previous year and 18 per cent were victimised three or more times. This is similar to the extent of repeat victimisation for BCS crime overall (33% had been victimised more than once).
BCS figures have consistently shown that levels of repeat victimisation vary by offence type (Chaplin et al., 2011). One reason for this may be that victims are able to take more preventative measures against repeat victimisation for some crime types, such as theft from the person. It also reflects the different nature of offences. It can be seen that hate crime was more likely to be repeatedly experienced for household crime offences than for personal crime offences; 37 per cent of victims of household hate crime had been victimised more than once in the previous year, compared with 19 per cent of victims of personal hate crime. This difference is larger than that found in the BCS overall (29% of victims of BCS household crime were repeat victims, compared with 21% of victims of BCS personal crime; Table 1.10).
## 1.5 Reporting Hate Crime
The BCS asks people who experienced crimes in the past year whether the police came to know about the incident, that is, whether they reported it or the police came to know about it in another way (for example, they arrived at the scene). A 'reporting rate' is calculated by dividing the number of BCS incidents that victims state the police came to know about by the total number of BCS incidents. Based on the 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS, the police were more likely to come to know about hate crime than BCS crime overall; 49 per cent of incidents of hate crime came to the attention of the police compared with 39 per cent of incidents of BCS crime overall (Table 1.11). Although there was little difference in the likelihood of victims of personal hate crime reporting such offences to the police compared with all BCS personal crime (42% and 39% respectively), hate crime victims were more likely to report household crimes (59% compared with 40% for all BCS household crime). This difference could be due to the types and seriousness of offence recorded as hate crime.
The 2010/11 BCS (Chaplin *et al.*, 2011) showed that thefts of vehicles were most likely to be reported and incidents of burglary were also well reported. Victims of crime who did not report incidents to the police were asked why they did not do so. The most frequently mentioned reason for not reporting hate crime incidents was that victims perceived them to be too trivial, there was no loss, or they believed that the police would or could not do much about them (55% of hate crime incidents that were not reported). The second most frequently mentioned reason was that it was a private matter or the victims chose to deal with it themselves (19% of unreported hate crimes). Victims of hate crime were less likely than victims of BCS crime overall to say that the incident was too trivial to report to the police (55% compared with 73%). Conversely, they were more likely to give an answer from one of the less common categories grouped as 'other', for example something that happened as part of their job or someone else reported it (Table 1.12).
## 1.6 Victim Satisfaction With The Police
BCS respondents who were victims of crime and had contact with the police in the last 12 months were asked how satisfied they were with the way the police handled the matter. Based on the combined 2009/10 and 2010/11 surveys, in 53 per cent of incidents hate crime victims were satisfied with the way that the police handled the matter - in 33 per cent of incidents hate crime victims were very satisfied and in 21 per cent they were fairly satisfied with the way that the police handled the matter - and 45 per cent were not satisfied with the handling. Victims of hate crime were less satisfied with the way the police handled the matter than victims of BCS crime overall: in 53 per cent and 69 per cent of incidents respectively victims were satisfied (very or fairly) with the way the police handled the matter (Figure 1.1 and Table 1.13).
Victims of hate crime were less likely to think the police had treated them fairly or with respect, compared with victims of BCS crime overall. For example, in 63 per cent of hate crime incidents victims thought the police treated them fairly, compared with 79 per cent of incidents of BCS crime overall. Similarly, in 76 per cent of incidents of hate crime, victims thought the police treated them with respect, compared with 89 per cent of incidents of BCS crime overall (Table 1.13).
## 1.7 Effects Of Hate Crime
As part of the follow-up questions on their crime experience, victims were asked if they had an emotional reaction after the incident and, if so, how much they were affected and in which ways. There is evidence that perceiving that you have been targeted because of who you are has a greater impact on one's wellbeing than being the victim of a non-hate crime (Iganski, 2001 and 2008).
Table 1.14 shows that victims of hate crime were more likely than victims of BCS crime overall to say they were emotionally affected by the incident (92% and 86% respectively) and more likely to be 'very much' affected (38% and 17% respectively). Of those who said they were emotionally affected, victims of hate crimes gave the same types of emotions experienced by victims of BCS crime overall but (with the exception of annoyance) were more likely to mention each of them. In particular, 39 per cent of hate crime victims mentioned fear and 23 per cent mentioned anxiety, compared with 14 per cent and six per cent respectively of victims of BCS crime overall (Table 1.14).
## 1.8 Worry About Hate Crime And Perceptions Of The Likelihood Of Victimisation
The BCS provides estimates on a range of public perception measures relating to crime. The questions are shown in Box 1.2.12
## Box 1.2 2009/10 And 2010/11 Bcs Questions (Perceptions Of Crime Module)
The following question was asked of all respondents:
(How much of a problem is …) people being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnic origin or religion?
A very big problem
A fairly big problem
Not a very big problem
Not a problem at all
The following questions were asked of a randomly selected one-quarter of respondents:
(How worried are you about) .....being subject to a physical attack because of your skin colour, ethnic origin or religion?
Very worried
Fairly worried
Not very worried
Not at all worried
And now, thinking about all types of crime, in general how worried are you about being a victim of crime?
Very worried
Fairly worried
Not very worried
Not at all worried
Do you think you are likely to be physically attacked or assaulted in the next year because of your skin colour, ethnic origin or religion?
Yes
No
Do you think you are likely to be harassed or intimidated in the next year because of your skin colour, ethnic origin or religion?
Yes
No
The BCS asks respondents about their perceived likelihood of being a victim of crime in the next 12 months. Overall, three per cent of adults thought they were 'very' or 'fairly' likely to be harassed because of their skin colour, ethnic origin or religion and two per cent said they were 'very' or 'fairly' likely to be attacked for these reasons. Adults from ethnic groups other than White were more likely than White adults to say they were 'very' or 'fairly' likely to be harassed (15% compared with 1% of White respondents) or attacked (10% compared with 1% of White respondents; Table 1.15).
There is a disparity between perceived likelihood and actual prevalence of crime. For example, ten per cent of respondents from Black and Minority Ethnic groups13 thought that they were 'very' or 'fairly'
likely to be attacked because of their skin colour, ethnic origin or religion in the next 12 months,
compared with 0.7 per cent who reported having been a victim of racially motivated personal hate crime in the year before interview (Tables 1.15 and 1.06). This disparity is also found for other crime types, for example, burglary (14% of respondents thought that they were 'very' or 'fairly' likely to be a victim of burglary in the next 12 months, compared with 2% who reported having been a victim of burglary in the year before interview; Table 1.15, prevalence of burglary data not shown). The BCS asks respondents how worried they are about being a victim of different types of crime. Overall, five per cent of adults were 'very' worried about being subject to a physical attack because of their skin colour, ethnic origin or religion, and, unsurprisingly, as with the other perception questions, this was much higher among adults from Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds than among White adults (16% and 3% respectively; Table 1.15).
Six per cent of adults thought there was a 'very' or 'fairly' big problem in their area with people being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnic origin or religion. Adults from ethnic groups other than White were three times more likely to say there was a 'very' or 'fairly' big problem in their area than White adults (16% compared with 5% of White adults).
## 1.9 Age And Gender-Motivated Hate Crime
The BCS also collects information on incidents that respondents perceive to be motivated by the offender's attitude towards the victim's age or gender. Estimates of age-motivated hate crime in particular should be treated with caution, as it is possible, for example, that older victims who may be targeted for their age-related vulnerability, are answering that the incident was motivated by the offender's attitude towards their age rather than this vulnerability. Table 1.16 outlines the number of incidents for which victims said that they thought the offender was motivated by attitude to their age or gender for the combined survey years 2009/10 and 2010/11. The number of incidents is the average per year over the two survey years. In total, there were around 143,000 incidents of age-motivated hate crime a year, and around 0.3 per cent of people perceived they were victims of an age-motivated hate crime (Table 1.16)
There were around 120,000 incidents of gender-motivated hate crime a year, and around 0.2 per cent of adults were victims of a gender-motivated hate crime. Table 1.17 shows the prevalence of age-motivated hate crime by age and sex. The youngest and oldest age groups were more likely to say they thought they had been a victim of age-motivated hate crime than other age groups (0.7% of those aged 16−24 and 0.6% of those aged 75 and over were victims of age-motivated hate crimes compared with 0.3% of those aged 65−74). This suggests that some people may have misunderstood or misheard the question and mistakenly be reporting an incident as age-motivated. Women were more likely than men to say they were victims of gender-motivated hate crime (0.3% and 0.1% respectively; Table 1.18).
## 1.10 Other Sources Of Hate Crime Data Acpo/Police Data
The police have been recording reported hate crimes since 1 April 2008 for the five monitored strands of hate crime. Figures (covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland for 2009) were first published by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in 2010, and figures for 2010 were published in September 201114. In 2011/12 the hate crime data collection was made part of the Home Office Annual Data Requirement15.
Between January and December 201016, the police recorded 48,127 crimes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland where the victim, or any other person, perceived the criminal offence to be motivated by hostility based on a person's race, religious belief, sexual orientation, disability or where the victim was perceived to be transgender.
Of these:
39,311 were racist crimes; 2,007 were religious (faith) hate crimes; 4,883 were based on sexual orientation; 357 targeted transgender people; and
1,569 targeted people with disabilities.
As expected, BCS hate crime estimates are higher than the number of hate crimes recorded by the police as the survey captures offences that are not reported to or recorded by the police.
## Crown Prosecution Service Data
In 2008, the CPS began publishing an annual report on Hate Crime in England and Wales. The most recent publication 'Hate crime and crimes against older people report 2010−2011' presents information on CPS performance in prosecuting racist and religious hate crime, transphobic and homophobic crime, and disability hate crime.17
## The Life Opportunities Survey
In December 2011, the Office for Disability Issues published the Life Opportunities Survey Wave One results 2009/1118 based on a total of 31,161 interviews with adults aged 16 and over, across 19,951
households.
The survey found that two per cent of all adults interviewed had been a victim of hate crime in the past 12 months. This is higher than the BCS estimate of 0.5 per cent, partly because it includes age and gender-motivated hate crime but partly due to the different question wording. Those who reported being a victim of hate crime were asked to select all motivations for the crime that applied to them from the following: age, sex, a health condition, illness or impairment, a disability, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or none of these reasons. The most common motivation reported for all adults who experienced hate crime was ethnicity (37%) followed by sexual orientation (11%). It is important to note, however, that 34 per cent of adults with a mental or physical impairment and 30 per cent of adults without a mental or physical impairment gave the answer 'none of these reasons' to the question on motivation of hate crime and, thus, felt they were the victim of a hate crime motivated by factors not covered by the questionnaire.
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Numbers (000s)1
Personal crime
Household crime
All crime
Number of incidents (000s):
Monitored strand of hate crime
Race
84
52
136
Religion
21
19
39
Sexual orientation
31
18
50
Disability
29
35
65
Total hate crime2
151
109
260
Total BCS crime
3,700
5,861
9,561
Unweighted base
91,313
91,338
91,313
1. The numbers are derived by multiplying incidence rates by the population estimates for England and Wales, and are averaged over the two survey years. For more information see Section 2 of the User Guide.
2. Totals for hate crime might not be equal to the sum of incidents in the related equality strands as the victim may have said the crime was motivated by more than one strand. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were not included until 2011/12.
England and Wales, adults aged 16
and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Rates1 per 10,000 adults/households
Personal crime
Household crime
Rates per 10,000 adults/households:
Monitored strand of hate crime
Race
19
22
Religion
5
8
Sexual orientation
7
8
Disability
7
15
Total hate crime2
34
47
Total BCS crime
827
2,510
Unweighted base
91,313
91,338
1. Rates for personal crime are quoted per 10,000 adults. Rates for household crime are quoted per 10,000 households.The numbers are averaged over the two survey years. 2. Totals for hate crime might not be equal to the sum of incidents in the related equality strands as the victim may have said the crime was motivated by more than one strand. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were not included until 2011/12.
Percentages1
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Personal crime
Household crime
All crime3
Percentage of adults/households victims once or more:
Monitored strand of hate crime
Race
0.2
0.1
0.3
Religion
0.0
0.0
0.1
Sexual orientation
0.0
0.0
0.1
Disability
0.0
0.1
0.1
Total hate crime2
0.2
0.2
0.5
Total BCS crime
5.8
16.3
21.5
Unweighted base
91,313
91,338
91,313
1. Percentages for personal crime are based on adults. Percentages for household crime are based on households. 2. Totals for hate crime might not be equal to the sum of incidents in the related equality strands as the victim may have said the crime was motivated by more than one strand. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were not included until 2011/12. 3. This percentage is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated percentage of adults who have been a victim of at least one personal crime or have been resident in a household that was a victim of at least one household crime.
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Percentages
Personal hate
crime1
All hate crime1,2
All BCS personal
crime
Percentage of adults/households victims once or more:
ALL ADULTS
0.2
0.5
5.8
21.5
91,313
16-24
0.6
0.9
13.9
31.8
7,551
25-34
0.3
0.5
7.7
27.3
12,462
35-44
0.3
0.6
5.3
24.5
15,983
45-54
0.2
0.5
4.2
21.9
15,117
55-64
0.1
0.4
3.0
16.6
15,766
65-74
0.0
0.2
2.2
11.1
12,898
75+
0.0
0.2
1.6
7.7
11,536
Men
0.3
0.6
6.5
22.7
41,155
16-24
1.0
1.3
16.5
33.8
3,513
25-34
0.4
0.5
8.5
28.5
5,407
35-44
0.3
0.6
5.7
25.5
7,138
45-54
0.1
0.5
4.5
21.9
7,097
55-64
0.2
0.4
3.2
17.6
7,436
65-74
0.1
0.2
1.8
11.7
5,962
75+
0.0
0.1
0.9
7.5
4,602
Women
0.2
0.4
5.1
20.4
50,158
16-24
0.2
0.3
11.2
29.8
4,038
25-34
0.2
0.5
6.8
26.1
7,055
35-44
0.2
0.5
4.9
23.5
8,845
45-54
0.2
0.4
4.0
22.0
8,020
55-64
0.1
0.4
2.9
15.7
8,330
65-74
0.0
0.1
2.5
10.4
6,936
75+
0.1
0.2
2.1
7.8
6,934
Ethnic group
White
0.2
0.3
5.7
21.3
84,217
Non-White
0.8
1.7
6.6
23.3
6,942
Mixed
0.9
1.7
10.0
29.6
666
Asian or Asian British
1.0
2.1
5.6
23.6
3,158
Black or Black British
0.4
1.1
6.9
21.4
1,883
Chinese or other
0.5
1.3
7.9
22.0
1,235
Religion
Christian
0.2
0.3
4.3
19.8
69,854
Buddhist
1.3
1.5
5.1
25.8
408
Hindu
0.8
1.8
4.3
21.2
897
Muslim
1.0
2.1
5.6
23.1
2,167
Other
0.6
1.3
7.3
27.0
1,142
No religion
0.3
0.4
7.4
27.1
16,596
Marital status
Married
0.1
0.3
3.3
18.7
42,711
Cohabiting
0.1
0.4
6.2
26.6
8,133
Single
0.6
0.9
11.6
28.1
18,900
Separated
0.3
0.5
7.7
24.5
2,975
Divorced
0.3
0.7
5.9
21.4
8,305
Widowed
0.1
0.3
2.7
9.8
10,260
Respondent's employment status
In employment
0.2
0.4
6.3
24.1
49,530
Unemployed
0.8
1.1
11.2
28.8
2,837
Economically inactive
0.2
0.5
4.4
16.5
38,717
Student
0.6
0.8
13.6
30.5
2,230
Looking after family/home
0.1
0.4
4.0
22.0
4,774
Long-term/temporarily sick/ill
0.7
2.0
6.3
24.9
4,019
Retired
0.1
0.2
2.0
10.2
26,385
Other inactive
0.7
1.1
6.3
23.2
1,309
Respondent's occupation
Managerial and professional occupations
0.2
0.4
5.4
21.8
30,212
Intermediate occupations
0.2
0.4
4.8
20.0
18,610
Routine and manual occupations
0.2
0.4
5.1
20.5
34,850
Never worked and long-term unemployed
0.5
1.2
5.8
18.8
3,363
Full-time students
0.6
0.8
14.0
30.9
3,506
Not classified
0.6
1.2
5.7
20.6
772
Highest qualification
Degree or diploma
0.3
0.4
6.1
23.3
29,744
Apprenticeship or A/AS level
0.3
0.4
7.3
24.3
15,473
O level/GCSE
0.3
0.6
6.8
23.8
17,601
Other
0.3
0.5
4.2
16.8
3,987
None
0.2
0.5
3.5
15.4
24,300
Long-standing illness or disability
Long-standing illness or disability
0.3
0.7
5.4
20.0
26,508
Limits activities
0.4
0.9
5.2
19.3
18,931
Does not limit activities
0.3
0.4
5.7
21.6
7,566
No long-standing illness or disability
0.2
0.4
5.9
22.0
64,644
Hours out of home on an average weekday
Less than 3 hours
0.2
0.4
3.2
15.0
27,421
3 hours less than 7 hours
0.2
0.5
5.6
21.2
24,994
7 hours or longer
0.3
0.5
7.3
25.1
38,717
Number of evening visits to bar in last month
None
0.2
0.6
4.1
18.4
47,190
Less than once a week
0.2
0.3
6.0
23.1
25,685
Once a week or more often
0.3
0.4
9.1
26.4
18,426
Number of visits to a nightclub in last month
None
0.2
0.4
4.7
19.9
83,362
Less than once a week
0.4
0.7
12.4
31.2
6,477
Once a week or more often
1.0
1.0
19.2
39.7
1,466
1. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were not included until 2011/12. 2. This percentage is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated percentage of adults who have been a victim of at least one personal crime or have been resident in a household that was a victim of at least one household crime.
All BCS crime
Unweighted base
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Percentages
All BCS
household crime
All BCS crime
Unweighted
base
Personal hate
crime1
Household hate
crime1
All hate crime1,2 All BCS personal
crime
Percentage of adults/households victims once or more:
ALL HOUSEHOLDS
0.2
0.2
0.5
5.8
16.3
21.5
91,313
Structure of household
Single adult & child(ren)
0.2
0.3
0.6
9.0
24.3
30.1
4,710
Adults & child(ren)
0.3
0.3
0.5
6.0
21.6
25.8
19,597
Adult(s) & no children
0.2
0.2
0.5
5.6
14.3
19.5
67,006
Total household income
Less than £10,000
0.5
0.5
1.0
6.3
14.5
19.8
12,877
£10,000 less than £20,000
0.3
0.4
0.7
5.0
14.8
19.2
18,038
£20,000 less than £30,000
0.2
0.1
0.3
5.2
17.6
21.8
12,533
£30,000 less than £40,000
0.2
0.2
0.3
5.0
17.8
21.6
9,305
£40,000 less than £50,000
0.2
0.1
0.3
6.1
19.2
23.9
6,200
£50,000 or more
0.1
0.1
0.2
6.3
20.7
25.9
12,410
No income stated or not enough information provided
0.2
0.3
0.5
6.2
13.7
20.0
19,847
Tenure
Owners
0.2
0.2
0.3
4.4
15.4
19.7
62,059
Social renters
0.4
0.6
1.0
7.1
17.4
23.4
15,211
Private renters
0.4
0.2
0.5
9.5
18.6
26.1
13,715
Accommodation type
Houses
0.2
0.2
0.4
5.5
16.5
21.4
77,886
Detached
0.1
0.1
0.2
4.0
13.1
17.0
23,974
Semi-detached
0.2
0.2
0.4
5.4
15.6
20.7
29,063
Terraced
0.4
0.3
0.7
6.8
20.3
26.0
24,849
Flats/maisonettes
0.4
0.4
0.7
8.2
15.7
22.7
11,680
Other accommodation
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7
5.1
4.6
255
Output Area Classification
Blue collar communities
0.2
0.3
0.5
6.2
18.8
23.9
15,412
City living
0.3
0.3
0.5
8.4
18.0
25.7
4,256
Countryside
0.1
0.1
0.2
4.1
10.7
14.7
14,000
Prospering suburbs
0.1
0.1
0.2
4.4
12.9
17.3
21,793
Constrained by circumstances
0.3
0.3
0.6
5.9
17.2
23.0
9,200
Typical traits
0.2
0.2
0.4
5.5
18.6
23.7
18,868
Multicultural
0.6
0.6
1.2
8.7
19.5
26.2
7,784
Area type
Urban
0.3
0.3
0.6
6.2
17.5
23.1
68,006
Rural
0.1
0.1
0.2
4.1
11.6
15.5
23,307
Level of physical disorder
High
0.6
0.7
1.3
6.8
23.1
27.9
4,605
Not high
0.2
0.2
0.4
5.7
15.9
21.1
85,539
English Indices of Deprivation (Employment)
20% most deprived output areas
0.4
0.5
0.8
6.6
18.9
24.3
15,930
Other output areas
0.2
0.2
0.5
5.8
16.4
21.8
50,463
20% least deprived output areas
0.2
0.1
0.3
5.3
14.0
19.0
17,160
1. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were not included until 2011/12. 2. This percentage is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated percentage of adults who have been a victim of at least one personal crime or have been resident in a household that was a victim of at least one household crime. 3. See Sections 7.1 and 7.2 of the User Guide for definitions of area and household characteristics.
Percentages
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Unweighted base
Personal raciallymotivated hate crime
All racially-motivated
hate crime1
% victims once or more:
ALL ADULTS
0.2
0.3
91,313
Ethnic group
White
0.1
0.1
84,217
Non-White
0.7
1.4
6,942
Mixed
0.7
1.1
666
Asian or Asian British
0.9
1.8
3,158
Black or Black British
0.4
0.9
1,883
Chinese or other
0.4
1.1
1,235
1. This percentage is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated percentage of adults who have been a victim of at least one personal crime or have been resident in a household that was a victim of at least one household crime.
Percentages
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Unweighted base
Personal religionmotivated hate crime
All religion-motivated
hate crime1
% victims once or more:
ALL ADULTS
0.0
0.1
91,313
Ethnic group
White
0.0
0.0
84,217
Non-White
0.2
0.5
6,942
Mixed
0.1
0.1
666
Asian or Asian British
0.4
0.8
3,158
Black or Black British
0.0
0.2
1,883
Chinese or other
0.0
0.1
1,235
Religion
Christian
0.0
0.0
69,854
Buddhist
0.0
0.0
408
Hindu
0.0
0.5
897
Muslim
0.5
0.8
2,167
Other
0.1
0.7
1,142
No religion
0.0
0.0
16,596
1. This percentage is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated percentage of adults who have been a victim of at least one personal crime or have been resident in a household that was a victim of at least one household crime.
Percentages
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Unweighted base
All sexual orientationmotivated-hate crime1
Personal sexualorientation-motivated
hate crime
% victims once or more
ALL ADULTS
0.0
0.1
91,313
16-24
0.1
0.2
7,551
25-34
0.0
0.0
12,462
35-44
0.1
0.1
15,983
45-54
0.0
0.1
15,117
55-64
0.0
0.1
15,766
65-74
0.0
0.0
12,898
75+
0.0
0.0
11,536
Men
0.1
0.1
41,155
Women
0.0
0.1
50,158
1. This percentage is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated percentage of adults who have been a victim of at least one personal crime or have been resident in a household that was a victim of at least one household crime.
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Percentages
Unweighted base
Personal disabilitymotivated hate crime
All disability-motivated
hate crime1
% victims once or more
ALL ADULTS
0.0
0.1
91,313
Respondent's employment status
In employment
0.0
0.0
49,530
Unemployed
0.1
0.1
2,837
Economically inactive
0.1
0.2
38,717
Student
0.1
0.1
2,230
Looking after family/home
0.0
0.1
4,774
Long-term/temporarily sick/ill
0.5
1.3
4,019
Retired
0.0
0.1
26,385
Other inactive
0.2
0.3
1,309
Long-standing illness or disability
Long-standing illness or disability
0.1
0.4
26,508
Limits activities
0.2
0.5
18,931
Does not limit activities
0.0
0.1
7,566
No long-standing illness or disability
0.0
0.0
64,644
1. This percentage is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated percentage of adults who have been a victim of at least one personal crime or have been resident in a household that was a victim of at least one household crime.
Percentages
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Once
Twice
Three or more
Unweighted
base 1
Personal hate crime2
81
8
11
185
All BCS personal crime
79
12
10
4,505
Household hate crime2
63
15
22
207
All BCS household crime
71
18
12
14,385
All hate crime2
69
13
18
379
All BCS crime
67
18
14
17,522
1. Base is victims of specified offences.
2. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were not included until 2011/12.
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Percentages
Incident reported to police
Unweighted base 2
Personal hate crime3
42
195
All BCS personal crime
39
5,138
Household hate crime3
59
237
All BCS household crime
40
17,784
All hate crime3
49
432
All BCS crime
39
22,922
1. Incidents that were reported to the police also includes those incidents that the police came to know about in another way, e.g. they arrived at the scene.
2. Base is crime incidents. 3. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were not included until 2011/12.
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Percentages
All hate crime1
All BCS crime
55
73
Trivial/no loss/police would not/could
not do anything2
Private/dealt with ourselves
19
15
Inconvenient to report
6
6
Reported to other authorities
4
5
Common occurrence
9
3
Fear of reprisal
5
2
7
2
Dislike or fear of the police/previous bad experience with the police or courts
Other3
21
6
Unweighted base 4
195
12,912
1. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were not included until 2011/12. 2. The answer categories 'Too trivial/not worth reporting', 'No loss/damage', 'Police would not have been bothered/interested', 'Police could not do anything' and 'Attempt at offence was unsuccessful' are merged due to the similarity in their definition, for example: a respondent who thinks the incident was too trivial may code the incident as 'too trivial, no loss' or 'the police would not be interested' as these two codes may be understood as meaning the same. 3. This category includes: something that happens as part of job; partly my/friend's/relative's fault; offender not responsible for actions; thought someone else had reported incident/similar incidents; tried to report but was not able to contact the police/police not interested; other. 4. Base is crime incidents not reported to police. 5. Figures may add to more than 100 as more than one reason could be given.
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Percentages
All hate crime1
All BCS crime
Victim satisfaction
Very satisfied
33
37
Fairly satisfied
21
32
A bit dissatisfied
22
16
Very dissatisfied
23
14
Too early to say
2
1
% saying police took matter as seriously as they should
45
65
Police treated victim fairly
Yes
63
79
Not entirely
21
13
Not at all
15
8
Police treated victim with respect
Yes
76
89
Not entirely
14
7
Not at all
10
4
Unweighted base 2
223
8,863
1. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were not included until 2011/12. 2. Base is crime incidents that were reported to police.
Percentages
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
All hate crime1
All BCS crime
Respondent was emotionally affected
92
86
Very much
38
17
Quite a lot
31
26
Just a little
23
43
Respondent was not emotionally affected
8
14
Unweighted base
420
22,065
Type of emotional response experienced2
Anger
67
60
Annoyance
50
60
Shock
40
28
Loss of confidence or feeling vulnerable
35
15
Fear
39
14
Anxiety or panic attacks
23
6
Crying/tears
13
9
Difficulty sleeping
17
8
Depression
20
6
Other
3
3
Unweighted base
383
19,028
1. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were not included until 2011/12.
2. Figures add to more than 100 as more than one response possible.
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11
Percentages
All adults
Mixed
Asian or
Asian British
Black or
Black British
Chinese or
other
White
All Non-
White
Perceived likelihood of being victim of racially-motivated crime
'Very' or 'fairly' likely to be attacked because of skin colour/ethnic origin/religion
1
10
4
12
9
9
2
'Very' or 'fairly' likely to be harassed because of skin colour/ethnic origin/religion
1
15
13
17
12
11
3
'Very' or 'fairly' likely to be burgled
13
25
19
29
20
20
14
Worry about of being victim of crime
'Very' worried about being attacked because of skin colour/ethnic origin/religion
3
16
14
16
16
13
5
'Very' worried about being a victim of any crime
6
18
21
18
18
16
7
Unweighted base 1
20,745
1,638
143
777
436
282
22,402
Problem of racially-motivated crime
% saying there is a 'fairly big' or 'very big' problem in their area with racially-motivated hate crime
5
16
16
18
14
14
6
Unweighted base
82,870
6,840
655
3,133
1,842
1,210
89,851
1. Questions on worry about crime and the likelihood of attack and harrassment were only asked of one-quarter of the BCS sample.
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Personal crime
Household crime
All crime
Age-motivated hate crime
Incidents of hate crime (numbers, 000s)1
95
48
143
Incidence rates per 10,000 adults/households2
21
21
*
Percentage victims once or more3
0.2
0.1
0.3
Gender-motivated hate crime
Incidents of hate crime (numbers, 000s)1
90
30
120
Incidence rates per 10,000 adults/households2
20
13
*
Percentage victims once or more3
0.2
0.1
0.2
Unweighted base
91,313
91,338
91,313
1. The numbers are derived by multiplying incidence rates by the population estimates for England and Wales, and are averaged over the two survey years. 2. Rates for personal crime are quoted per 10,000 adults. Rates for household crime are quoted per 10,000 households. 3. Percentages for personal crime are based on adults. Percentages for household crime are based on households. * It is not possible to construct a rate for all BCS crime because rates for household offences are based on rates per household, and those for personal offences on rates per adult, and the two cannot be combined.
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Percentages
Unweighted base
All age-motivated
hate crime1
Personal agemotivated hate
crime
% victims once or more:
ALL ADULTS
0.2
0.3
91,313
16-24
0.6
0.7
7,551
25-34
0.1
0.2
12,462
35-44
0.1
0.1
15,983
45-54
0.0
0.1
15,117
55-64
0.1
0.2
15,766
65-74
0.2
0.3
12,898
75+
0.3
0.6
11,536
Men
0.2
0.3
41,155
16-24
0.9
1.0
3,513
25-34
0.1
0.2
5,407
35-44
0.0
0.1
7,138
45-54
0.0
0.1
7,097
55-64
0.1
0.2
7,436
65-74
0.1
0.3
5,962
75+
0.2
0.4
4,602
Women
0.2
0.3
50,158
16-24
0.4
0.5
4,038
25-34
0.0
0.1
7,055
35-44
0.1
0.1
8,845
45-54
0.0
0.1
8,020
55-64
0.1
0.2
8,330
65-74
0.2
0.3
6,936
75+
0.4
0.7
6,934
1. This percentage is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated percentage of adults who have been a victim of at least one personal crime or have been resident in a household that was a victim of at least one household crime.
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Percentages
Unweighted base
All gender-motivated
hate crime1
Personal gendermotivated hate
crime
% victims once or more:
ALL ADULTS
0.2
0.2
91,313
16-24
0.3
0.4
7,551
25-34
0.3
0.4
12,462
35-44
0.2
0.2
15,983
45-54
0.0
0.1
15,117
55-64
0.0
0.1
15,766
65-74
0.0
0.0
12,898
75+
0.0
0.0
11,536
Men
0.1
0.1
41,155
16-24
0.1
0.1
3,513
25-34
0.2
0.2
5,407
35-44
0.1
0.1
7,138
45-54
0.0
0.1
7,097
55-64
0.0
0.1
7,436
65-74
0.0
0.0
5,962
75+
0.0
0.0
4,602
Women
0.2
0.3
50,158
16-24
0.6
0.7
4,038
25-34
0.5
0.7
7,055
35-44
0.2
0.3
8,845
45-54
0.1
0.2
8,020
55-64
0.1
0.2
8,330
65-74
0.0
0.1
6,936
75+
0.1
0.1
6,934
1. This percentage is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated percentage of adults who have been a victim of at least one personal crime or have been resident in a household that was a victim of at least one household crime.
## 2 Use Of The Internet And Cyber Security Jacqueline Hoare 2.1 Summary
This chapter contains information from the 2010/11 British Crime Survey (BCS) on levels of internet use, concerns people may have about using the internet, and any measures taken to protect personal details when using the internet. Questions were asked of adults aged 16 or over in England and Wales. Headline findings are summarised below and interesting variations by age and sex are highlighted throughout the chapter.
## Internet Usage
According to the 2010/11 BCS, 78 per cent of adults had used the internet in the last year; men were more likely than women to have done so (81% and 75% respectively). Levels of usage decreased with increasing age, from 98 per cent of 16 to 24 year olds to 19 per cent of those aged 75 or older. Among adults who had used the internet in the last year, the most commonly reported use was for emailing, instant messaging or visiting chat rooms (83% of internet users). Around three-quarters (77%) said they used the internet for buying goods or services online and 73 per cent to browse for news or homework. Half (50%) of adults said they used the internet for online government services.
## Protection Of Personal Details
Among adults who said they had used the internet for any of the three online activities of interest (buying goods or services, online banking or managing finances and online government services), level of worry about the security of the personal details entered online varied as follows:
Of adults who said they used the internet for buying goods or services, 44 per cent said they
were worried and just over a third of adults (37%) who reported using the internet for banking or managing finances were worried.
Around a quarter of adults (26%) who said they had used the internet for government services
were worried about their personal details being secure online, the lowest among users of each of these internet services.
The most commonly mentioned actions taken by adults to protect their personal details online were: having up-to-date security software installed on home computer (67%), using only well-known, popular or trusted sites (67%), and using secure sites (such as indicated by a closed padlock, 61%).
## Perceived Barriers To Use
The main reason given by adults who said they had not used the internet for each of the three online activities of interest (buying goods or services, online banking or managing finances and online government services) was that there was no need to (36%, 33% and 53% respectively).
Concern about personal details being insecure was given as a reason that had stopped people using the internet most commonly for online banking or managing finances (34%), then for buying goods or services (26%) and then for accessing online government services (10%). Concern about losing money or having money stolen was given as a reason by 16 per cent of adults in relation to stopping them accessing online banking or managing finances, then for buying goods or services (12%) and less commonly for online government services (3%).
## 2.2 Introduction
In November 2011 the Government published the UK Cyber Security Strategy1 which focuses on all risks relating to internet use. By 2015, the Government's aspiration is that the measures outlined in the strategy will mean the UK is in a position where law enforcement is tackling cyber criminals, citizens know what to do to protect themselves, effective cyber security is seen as a positive for UK business, a thriving cyber security sector has been established, public services online are secure and resilient, and the threats to national infrastructure and national security have been confronted.
Since 2008/09, the British Crime Survey (BCS) has asked adults about their internet use and from 2010/11 it has also asked about perceived barriers to using the internet for any of three online activities of interest (buying goods or services, online banking or managing finances and online government services) and worry about the security of personal details when using the internet. Questions were also asked about any negative online experiences (such as a computer virus or loss of money) and measures taken to protect personal details when using the internet, relating to the
'citizens know what to do to protect themselves' element of the UK Cyber Security Strategy.
Details of the questions asked in 2010/11 are shown in Boxes 2.1 to 2.5 of this chapter. Further question development has taken place for the 2012/13 survey to add an additional focus on different ways of accessing the internet and on understanding why people take the measures they do to keep safe online (see Box 2.6; these data will be available from summer 2013). The figures published here are based on the questions relating to internet use that were first asked in the 2010/11 BCS. As data from only one year are presented, it is not possible to make comparisons with earlier survey years.
## 2.3 Levels Of Internet Use
According to the 2010/11 BCS, 78 per cent of adults had used the internet (at home or elsewhere) in the 12 months prior to interview.2 Men were more likely than women to have done so (81% and 75%
respectively; Table 2.01). As would be expected, levels of internet use decreased with increasing age, from 98 per cent of 16 to 24 year olds to 19 per cent of those aged 75 or older. Levels of use were similar for men and women in each age group between the ages of 16 to 64 (for example, 95% of men aged 25 to 34 and 94% of women aged 25 to 34). In the older age groups, however, men were significantly more likely to have used the internet in the last year than women:
Just over half (53%) of men aged 65 to 74 had used the internet in the last year, higher than the
two in five women in the 65 to 74 age group (39%).
Men aged 75 or older were twice as likely as women in the same age range to have used the
internet in the last year (27% and 13% respectively).
It is these differences in levels of internet use among those aged 65 or over that explain the overall difference that can be seen in internet usage between men (81%) and women (75%).
## Frequency Of Internet Use
Of the 78 per cent of adults who accessed the internet in the last year, nine in ten had used the internet more than once a week (91%) with around eight in ten (78%) having used it every day or almost every day (Table 2.02). This equates to around 71 per cent of all adults aged 16 or over having used the internet more than once a week in the last year and around 61 per cent having used it every day or almost every day (data not shown). Among internet users, men (79%) were more likely than women (76%) to have used the internet on a daily or almost daily basis. As shown previously for usage overall, this difference can be largely explained by the disparity in frequency of usage among the older age groups, for example:
Sixty-two per cent of men aged 75 or over who used the internet in the last year used it every
day or almost every day, significantly higher than the 43 per cent of women in the same age group.
## 2.4 What The Internet Is Used For
Adults who had used the internet in the last year were asked what types of activities they had used the internet for, from a limited choice shown to them on a card (see Box 2.1). Only two per cent of adults said they did not use the internet for any of these activities.
## Box 2.1 2010/11 Bcs Question (Internet Use Module)
Respondents who said they had used the internet in the year prior to interview were asked:
Which, if any, of the following things do you use the internet for? (Respondents were asked to choose all options that applied from a card they were shown):
Online banking or managing finances (e.g. paying credit cards) Buying goods or services (internet shopping, inc music/film downloads) Online government services (e.g. tax returns, DVLA, benefits) Social networking (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Bebo, MySpace) or blogging Email, instant messaging, chat rooms Browsing for news or homework (e.g. BBC, CNN, Wikipedia) None of these
The most commonly reported use was for emailing, instant messaging or visiting chat rooms (83% of internet users). Around three-quarters (77%) said they used the internet for buying goods or services online (this includes internet shopping and music/film downloads) and 73 per cent to browse for news or homework. Half (50%) of adults said they used the internet for online government services (such as tax returns, activities relating to the DVLA, or benefits; Figure 2.1 and Table 2.03). Among those that only used the internet for one activity (9%) it was most likely to be browsing for news or homework (31%) and least likely to be using online government services (1%; data not shown). For most types of internet use (buying goods or services, browsing for news or homework, online banking or managing finances, online government services) the peak in levels of use (generally for 25 to 34 year olds) was followed by decreases with increasing age. For example (Figure 2.2):
Seventy-two per cent of 25 to 34 year olds who used the internet in the last year had done so
for online banking, falling to 38 per cent of those aged 75 or over.
However, among adults who used the internet for emailing, instant messaging or visiting chat rooms (83% of internet users) the decline for older adults was less evident. There was a peak in levels of use for those aged 25 to 34 (87%), falling only to 81 per cent of those aged 75 or over.
Again, the pattern of use by age was different for adults using the internet for social networking (57% of internet users). This type of internet activity was most common for adults aged 16 to 24 (89%) compared with all other types of activity (e.g. 78% for emailing or instant messaging) and compared with all older age groups:
There was a sharp decline in the proportion of adults who used the internet for social
networking from those aged 16 to 24 (89%) to those aged 75 or over (12%).
The analysis that follows focuses on the three key activities which are now part of the UK Cyber Security Strategy: buying goods or services, **online banking or managing finances** and online government services.
Buying goods or services online was the most common (77%) of the three online activities of interest.
Similar proportions of men and women used the internet for buying goods or services (78% and 76% respectively) and this activity was most likely to be done by internet-using adults aged 25 to 44 (25 to 34: 83%; 35 to 44: 82%). Online banking or managing finances was an activity reported by 58 per cent of internet users. However, there was some variation by age and sex. Men (61%) were more likely to use the internet for banking or managing finances than women (55%). As previously described, adults aged 25 to 34 (72%) were the most likely to use online banking or financial management compared with all other age groups, falling with increasing age to 38 per cent of those aged 75 or over. This finding by age holds true for each sex:
There were statistically significantly higher proportions of men aged 25 to 34 and women aged
25 to 34 (74% and 69% respectively) who had used the internet for online banking compared with all other age groups within sex.
Half of internet-using adults (50%) accessed government services online (such as for tax returns); men were more likely to do so than women (55% compared with 45%). The youngest (16 to 24 year olds; 29%) and oldest (75 or over; 36%) age groups were least likely to use online government services with levels of use being generally similar among adults aged between 25 and 64 years old.
## 2.5 Worry About Security Of Personal Details
Adults who said they had used the internet for any of the three online activities of interest (buying goods or services, online banking or managing finances and online government services) were asked a follow-up question after each to gauge their level of worry about the security of personal details entered online (see Box 2.2 and Table 2.04).
Of adults who said they used the internet for buying goods or services, 44 per cent said they
were worried about the security of the personal details they had entered online (7% were 'very' worried and the remaining 37% were 'fairly' worried).
Just over a third of adults (37%) who reported using the internet for banking or managing
finances were worried about the security of their personal details when doing so; only seven per cent were 'very' worried.
Around a quarter of adults (26%) who said they had used the internet for government services
were worried about their personal details being secure online, the lowest among users of each of these internet services.
## Box 2.2 2010/11 Bcs Question (Internet Use Module)
For respondents who said they had used the internet for online banking or managing finances, for buying goods or services or for online government services:
When you use the internet for [this activity] how worried are you about the security of the personal details you have entered online? By personal details I mean details such as your name, bank account or credit card number, username or password. (Respondents were asked to choose all options that applied from a card they were shown):
Very worried Fairly worried Not very worried Not at all worried
While not directly comparable, levels of worry about the security of personal details entered online appeared higher than for estimates of worry about other crime types from the BCS, for example, ten per cent of adults were worried about being a victim of burglary (Chaplin *et al.*, 2011). However, levels of worry were lower than worry about being a victim of plastic card fraud (53% of plastic card owners, Moon *et al*., 2010).
However, it is worth noting that overall between a half and three-quarters of internet users were not worried about the security of their personal details entered online when using the internet for the specified activities; that is, 56 per cent of adults who had used the internet for buying goods or services, 63 per cent who used online banking and 74 per cent who had used online government services. There were some variations in levels of worry when considering personal characteristics, although fewer differences than found elsewhere in this chapter. Among those who had used the internet for buying goods or services, women were more likely than men to be worried about the security of their personal details online (46% and 42% respectively; Table 2.05). It was clear that among adults who had used the internet to buy goods or services, those aged 16 to 24 were the least likely to be worried about the security of their personal details entered online (32%, compared with 51% of 45 to 54 year olds for example). While 16 to 24 year olds were not the highest online consumers of goods or services, seven in ten (71%) internet users said they did use the internet to buy goods or services. Of those that did, two-thirds (68%) were not worried about the security of personal details online.
## 2.6 Protecting Personal Details
Adults who had used the internet in the last year were asked whether or not they had taken certain measures to protect personal details online (see Box 2.3). Nearly everyone who used the internet reported that they had adopted at least one of the measures asked about. Only three per cent said they did nothing to protect their personal details as they were not worried about security.
Of the actions asked about, the most commonly mentioned were (Figure 2.3 and Table 2.06):
Two-thirds of adults who had used the internet in the last year (67%) reported that they had upto-date security software installed on a home computer.3
Two-thirds (67%) said they only used well-known or popular or trusted sites. Three in five (61%) said they looked for secure sites (such as a closed padlock system).
There were no statistically significant differences between men and women in the proportion who took the three most common actions, although there were some differences by age:
Adults aged 75 or over were less likely to report having up-to-date security software installed
than all younger age groups (53% compared with 67% of those aged 65 to 74 for example).
People in the oldest age group were also least likely to have said they only used well-known or
popular or trusted sites (52% compared with, for example, 66% of those aged 16 to 24).
Adults aged 75 or over (45%) were generally less likely to look for secure sites than most
younger age groups (for example, 65% of 45 to 54 year olds); however, the youngest adults
aged 16 to 24 (54%) were generally less likely than older groups to look for secure sites (for example, 64% of 25 to 34 year olds).
## Box 2.3 2010/11 Bcs Question (Internet Use Module) Respondents Who Said They Had Used The Internet In The Year Prior To Interview Were Asked: Which Of These Things Do You Do To Protect Your Personal Details When Using The Internet? (Respondents Were Asked To Choose All Options That Applied From A Card They Were Shown):
Only use well-known/popular/trusted sites Look for a secure site (closed padlock system/encrypted transaction/message that tells me
site is secure)
Always keep copy of web page/completed order form/email correspondence Only use credit cards (not debit or charge cards) Only order from companies which appear to be based in the UK Only buy from new sites which are recommended by other established companies Only use sites which look like they have been professionally designed Installed up-to-date security on home computer Do not put personal details online Other Nothing - not worried about security
Adults who used the internet most frequently were more likely to carry out the three most common actions:
Compared with adults who had used the internet once a week or less, adults who had used the
internet more than once a week were twice as likely to have installed up-to-date security
software on a home computer (35% and 70% respectively) and to have looked for secure sites
(32% and 64% respectively).4
Adults who had used the internet more than once a week were also more likely to have said
they only used well-known or popular or trusted sites (69%) compared with those using the internet less frequently (41%).
Around a quarter (27%) of adults who had used the internet in the last year said they did not put personal details online as a precautionary measure; those aged 55 or over were most likely to do this
(for example, 42% of those aged 75 or over).
## 2.7 Perceived Barriers To Internet Use
Adults who said they had not used the internet for each of the three online activities of interest (buying goods or services, online banking or managing finances and online government services) were asked a follow-up question to see if there was anything that had stopped them doing so (see Box 2.4). The main reason given by adults for not using the internet for these activities was that there was no need to (Tables 2.07a to 2.07c):
Around a third of internet-using adults said there was no need to use the internet for buying
goods or services (36%) or for online banking or financial management (33%).
Just over half of adults (53%) reported that there was no need to use online government
services.
This reason was generally given as a response irrespective of age and sex; however, young people aged 16 to 24 were more likely than any other age group to say there was no need to use the internet for online banking or managing finances (52%, compared with 34% of 25 to 34 year olds, for example) or for online government services (64%, compared with 54% of those aged 25 to 34, for example).
## Box 2.4 2010/11 Bcs Question (Internet Use Module) The Following Question Was Asked Of Respondents Who Said They Had Not Used The Internet For Online Banking Or Managing Finances, For Buying Goods Or Services Or For Online Government Services:
In the last 12 months is there anything that has stopped you using the Internet for [this activity]? (Respondents were asked to respond without any prompts from the interviewer):
Lack of interest No need Lack of confidence/skills No computer or access Cannot afford it Feel too old Concern about my personal details being insecure Concern about losing money/having money stolen
Concern about personal details being insecure was given as a reason that had stopped people using the internet most commonly for online banking or managing finances (34%), then for buying goods or services (26%) and then for accessing online government services (10%). Concern about losing money or having money stolen was a reason given by 16 per cent of adults in relation to stopping them accessing online banking or managing finances (the third most common reason for this activity), then for buying goods or services (12%) and less commonly for online government services (3%). The proportion of internet users who were concerned about losing money or having money stolen was lower in relation to each of the three activities than concern about personal details being insecure; this is interesting because the loss of personal details is often associated with subsequent loss of money. Also, it may reflect that the financial loss tends to be borne by the financial institution (rather than victims) when money is taken from a bank account or credit card. For each of the three activities it was clear that those in the youngest age group were least likely to give the reasons of being concerned about personal details being insecure or losing/having money stolen as barriers to internet usage compared with most of the older age groups. For example:
Concern about personal details being insecure was given as a reason for not using the internet
for buying goods or services by 11 per cent of 16 to 24 year olds, significantly lower than all older age groups (for example, 36% of those aged 75 or over).
Internet users aged 75 or over were five times as likely (25%) as those aged 16 to 24 (5%) to
report that concern about losing money or having money stolen was a reason for not using online banking or managing finances.
Three per cent of those aged 16 to 24 who had used the internet in the last year but not for
online government services reported that concern about personal details being insecure was a reason for not doing so, lower than the 20 per cent of adults aged 75 or over who gave the same reason.
Part of the UK Cyber Security Strategy includes 'The need for everyone to have the ability - in terms of skills, technology, confidence and opportunity - to access cyberspace'. Figures from the 2010/11
BCS showed that (Tables 2.07a to 2.07c):
Lack of confidence or skills was reported as a reason stopping them using the internet for
buying goods or services by five per cent of internet-using adults who did not use the internet for this activity. The equivalent figures for online banking or managing finances and online government services were seven and four per cent respectively.
Among internet users who did not use the internet for each of the three activities, only very low
proportions gave no computer or access to a computer as a reason stopping them from accessing goods or services, banking or financial management or government services online (2%, 1% and 1% respectively).
Although still a low proportion, women were more likely than men to say that lack of confidence or skills was a reason stopping them from using online banking or managing finances (8% and 6% respectively) or online government services (5% and 3% respectively). Adults aged 16 to 34 who had not used the internet for buying goods or services were least likely to say that lack of confidence or skills was a reason stopping them using the internet for this activity (16 to 24 year olds: 1%; 25 to 34 year olds: 2%; compared with 13% of adults aged 65 to 74 for example).
Although there were some patterns in the data that suggested variation on barriers to internet use by age, these were not all statistically significant. This may in part be due to the small numbers of people responding to these questions when broken down by age group; small numbers will affect the tests of significance hence any real differences may not be detected.
## 2.8 Negative Experiences While Using The Internet
Adults who had used the internet in the last year were asked whether or not they had experienced certain types of negative behaviours or actions as a result of using the internet (see Box 2.5). This question is an indicator but not a measure of cyber-enabled crimes as the experiences asked about may or may not have been criminal.
## Box 2.5 2010/11 Bcs Question (Internet Use Module)
Respondents who said they had used the internet in the year prior to interview were asked:
In the last 12 months, have you personally experienced any of the things mentioned on this card while using the internet? (Respondents were asked to choose all options that applied from a card they were shown):
A computer virus Loss of money Unauthorised access to/use of personal data (e.g. email account, bank account) Upsetting images/illegal images Abusive/ threatening behaviour None of these
Three in five adults (61%) said that they had not experienced any of these negative behaviours or actions; of those asked about, the most commonly cited was a computer virus which had been experienced by a third of internet-using adults (33%) in the last year. Six per cent of adults reported that someone had unauthorised access to or had used their personal data (for example, their email or bank account) and three per cent said they had lost money while using the internet (Tables 2a and 2.08).
| | | | | Percentages | England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS |
|--------------------|----------------|-------------|---------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| A computer virus | Unauthorised | Upsetting/ | Loss of money | Abusive/ | None of these |
| Unweighted | | | | | |
| access to/use | illegal images | threatening | | | |
| base | | | | | |
| | 1 | | | | |
| of personal data | behaviour | | | | |
| All internet users | 33 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 2 |
| 8,383 | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the internet in the last year.
Focusing on the most common experience, there were clear differences in likelihood of experiencing a computer virus in the last year: this had been experienced by more men (38%) than women (29%) and by those in the youngest age group more than all other age groups (43% of 16 to 24 year olds compared with, for example, 34% of 25 to 34 year olds; Figure 2.4). In particular, young men aged 16
to 24 were the most likely to have experienced a computer virus in the last year (48%, higher than all other ages of men and also women).
Unsurprisingly, frequency of internet use was associated with experience of a computer virus in the last year. Adults who used the internet more than once a week were twice as likely to have had a computer virus as those using the internet once a week or less (35% and 17% respectively).5
## Box 2.6 2012/13 Bcs Questions About Internet Use
The module of questions reported on in this chapter continues to be asked in the 2011/12 BCS. Amendments have been made for the 2012/13 survey to include the following questions:
Respondents who said they had used the internet in the year prior to interview will be asked:
Which of these have you used in the last 12 months to access the internet? (Respondents will be asked to choose all options that apply from a card they are shown):
Desktop computer (at home or work) Laptop (at home or work) Laptop (away from home or work) Mobile phone or smartphone Handheld computer (e.g. iPad, tablet, palmtop) Games consol Digital TV Other
The following question is an amended version of a question reported on in this chapter. It asks respondents more generally about keeping safe online (rather than focusing solely on protecting personal details):
Which of these things do you do to keep yourself safe online, including protecting your personal details on the internet? (Respondents will be asked to choose all options that apply from a card they are shown):
Only use well-known/popular/trusted sites Look for a secure site (closed padlock system/https://website address) Do not use public wi-fi/insecure wi-fi Password protect own internet network (broadband, wi-fi) Password protect device used to access the internet (laptop, computer, phone) Have up-to-date security software on home computer Only use credit cards (not debit or charge cards) Do not put personal details online Other Nothing - not worried about security
The following question will be asked of respondents who said they took any precautions at the previous question:
What are the main reasons, if any, that you take this/these precautions to keep yourself safe online? (Respondents will be asked to choose all options that apply from a card they are shown):
Advice from family/friend/someone else Advertising by/advice from government Advice from police/crime prevention officer Media reports in newspapers/on TV/in other media Have had computer virus in the past Have lost money online in the past Have had personal details accessed without permission in the past Have received upsetting/illegal images in the past Have experienced abusive/threatening behaviour via the internet in the past Generally aware about risks of using the internet Other reason No particular reason
| Percentages | England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS |
|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
| Unweighted | |
| base | |
| | 1 |
| ALL ADULTS | |
| 78 | |
| 11,666 | |
| 16-24 | |
| 98 | |
| 983 | |
| 25-34 | |
| 95 | |
| 1,580 | |
| 35-44 | |
| 92 | |
| 2,034 | |
| 45-54 | |
| 85 | |
| 1,975 | |
| 55-64 | |
| 72 | |
| 2,000 | |
| 65-74 | |
| 46 | |
| 1,666 | |
| 75+ | |
| 19 | |
| 1,428 | |
| Men | |
| 81 | |
| 5,217 | |
| 16-24 | |
| 98 | |
| 433 | |
| 25-34 | |
| 95 | |
| 696 | |
| 35-44 | |
| 93 | |
| 932 | |
| 45-54 | |
| 86 | |
| 916 | |
| 55-64 | |
| 74 | |
| 920 | |
| 65-74 | |
| 53 | |
| 758 | |
| 75+ | |
| 27 | |
| 562 | |
| Women | |
| 75 | |
| 6,449 | |
| 16-24 | |
| 98 | |
| 550 | |
| 25-34 | |
| 94 | |
| 884 | |
| 35-44 | |
| 92 | |
| 1,102 | |
| 45-54 | |
| 84 | |
| 1,059 | |
| 55-64 | |
| 71 | |
| 1,080 | |
| 65-74 | |
| 39 | |
| 908 | |
| 75+ | |
| 13 | |
| 866 | |
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use. 2. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
| Percentages | England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| More than | |
| once a week | |
| Once a week | |
| or less often | |
| Unweighted | |
| base | |
| | 1 |
| Two or three | |
| times a week | |
| Once a week | Less than |
| once a week | |
| Every | |
| day/almost | |
| every day | |
| ALL INTERNET USERS | 91 |
| 8,382 | |
| 16-24 | 94 |
| 953 | |
| 25-34 | 94 |
| 1,498 | |
| 35-44 | 93 |
| 1,889 | |
| 45-54 | 90 |
| 1,659 | |
| 55-64 | 86 |
| 1,393 | |
| 65-74 | 84 |
| 735 | |
| 75+ | 80 |
| 255 | |
| Men | 92 |
| 3,891 | |
| 16-24 | 94 |
| 426 | |
| 25-34 | 95 |
| 662 | |
| 35-44 | 94 |
| 867 | |
| 45-54 | 91 |
| 767 | |
| 55-64 | 87 |
| 646 | |
| 65-74 | 88 |
| 384 | |
| 75+ | 82 |
| 139 | |
| Women | 90 |
| 4,491 | |
| 16-24 | 95 |
| 527 | |
| 25-34 | 93 |
| 836 | |
| 35-44 | 93 |
| 1,022 | |
| 45-54 | 89 |
| 892 | |
| 55-64 | 84 |
| 747 | |
| 65-74 | 78 |
| 351 | |
| 75+ | 76 |
| 116 | |
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the internet in the last year. 2. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
| Percentages | England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Buying goods | |
| or services | |
| None of these | Social |
| networking | |
| Unweighted | |
| base | |
| | 1 |
| Email, instant | |
| messaging, | |
| chat rooms | |
| Browsing for | |
| news or | |
| homework | |
| Online banking | |
| or managing | |
| finances | |
| Online | |
| government | |
| services | |
| ALL INTERNET USERS | 83 |
| 8,383 | |
| 16-24 | 78 |
| 953 | |
| 25-34 | 87 |
| 1,498 | |
| 35-44 | 84 |
| 1,890 | |
| 45-54 | 82 |
| 1,659 | |
| 55-64 | 81 |
| 1,393 | |
| 65-74 | 84 |
| 735 | |
| 75+ | 81 |
| 255 | |
| Men | 83 |
| 3,891 | |
| 16-24 | 79 |
| 426 | |
| 25-34 | 87 |
| 662 | |
| 35-44 | 84 |
| 867 | |
| 45-54 | 81 |
| 767 | |
| 55-64 | 81 |
| 646 | |
| 65-74 | 84 |
| 384 | |
| 75+ | 78 |
| 139 | |
| Women | 83 |
| 4,492 | |
| 16-24 | 78 |
| 527 | |
| 25-34 | 87 |
| 836 | |
| 35-44 | 83 |
| 1,023 | |
| 45-54 | 82 |
| 892 | |
| 55-64 | 81 |
| 747 | |
| 65-74 | 84 |
| 351 | |
| 75+ | 85 |
| 116 | |
| Internet usage | |
| More than once a week | 87 |
| 7,542 | |
| Once a week or less often | 38 |
| 840 | |
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the internet in the last year. 2. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
| Percentages | England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Buying goods or services | Online banking or |
| managing finances | |
| Online government | |
| services | |
| Worried | |
| 44 | 37 |
| Very worried | |
| 7 | 7 |
| Fairly worried | |
| 37 | 30 |
| Not worried | |
| 56 | 63 |
| Not very worried | |
| 44 | 46 |
| Not at all worried | |
| 12 | 17 |
| Unweighted base | |
| | 1 |
| 6,414 | 4,807 |
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the internet in the last year and for each of these activities.
| Percentages | England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Buying goods or | |
| services | |
| Unweighted | |
| base | |
| | 1 |
| Unweighted | |
| base | |
| | 1 |
| Unweighted | |
| base | |
| | 1 |
| Online banking or | |
| managing | |
| finances | |
| Online | |
| government | |
| services | |
| Percentage saying they were 'very' or 'fairly' worried | |
| ALL INTERNET USERS | 44 |
| 6,414 | |
| 37 | |
| 4,807 | |
| 26 | |
| 4,308 | |
| 16-24 | 32 |
| 671 | |
| 31 | |
| 459 | |
| 22 | |
| 268 | |
| 25-34 | 43 |
| 1,244 | |
| 35 | |
| 1,055 | |
| 21 | |
| 852 | |
| 35-44 | 44 |
| 1,548 | |
| 35 | |
| 1,209 | |
| 26 | |
| 1,103 | |
| 45-54 | 51 |
| 1,292 | |
| 42 | |
| 949 | |
| 29 | |
| 920 | |
| 55-64 | 50 |
| 1,020 | |
| 45 | |
| 694 | |
| 31 | |
| 738 | |
| 65-74 | 48 |
| 496 | |
| 40 | |
| 347 | |
| 26 | |
| 341 | |
| 75+ | 47 |
| 143 | |
| 28 | |
| 94 | |
| 20 | |
| 86 | |
| Men | 42 |
| 3,013 | |
| 36 | |
| 2,349 | |
| 25 | |
| 2,219 | |
| 16-24 | 28 |
| 300 | |
| 31 | |
| 203 | |
| 21 | |
| 133 | |
| 25-34 | 42 |
| 561 | |
| 37 | |
| 490 | |
| 23 | |
| 416 | |
| 35-44 | 41 |
| 705 | |
| 33 | |
| 578 | |
| 25 | |
| 540 | |
| 45-54 | 51 |
| 612 | |
| 40 | |
| 473 | |
| 26 | |
| 475 | |
| 55-64 | 47 |
| 477 | |
| 39 | |
| 349 | |
| 29 | |
| 386 | |
| 65-74 | 46 |
| 271 | |
| 42 | |
| 195 | |
| 24 | |
| 215 | |
| 75+ | 47 |
| 87 | |
| 31 | |
| 61 | |
| 27 | |
| 54 | |
| Women | 46 |
| 3,401 | |
| 38 | |
| 2,458 | |
| 27 | |
| 2,089 | |
| 16-24 | 36 |
| 371 | |
| 30 | |
| 256 | |
| 23 | |
| 135 | |
| 25-34 | 43 |
| 683 | |
| 33 | |
| 565 | |
| 19 | |
| 436 | |
| 35-44 | 47 |
| 843 | |
| 37 | |
| 631 | |
| 27 | |
| 563 | |
| 45-54 | 52 |
| 680 | |
| 44 | |
| 476 | |
| 32 | |
| 445 | |
| 55-64 | 53 |
| 543 | |
| 51 | |
| 345 | |
| 34 | |
| 352 | |
| 65-74 | 50 |
| 225 | |
| 38 | |
| 152 | |
| 29 | |
| 126 | |
| 75+ | 46 |
| 56 | |
| 21 | |
| 33 | |
| 6 | |
| 32 | |
| Internet usage | |
| More than once a week | 44 |
| 6,075 | |
| 37 | |
| 4,646 | |
| 26 | |
| 4,171 | |
| Once a week or less often | 52 |
| 339 | |
| 38 | |
| 161 | |
| 30 | |
| 137 | |
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the internet in the last year and for each of these activities. 2. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
| Percentages | England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Look for secure | |
| sites | |
| Unweighted | |
| base | |
| | 1 |
| Only use well- | |
| known/ popular/ | |
| trusted sites | |
| Only order from | |
| companies that | |
| are based in UK | |
| Do not put | |
| personal details | |
| online | |
| Some other | |
| security | |
| measure | |
| Nothing - not | |
| worried about | |
| security | |
| Installed up-to- | |
| date security | |
| software on | |
| home computer | |
| Always keep | |
| copy of web | |
| page/order form/ | |
| correspondence | |
| Only use credit | |
| cards (not | |
| debit/charge | |
| cards) | |
| Only use sites | |
| that are | |
| professionally | |
| designed | |
| Only buy from | |
| new sites | |
| recommended | |
| by established | |
| companies | |
| ALL INTERNET USERS | 67 |
| 8,382 | |
| 16-24 | 61 |
| 953 | |
| 25-34 | 66 |
| 1,497 | |
| 35-44 | 69 |
| 1,890 | |
| 45-54 | 69 |
| 1,659 | |
| 55-64 | 68 |
| 1,393 | |
| 65-74 | 67 |
| 735 | |
| 75+ | 53 |
| 255 | |
| Men | 68 |
| 3,890 | |
| 16-24 | 61 |
| 426 | |
| 25-34 | 66 |
| 661 | |
| 35-44 | 72 |
| 867 | |
| 45-54 | 70 |
| 767 | |
| 55-64 | 70 |
| 646 | |
| 65-74 | 71 |
| 384 | |
| 75+ | 54 |
| 139 | |
| Women | 65 |
| 4,492 | |
| 16-24 | 62 |
| 527 | |
| 25-34 | 66 |
| 836 | |
| 35-44 | 67 |
| 1,023 | |
| 45-54 | 68 |
| 892 | |
| 55-64 | 66 |
| 747 | |
| 65-74 | 63 |
| 351 | |
| 75+ | 51 |
| 116 | |
| Internet usage | |
| More than once a week | 70 |
| 7,541 | |
| Once a week or less often | 35 |
| 840 | |
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the internet in the last year. 2. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
| Percentages | England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Lack of | |
| interest | |
| Cannot afford | |
| it | |
| None of these | |
| Unweighted | |
| base | |
| | 1 |
| No need | Lack of |
| confidence/ | |
| skills | |
| No computer | |
| or access to | |
| computer | |
| Feel too old | Concern about |
| personal | |
| details being | |
| insecure | |
| Concern about | |
| losing | |
| money/having | |
| money stolen | |
| ALL INTERNET USERS | 36 |
| 1,966 | |
| 16-24 | 45 |
| 282 | |
| 25-34 | 45 |
| 252 | |
| 35-44 | 35 |
| 342 | |
| 45-54 | 31 |
| 366 | |
| 55-64 | 27 |
| 373 | |
| 65-74 | 29 |
| 239 | |
| 75+ | 30 |
| 112 | |
| Men | 38 |
| 877 | |
| 16-24 | 43 |
| 126 | |
| 25-34 | 52 |
| 100 | |
| 35-44 | 34 |
| 162 | |
| 45-54 | 33 |
| 155 | |
| 55-64 | 35 |
| 169 | |
| 65-74 | 27 |
| 113 | |
| 75+ | 27 |
| 52 | |
| Women | 34 |
| 1,089 | |
| 16-24 | 46 |
| 156 | |
| 25-34 | 38 |
| 152 | |
| 35-44 | 37 |
| 180 | |
| 45-54 | 30 |
| 211 | |
| 55-64 | 18 |
| 204 | |
| 65-74 | 30 |
| 126 | |
| 75+ | 32 |
| 60 | |
| Internet usage | |
| More than once a week | 37 |
| 1,465 | |
| Once a week or less often | 34 |
| 500 | |
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the internet in the last year but not for buying goods or services. 2. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
| Percentages | England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Lack of | |
| interest | |
| None of these | Cannot afford |
| it | |
| Unweighted | |
| base | |
| | 1 |
| No need | Lack of |
| confidence/ | |
| skills | |
| No computer | |
| or access to | |
| computer | |
| Feel too old | Concern about |
| personal | |
| details being | |
| insecure | |
| Concern about | |
| losing | |
| money/having | |
| money stolen | |
| ALL ADULTS | 34 |
| 3,574 | |
| 16-24 | 11 |
| 494 | |
| 25-34 | 32 |
| 442 | |
| 35-44 | 37 |
| 681 | |
| 45-54 | 41 |
| 709 | |
| 55-64 | 43 |
| 699 | |
| 65-74 | 47 |
| 388 | |
| 75+ | 51 |
| 161 | |
| Men | 33 |
| 1,542 | |
| 16-24 | 10 |
| 223 | |
| 25-34 | 31 |
| 172 | |
| 35-44 | 38 |
| 289 | |
| 45-54 | 41 |
| 294 | |
| 55-64 | 40 |
| 297 | |
| 65-74 | 52 |
| 189 | |
| 75+ | 50 |
| 78 | |
| Women | 34 |
| 2,032 | |
| 16-24 | 13 |
| 271 | |
| 25-34 | 34 |
| 270 | |
| 35-44 | 37 |
| 392 | |
| 45-54 | 42 |
| 415 | |
| 55-64 | 45 |
| 402 | |
| 65-74 | 43 |
| 199 | |
| 75+ | 51 |
| 83 | |
| Internet usage | |
| More than once a week | 35 |
| 2,894 | |
| Once a week or less often | 29 |
| 679 | |
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the internet in the last year but not for online banking or managing finances. 2. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
| Percentages | England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Lack of | |
| interest | |
| Cannot afford | |
| it | |
| None of these | |
| Unweighted | |
| base | |
| | 1 |
| No need | Lack of |
| confidence/ | |
| skills | |
| No computer | |
| or access to | |
| computer | |
| Feel too old | Concern about |
| personal | |
| details being | |
| insecure | |
| Concern about | |
| losing | |
| money/having | |
| money stolen | |
| ALL ADULTS | 53 |
| 4,071 | |
| 16-24 | 64 |
| 683 | |
| 25-34 | 54 |
| 645 | |
| 35-44 | 51 |
| 787 | |
| 45-54 | 47 |
| 739 | |
| 55-64 | 48 |
| 654 | |
| 65-74 | 44 |
| 394 | |
| 75+ | 44 |
| 169 | |
| Men | 53 |
| 1,671 | |
| 16-24 | 63 |
| 292 | |
| 25-34 | 56 |
| 246 | |
| 35-44 | 53 |
| 327 | |
| 45-54 | 46 |
| 292 | |
| 55-64 | 48 |
| 260 | |
| 65-74 | 37 |
| 169 | |
| 75+ | 47 |
| 85 | |
| Women | 53 |
| 2,400 | |
| 16-24 | 64 |
| 391 | |
| 25-34 | 53 |
| 399 | |
| 35-44 | 49 |
| 460 | |
| 45-54 | 49 |
| 447 | |
| 55-64 | 48 |
| 394 | |
| 65-74 | 50 |
| 225 | |
| 75+ | 41 |
| 84 | |
| Internet usage | |
| More than once a week | 55 |
| 3,368 | |
| Once a week or less often | 46 |
| 702 | |
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the internet in the last year but not for online government services. 2. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
| Percentages | England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| None of these | Upsetting/ illegal |
| images | |
| Unweighted | |
| base | |
| | 1 |
| A computer virus | Loss of money |
| threatening | |
| behaviour | |
| Unauthorised | |
| access to/use of | |
| personal data | |
| ALL INTERNET USERS | 33 |
| 8,383 | |
| 16-24 | 43 |
| 953 | |
| 25-34 | 34 |
| 1,498 | |
| 35-44 | 34 |
| 1,890 | |
| 45-54 | 35 |
| 1,659 | |
| 55-64 | 26 |
| 1,393 | |
| 65-74 | 18 |
| 735 | |
| 75+ | 17 |
| 255 | |
| Men | 38 |
| 3,891 | |
| 16-24 | 48 |
| 426 | |
| 25-34 | 38 |
| 662 | |
| 35-44 | 39 |
| 867 | |
| 45-54 | 39 |
| 767 | |
| 55-64 | 32 |
| 646 | |
| 65-74 | 20 |
| 384 | |
| 75+ | 22 |
| 139 | |
| Women | 29 |
| 4,492 | |
| 16-24 | 38 |
| 527 | |
| 25-34 | 29 |
| 836 | |
| 35-44 | 29 |
| 1,023 | |
| 45-54 | 30 |
| 892 | |
| 55-64 | 21 |
| 747 | |
| 65-74 | 16 |
| 351 | |
| 75+ | 10 |
| 116 | |
| Internet usage | |
| More than once a week | 35 |
| 7,542 | |
| Once a week or less often | 17 |
| 840 | |
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the internet in the last year.
2. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
## 3 Experimental Statistics On The Experience Of Crime Among Children Aged 10 To 15 Ivy Lau And Jacqueline Hoare 3.1 Summary
This chapter is based on data collected from 10 to 15 year olds who took part in the 2010/11 British Crime Survey (BCS). Questions were asked of children in England and Wales who had experienced a crime about the circumstances of the incident, any details on the offender(s) and their views of the incident.
## The Nature Of Violence
Any differences between the nature of violent incidents experienced by children and adults have been highlighted here, although these naturally reflect the differing lifestyles of children and adults.
The majority of violent incidents experienced by children took place in or around school (56%)
whereas for adults most incidents took place on the street (30%).
The vast majority of violent incidents experienced by children took place on a weekday (89%)
and during daylight (88%) in contrast with adults who tended to experience violent incidents during the evening or at night (67%).
Violent incidents experienced by children were more likely to involve an offender that was well
known to the victim (56%) than incidents experienced by adults (34%).
Around three-fifths of violent incidents among children involved a single offender (61%), and
one-fifth (22%) involved four or more offenders, a similar distribution to adult incidents (66% and
19% respectively).
## The Nature Of Theft
Around half (46%) of incidents of theft experienced by children occurred in or around school. Similar to violent incidents, thefts experienced by children were most likely to have occurred
during a weekday (85%) and to have taken place during daylight hours (86%).
Incidents of theft were more likely to be perpetrated by a friend than for violent incidents (22%
and 7% respectively).
Items most likely to be stolen included mobile phones (24% of incidents) and bicycles (21%).
## Variation In Violence Victimisation Rates Among Children
Boys were around twice as likely as girls to have been a victim of violence (9.5% and 4.1%
respectively).
Children with a long-standing illness or disability were more likely to have experienced a violent
incident compared with children without an illness or disability (15.0% and 6.1% respectively).
Children who had been bullied in the last 12 months had a much higher violence victimisation
rate (20.8%) than those who had not been bullied (3.3%), not unexpectedly as children
perceived that three in five violent incidents (62%) were part of a series of bullying.
## 3.2 Introduction
This chapter is based on data collected from 10 to 15 year olds who took part in the 2010/11 British Crime Survey (BCS). Around 3,850 children took part in the survey after being randomly selected from within households already taking part in the main survey. All children who were interviewed were asked questions about their experience of crime (details of the questions are published via the Economic and Social Data Service1). This chapter reports on the circumstances of violence and theft incidents experienced by 10-to-15-year-old children in the 12
months prior to interview. Victims of such incidents were asked a series of questions relating to their experience including information about the circumstances of the incident, any details on the offender(s) and the child's view of the nature of the incident.
Estimates of victimisation for 10 to 15 year olds from the 2010/11 BCS have previously been published as experimental statistics (Chaplin *et al.*, 2011). The information included in this publication provides a more detailed picture of children's experiences of victimisation and thus a greater understanding of the nature of these crimes. The figures presented are restricted to those included in the more focused method of counting crime against children (the 'Preferred measure').2 This takes into account factors identified as important in determining the severity of an incident and thus includes incidents where:
the offender3 was not known (e.g. stranger, tradesman, pupil from another school); or the offender3 was known, but aged 16 or over and not a family member (e.g. neighbour, older
friend, teacher); or
the offender3 was known and either a family member or aged under 16 (e.g. parent, sibling,
school-friend) and there was visible injury or theft or damage involving a 'high value' item; or
a weapon4 was involved.
The analysis presented in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 about the nature of violence and the nature of theft is based on incidents rather than victims (who may have experienced more than one incident). These data are being published for the first time. In contrast, information presented in section 3.5 on the variation in victimisation rates5 among children is victim-based data (a victim may experience more than one incident of crime, but would only be included once). See Section 4 of the British Crime Survey Dataset User Guide1 (Children aged 10 to 15) for more information on victim- and incidentbased analysis.
Data on the nature of crimes experienced by adults aged 16 or over from the BCS are published annually.6 Where possible, comparisons are made here to highlight how similar or different victimisation experiences are for adults and children. Due to the small size of the sample, it is not possible to break down incidents of theft experienced by children into smaller offence groups (theft from the person, for example). Hence it is not possible to compare the nature of theft experienced by children with previously published data on the experience of adult respondents due to the different
presentation of data. Nor is it possible to examine the nature of vandalism incidents due to the small size of the sample.7
Any differences in BCS estimates from the 10-to-15-year-old survey that are described in this chapter are statistically significant at the five per cent level (see Section 8 of the User Guide to Home Office Crime Statistics). Considerably fewer individuals are sampled for the 10-to-15-year-old survey than for the adult survey and therefore estimates based on the 10-to-15-year-old survey have a larger margin of error. This means that, compared with the adult survey, differences between estimates must be larger before we can be confident that they are statistically significant.
Victimisation estimates from BCS interviews with 10 to 15 year olds have been designated as experimental statistics, that is, as new Official Statistics undergoing evaluation and published to involve users and stakeholders in their development as a means to build in quality at an early stage. As such, the statistics are subject to further refinement and review. Hence, figures have not yet been considered for accreditation as National Statistics but this chapter has been produced in compliance with the Official Statistics Code of Practice.8
## 3.3 The Nature Of Violence
According to the 2010/11 BCS, there were an estimated 576,000 incidents of violence experienced by children aged 10 to 15 in the last 12 months (Chaplin *et al.*, 2011). Violence as measured by the BCS
includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury (see Section 5.1 of the User Guide for more details).
Figures presented in this section on violent incidents experienced by children have been compared with the nature of violent incidents experienced by adults9 to highlight any variations, although naturally these reflect the differing lifestyles of children and adults.
## The Circumstances Of Violence
Experimental statistics from the 2010/11 BCS showed that the majority of all violent incidents experienced by children aged 10 to 15 took place in or around school (56%), with 36 per cent outside the school building10 and 19 per cent inside the school building (Table 3.01).
Sixteen per cent of incidents occurred around the home11 and a further 13 per cent at a park, common or open space.
Obviously, this differs from the nature of violent incidents experienced by adults where most incidents took place on the street (30%) or around the home (26%), and only eight per cent took place around work.12 This reflects the different lifestyles of children and adults.
Around nine in ten violent incidents experienced by children took place on a weekday (89%). Threequarters of incidents (76%) took place during the daytime on a weekday with 13 per cent taking place on a weekday evening (Figure 3.1 and Table 3.02). This contrasts with the experiences of adults where around half (55%) of incidents occurred during the week (Figure 3.1). While the majority (88%) of violent incidents experienced by 10 to 15 year olds took place during daylight, the majority of incidents experienced by adults (67%) took place during the evening or at night.
## Offenders Involved In Violence
Given the nature of violent offences, victims of violence are more likely to be able to say something about the offender than for other types of crime (see Box 3.1). This was the case for 93 per cent of violent incidents that children experienced, a lower proportion than for adults (99%).
Around three-fifths of violent incidents among children involved a single offender (61%), and one-fifth
(22%) involved four or more offenders (Table 3.03). This was a similar distribution to adult incidents (66% and 19% respectively).
The majority of violent incidents were carried out by someone in the victim"s age group: in threequarters of incidents (76%) the offender13 was thought to be aged 10 to 15 by the victim and the majority (68%) were perpetrated by pupil(s) at school.
## Box 3.1 Victim'S Knowledge Of Offender(S)
BCS 10-to-15-year-old respondents were asked whether they have any information about the offender(s) for any incidents they had experienced in the 12 months prior to interview. Thus, where the offender-victim relationship or any other information about the offender is stated, the proportion is based on those incidents where the respondent has some knowledge of the offender - this is referred to in the text as "able to say something" about the offender(s).
Most violent incidents experienced by children involved male offender(s) (76%), a similar level to that reported by adult victims of violence (79%). In the majority of violent incidents experienced by children the offender was known to the respondent
(Figure 3.2).
In around half of violent incidents (56%) the offender was known well to the victim.
In 30 per cent of violent incidents the victim knew the offender by sight or to speak to. In 15 per cent of incidents of violence the child victim stated that the offender was a stranger.
This differs from the nature of violent incidents experienced by adults, where the offender was most commonly a stranger (46%) and in around a third of incidents the offender was well known to the victim (34%; Figure 3.2).14
## Injuries And Weapons
Four in five violent incidents experienced by children aged 10 to 15 resulted in some form of injury (81%), the majority being minor bruising or black eyes (59%). One in ten violent incidents resulted in the victim requiring some form of medical attention (12%; Table 3.04).
In just over a half (55%) of violent incidents experienced by adults physical injury was sustained; and a third of incidents resulted in minor bruising or black eyes. This may be a reflection of the differences between children and adults, where adults do not tend to engage in low-level assaults on their peers.
Just under a quarter of violent incidents experienced by 10 to 15 year olds involved the use of a weapon15 (23%), which was a similar proportion to violent incidents experienced by adults (20%). In violent incidents among children which involved a weapon, the most common weapon involved was a stick, club or hitting instrument (41%). One-quarter of such incidents involved the use of stones, bricks or concrete and one in nine (11%) involved a knife, screwdriver or stabbing instrument (Table 3.05). Caution should be used when interpreting these estimates of the type of weapon used in violent incidents experienced by children as they are based on a low number of cases. For more information on the type of injury sustained by children from the BCS 10-to-15s survey; see Chapter 3 of 'Crime in England and Wales 2010/11' (Chaplin *et al*., 2011).
## Perceptions Of Violence
Experimental statistics from the 2010/11 BCS showed that 70 per cent of violent incidents experienced by children aged 10 to 15 were not perceived to be a crime by the victim; with 37 per cent perceiving the incident to be 'wrong, but not a crime' and 33 per cent perceiving it as 'just something that happens' (Table 3.06). Children perceived that three in five violent incidents (62%) that took place were part of a series of bullying. For more information on the experience of bullying from the BCS children's survey see Chapter 3 in 'Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2009/10' (Hoare *et al*., 2011).
## Reporting Of Violence
Overall, the police came to know about 14 per cent of all violent incidents against 10 to 15 year olds. This is lower than the equivalent figure for adults (41%), which is to be expected considering some of the violence that children experience would likely not be reported to the police and may be dealt with by another authority figure, such as a teacher or parent. Indeed, the majority of violent incidents that occurred in or around school were reported by children to a teacher (85%; Table 3.07).
## 3.4 The Nature Of Theft
According to the 2010/11 BCS, there were an estimated 275,000 incidents of theft experienced by children aged 10 to 15 in the last 12 months (Chaplin *et al.*, 2011).
Estimates of thefts experienced by children on the BCS are based on (see Section 5.2 of the User Guide for more details):
Personal thefts: including theft from the person (snatch theft, stealth theft and attempts) and
other theft of personal property (for example, theft of items the respondent was not carrying or holding at the time of incident).
Household thefts: including theft from inside and outside a dwelling and theft of bicycles where
the property stolen or damaged belonged *solely* to the child respondent.16
The nature of overall thefts from the 2010/11 BCS 10-to-15s survey is presented here; the separate theft offences are not reported due to low prevalence in some categories. As previously noted (see Section 3.2), it is not possible to make comparisons with the nature of theft experienced by adults. Instead, comparisons are made with the nature of violence experienced by children.
## The Circumstances Of Thefts
Experimental statistics from the 2010/11 BCS showed that 46 per cent of theft incidents experienced by children occurred in or around school, a lower proportion than for violent incidents (56%). However, thefts were more likely to occur inside a school building than violent incidents (34% compared with 19%). Incidents of theft were also more likely to occur in or around the home (27%) compared with violent incidents (16%; Table 3.01). Similar to violent incidents, incidents of theft experienced by 10 to 15 year olds were most likely to have occurred during a weekday (85% of theft incidents similar to 89% of violent incidents) and to have taken place during daylight hours (86% and 88% respectively; Table 3.02).
## Offenders Involved In Thefts
As expected, compared with violent incidents, victims of theft were much less likely to be able to say something about the perpetrator of the incident (for example, because some thefts were of unattended items). The following analysis therefore relates only to the 44 per cent of incidents where the child was able to say something about the offender (see Box 3.1 and Table 3.03). Two-thirds (65%) of theft incidents experienced by children aged 10 to 15 involved a single offender, which was a similar proportion to that for violent incidents (61%). However, incidents of theft were less likely to involve four or more offenders compared with incidents of violence (9% and 22% respectively). In 80 per cent of incidents of theft where the victim was able to say something about the offender, the offender was perceived to be aged 10 to 15, a similar proportion to that for violent incidents (76%). Again this suggests that the majority of offences are carried out by perpetrators in the victim"s age group. In 17 per cent of incidents of theft the offender was a stranger, which was similar to violent incidents (16%). However, there was a lower proportion of theft incidents where the offender was known well (44%) compared with violent incidents (56%).
The victim"s relationship to the offender in incidents of theft generally differed to those in violent incidents. For example, of the incidents where the victim was able to say something about the offender:
Incidents of theft were less likely to be perpetrated by a pupil from the victim"s own school
compared with incidents of violence (54% and 68% respectively).
Incidents of theft were more likely to be perpetrated by a friend than for violent incidents (22%
and 7% respectively).
## Items Stolen
Four in five (79%) incidents of theft (including attempted thefts) experienced by children resulted in an item being stolen. Items most commonly stolen were (Table 3.08):
a mobile phone (24% of incidents);
a bicycle or bicycle parts (21%);
cash (16%); and clothing (12%).
## Perceptions Of Thefts
Incidents of theft experienced by children aged 10 to 15 were perceived in a different way to violent incidents, for example (Table 3.06):
Incidents of thefts were more likely to be perceived as a crime compared with violent incidents
(55% and 30% respectively).
Theft incidents were much less likely to be perceived as part of a series of bullying compared
with violent incidents (13% compared with 62%).
## Reporting Of Thefts
Despite incidents of theft being more likely to be perceived by children as a crime compared with violent incidents, the reporting rates were similar for the two types of offences (Table 3.07):
Police came to know about 13 per cent of theft incidents experienced by 10 to 15 year olds,
similar to the 14 per cent of violent incidents reported to the police.
Eighty-four per cent of theft incidents that occurred in or around school were reported to a
teacher as were 85 per cent of violent incidents.
## 3.5 Variation In Victimisation Rates Among Children
Headline victimisation rates17 for violence, theft and vandalism for 10 to 15 year olds from the 2010/11
BCS have previously been published as experimental statistics (Chaplin *et al*., 2011). Evidence from the main BCS has repeatedly shown that victimisation rates among adults vary depending on the characteristics of victims (see, for example, Flatley *et al.*, 2010); hence similar analysis has now been carried out on the data collected from children.
This section focuses on the variation in victimisation rates according to personal, household and area characteristics18 (see Tables 3.09 and 3.10). However, some of these demographic characteristics may be inter-related so caution is needed in the interpretation of the effect of these different characteristics when viewed in isolation.
In general, caution should also be used when interpreting estimates that are based on a low number of cases. This is notably true for certain characteristics associated with children in this sample, such as having been bullied or living in a flat or in an area of high physical disorder. It should also be noted that tests of statistical significance are related to sample size; it may be that some apparently large differences shown in the tables are not statistically significant and could be due to sampling variation.
Only statistically significant differences are highlighted in the text.
Overall, there was little variation in theft or damage victimisation rates among children according to associated personal, household or area characteristics (although levels of bike theft were higher for boys (1.8%) than for girls (0.6%)). Hence the following commentary considers only variations in violence and overall crime victimisation rates among children.19
## Violence Victimisation Among Children
According to the 2010/11 BCS, 6.9 per cent of children aged 10 to 15 had experienced a violent crime in the last 12 months (Chaplin *et al*., 2011 and Tables 3.9 and 3.10). Boys were around twice as likely as girls to have been a victim of violence (9.5% and 4.1% respectively). This was also true looking at grouped ages (Table 3.09):
Boys aged 10 to 12 (9.6%) and also boys aged 13 to 15 (9.4%) were each more likely to have
been victims of violence than both girls aged 10 to 12 (4.8%) and girls aged 13 to 15 (3.5%).
Around 3.1 per cent of adults had experienced a violent crime in the last year (Chaplin *et al*., 2011).
Similar to the gender difference noted among children, men were twice as likely to be a victim of violent crime as women (4.1% and 2.2% respectively).20
The pattern by age was less clear, however, as ten year olds had the highest victimisation rate (11.6%) compared with all other ages (for example, 5.7% of 11 year olds) but there were no statistically significant differences between any of the other ages. Considering other personal characteristics of children, experimental statistics from the 2010/11 BCS showed that:
Children with a long-standing illness or disability were more than twice as likely to have
experienced a violent incident compared with children without an illness or disability (15.0% and 6.1% respectively).
Children who had been bullied in the last 12 months had a much higher violence victimisation
rate (20.8%) than those who had not been bullied (3.3%). This is not unexpected as violence can often form part of the bullying experience. As discussed in Section 3.3, 62 per cent of violent incidents were perceived to be part of a series of bullying.
There was also variation in violence victimisation among children according to some household characteristics (Table 3.10):
Children who lived in a household with one adult were more likely to have experienced a violent
incident in the last year (9.4%) compared with children who lived in a household with more than one adult (6.2%).
Children who lived in social-rented property had the highest violence victimisation rate (11.6%)
compared with 6.6 per cent of children in private-rented accommodation and 5.2 per cent of
those in owner-occupied accommodation.
Children who lived in households with an income of less than £20,000 were more likely to have
been a victim of violence (less than £10,000: 12.5%, from £10,000 to less than £20,000: 10.6%) compared with children who lived in households with all higher incomes (for example, £50,000 or more: 5.4%; Figure 3.3).
As with adults,21 violence victimisation rates were higher in more deprived areas. Children living in an area of high physical disorder were around twice as likely to have been a victim of violence as those living in an area that did not have a high level of disorder (12.5% and 6.5% respectively). Similarly, children living in the most deprived output areas according to the crime deprivation index (9.7%) were around twice as likely to have experienced violence in the last year as those living in the least deprived output areas (5.0%).
The level of violence victimisation among 10 to 15 year olds was similar in urban and rural areas
(6.9% and 6.7% respectively). This distribution is different to that of adults; adults living in an urban area were more likely to be a victim of a violent offence than those living in a rural area (3.4%
compared with 2.0%).21
## Overall Victimisation Among Children
For children, most of the variation seen in being a victim of any crime is due to the variation in violence victimisation, as the smaller degree of variation in theft and damage victimisation rates only has a minor effect. Experimental statistics from the 2010/11 BCS showed that 11.7 per cent of children aged 10 to 15 had experienced a crime in the last 12 months (Chaplin *et al.*, 2011 and Tables 3.09 and 3.10). This figure encompasses the 11.4 per cent of children who experienced a crime against the person (that is, an offence of violence or theft) and 0.4 per cent who had experienced a crime against personal property (that is, criminal damage, Tables 3.09 and 3.10).
Boys were more likely than girls to have been a victim of any BCS crime (14.6% and 8.6% respectively). There was no variation by age so this held true when looking at grouped ages (Table 3.09):
Boys aged 10 to 12 (14.5%) and also boys aged 13 to 15 (14.7%) were each more likely to
have been victims of crime than girls aged 10 to 12 and girls aged 13 to 15 (both 8.6%).
As shown for violence victimisation, rates of overall victimisation were considerably higher among children with a long-standing illness or disability and those who had been bullied in the last year:
Children with a long-standing illness or disability were more likely to have been a victim of crime
compared with children without an illness or disability (18.8% and 11.0% respectively).
Children who had been bullied in the last 12 months had a much higher victimisation rate
(28.7%) than those who had not been bullied (6.7%).22
There were similar patterns for crime victimisation overall as shown for violence victimisation when looking at household characteristics (Table 3.10):
Children who lived in a household with one adult were more likely to have experienced a crime
in the last year (16.0%) compared with children who lived in a household with more than one adult (10.5%).
Children who lived in social-rented property had the highest victimisation rate (17.4%, compared
with 12.0% of children in private-rented accommodation and 9.4% in owner-occupied accommodation).
Children who lived in households with lower incomes were the most likely to have been a victim
of crime (for example, less than £10,000: 18.1%, compared with £50,000 or more: 9.3%).
Again, as for violence, there was a similarity in children"s victimisation rates in urban and rural areas (11.6% and 11.8% respectively). There was also a clear pattern in levels of victimisation according to the crime deprivation index:
Children living in the most deprived areas (according to the crime deprivation index) were most
likely to have been a victim of crime (15.1%), higher than the 12.0 per cent of children in the 60
per cent of areas between the most and least deprived areas. These figures were both higher than the 8.6 per cent of children living in the least deprived areas (according to the crime deprivation index).
Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All violence1
All thefts1
In or around school
56
46
Inside school building
19
34
Outside school building (playground/street/car park)
36
12
In or around home/housing estate
16
27
Park/common/open space
13
7
Other public location (incl transport)
9
9
Elsewhere
6
10
Unweighted base
426
312
1. 'All violence' includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury. 'All thefts' includes theft from the person and other theft of personal property but also theft from inside and outside a dwelling and theft of bicycles where the property stolen or damaged belonged solely to the child respondent. See Section 5 of the User Guide for more information on crime types.
Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All violence1
All thefts1
Weekday
89
85
Weekday daytime
76
75
Weekday evening
13
10
Weekend2
11
15
Unweighted base
419
296
Daylight
88
86
Dark
6
12
Dawn/dusk
6
2
Unweighted base
425
297
Term time
88
82
School holidays
12
18
Unweighted base
404
298
1. 'All violence' includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury. 'All thefts' includes theft from the person and other theft of personal property but also theft from inside and outside a dwelling and theft of bicycles where the property stolen or damaged belonged solely to the child respondent. See Section 5 of the User Guide for more information on crime types.
2. Weekend includes Friday night.
Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All violence1
All thefts1
Able to say something about offender(s)
93
44
Unweighted base
424
309
Number of offender(s)
One
61
65
Two
11
22
Three
6
5
Four or more
22
9
Sex of offender(s)
Male(s)
76
76
Female(s)
16
19
Both
8
5
Age of offender(s)2
Aged under 10
10
5
Aged 10 to 15
76
80
Aged 16 to 19
12
15
Aged 20 or older
4
4
Relationship to victim3
Stranger
15
17
Known by sight or to speak to
30
39
Known well
56
44
Unweighted base (victim was able to say something about the offender)
395
119
Pupil at your school
68
54
Young people from local area
16
10
Friend (incl boy/girlfriend)
7
22
Other relationship
12
18
Unweighted base (victim was able to say something about an offender who was 'known')
321
98
1. 'All violence' includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury. 'All thefts' includes theft from the person and other theft of personal property but also theft from inside and outside a dwelling and theft of bicycles where the property stolen or damaged belonged solely to the child respondent. See Section 5 of the User Guide for more information on crime types.
2. Figures add to more than 100 as more than one offender could be involved. 3. Where there was more than one offender a priority order was applied to the data so that 'Known well' would take precedence over 'Known by sight or to speak to' which would in turn take precedence over 'Stranger'. For example if there were two offenders, one 'Known well' and the other a 'Stranger' this would be categorised as 'Known well'.
Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All violence1
Sustained an injury
81
Received some form of medical attention
12
Unweighted base
414
Type of injury
Minor bruise/black eye
59
Scratches
31
Marks on skin
19
Severe bruising
14
Cuts
10
Serious injury2
7
Hurt but no marks on skin
5
Some other injury
2
Unweighted base
294
1. 'All violence' includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury. See Section 5 of the User Guide for more information on crime types. 2. Serious injury includes: facial/head injuries, broken nose, concussion, broken bones.
Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All violence1
Weapon used
23
Unweighted base
403
Stick/club/hitting implement
41
Stones/brick/concrete
25
Knife/screwdriver/stabbing implement
11
Something else
33
Unweighted base
106
1. 'All violence' includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury. See Section 5 of the User Guide for more information on crime types.
Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All violence1
All thefts1
Incident perceived as a crime
30
55
Incident not perceived as a crime
70
45
Incident perceived to be wrong, but not a crime
37
24
Incident perceived to be just something that happens
33
21
Unweighted base
412
307
Incident perceived as part of a series of bullying
62
13
Unweighted base
403
306
1. 'All violence' includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury. 'All thefts' includes theft from the person and other theft of personal property but also theft from inside and outside a dwelling and theft of bicycles where the property stolen or damaged belonged solely to the child respondent. See Section 5 of the User Guide for more information on crime types.
Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All violence1
All thefts1
Whether police came to know about the incident
14
13
Unweighted base
423
308
Reported to at school
Teacher
85
84
Friend
17
27
Someone else at school (incl prefect)
15
18
Unweighted base (only includes incidents that occurred at school)
138
106
1. 'All violence' includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury. 'All thefts' includes theft from the person and other theft of personal property but also theft from inside and outside a dwelling and theft of bicycles where the property stolen or damaged belonged solely to the child respondent. See Section 5 of the User Guide for more information on crime types.
Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All thefts1
Any item was stolen2
79
Unweighted base
312
Type of item stolen
Mobile phone
24
Bicycle or bicycle parts
21
Cash/foreign currency
16
Clothing
12
Electrical items
7
Bag/handbag/shopping bag
7
Sports equipment
5
Toys
4
Stationery/books
4
Jewellery/watches
3
Cards/purse
2
Other items
12
Unweighted base
247
1. 'All thefts' includes theft from the person and other theft of personal property but also theft from inside and outside a dwelling and theft of bicycles where the property stolen or damaged belonged solely to the child respondent. See Section 5 of the User Guide for more information on crime types. 2. Proportion is based on all thefts, including attempted thefts where no items were stolen.
Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All violence1
All thefts1
Unweighted
base
Crime against
the person1
Bike theft
All crime
experienced by
children aged 10–15
Crime against
personal
property
Violence with
injury
Violence
without injury
Theft from
the person
Other theft of
personal
property
Theft from
the dwelling/
outside the
dwelling
ALL CHILDREN AGED 10–15
6.9
5.1
2.1
5.4
0.7
3.1
0.5
1.2
11.4
0.4
11.7
3,849
Age
10–12
7.3
5.6
2.0
5.1
0.5
2.9
0.6
1.2
11.4
0.6
11.6
1,823
10
11.6
9.4
2.5
4.0
0.0
2.5
0.6
0.8
14.6
1.2
15.0
532
11
5.7
4.3
1.9
5.6
0.9
3.2
0.5
1.3
10.4
0.6
10.7
640
12
5.0
3.6
1.8
5.5
0.5
3.0
0.5
1.5
9.5
0.1
9.6
651
13–15
6.5
4.6
2.2
5.7
0.8
3.3
0.5
1.2
11.5
0.2
11.7
2,026
13
7.1
4.9
2.6
4.3
0.5
3.0
0.5
0.4
11.1
0.6
11.4
685
14
6.1
4.1
2.2
6.3
1.1
3.3
0.2
1.7
11.2
0.0
11.2
646
15
6.3
4.7
1.7
6.6
1.0
3.6
0.7
1.6
12.3
0.1
12.3
695
Boys
9.5
6.9
3.1
6.0
0.8
2.9
0.5
1.8
14.2
0.7
14.6
1,974
10–12
9.6
7.2
3.0
6.1
0.8
3.0
0.6
1.9
14.1
0.9
14.5
933
13–15
9.4
6.7
3.1
5.8
0.7
2.9
0.4
1.8
14.4
0.5
14.7
1,041
Girls
4.1
3.1
1.1
4.8
0.6
3.3
0.5
0.6
8.5
0.1
8.6
1,875
10–12
4.8
3.9
1.0
3.9
0.2
2.8
0.5
0.6
8.4
0.3
8.6
890
13–15
3.5
2.4
1.2
5.6
0.9
3.7
0.5
0.6
8.6
0.0
8.6
985
Ethnic group
White
7.1
5.0
2.4
5.4
0.6
3.1
0.6
1.2
11.6
0.5
11.8
3,343
Ethnic group other than White
6.0
5.4
0.6
5.5
1.1
3.2
0.0
1.2
10.9
0.2
10.9
498
School year2
Year 5
11.5
9.1
2.6
4.1
0.0
2.8
0.3
1.0
14.8
1.1
15.6
272
Year 6
8.6
7.2
2.1
5.5
0.5
2.8
1.1
1.5
13.0
1.0
13.2
548
Year 7
4.5
3.6
1.0
5.3
0.6
3.2
0.3
1.2
8.5
0.4
8.8
642
Year 8
7.2
5.0
2.5
4.3
0.5
2.4
0.4
0.9
10.8
0.0
10.8
659
Year 9
6.3
3.9
2.7
5.3
1.1
2.9
0.3
1.0
11.2
0.6
11.5
673
Year 10
5.6
3.9
2.0
6.1
0.9
3.6
0.2
1.5
10.8
0.0
10.8
687
Year 11
6.8
5.6
1.2
7.8
1.0
4.4
1.3
1.4
13.8
0.1
13.9
347
Long-standing illness or disability
Long-standing illness or disability
15.0
11.6
3.8
4.9
0.8
2.6
0.6
1.0
18.5
0.4
18.8
335
No long-standing illness or disability
6.1
4.4
2.0
5.4
0.6
3.2
0.5
1.2
10.8
0.4
11.0
3,506
Experience of bullying3
Bullied in last 12 months
20.8
16.7
6.3
11.3
2.3
7.7
0.2
1.3
28.7
0.2
28.7
229
Not bullied in last 12 months
3.3
2.4
0.9
3.7
0.2
1.9
0.3
1.3
6.6
0.1
6.7
971
1. 'All violence' includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury. 'All thefts' includes theft from the person and other theft of personal property but also theft from inside and outside a dwelling and theft of bicycles where the property stolen or damaged belonged solely to the child respondent. 'Crime against the person' comprises all violence and thefts. See Section 5 of the User Guide for more information on crime types.
2. As the BCS includes 10 to 15 year olds, Year 5 represents only pupils aged 10 and Year 11 only pupils aged 15. 3. Question asked in the self-completion module of a third of the sample. 4. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All violence1
All thefts1
Unweighted
base
Bike theft
Crime against
the person1
Violence with
injury
Violence
without injury
Theft from
the person
Crime against
personal
property
Other theft of
personal
property
Theft from the
dwelling/ outside
the dwelling
All crime
experienced by
children aged
10–15
ALL CHILDREN AGED 10–15
6.9
5.1
2.1
5.4
0.7
3.1
0.5
1.2
11.4
0.4
11.7
3,849
Structure of household
Single adult & child(ren)
9.4
7.0
2.8
7.1
0.9
4.2
0.6
1.7
15.6
0.7
16.0
726
Adults & child(ren)
6.2
4.6
1.9
5.0
0.6
2.8
0.5
1.1
10.4
0.3
10.5
3,123
Total household income
Less than £10,000
12.5
10.6
2.5
6.9
1.9
1.8
0.9
2.5
17.8
0.3
18.1
329
£10,000 less than £20,000
10.6
8.1
3.2
6.3
0.6
4.5
0.2
1.1
15.8
0.9
16.1
695
£20,000 less than £30,000
6.5
5.0
1.8
6.3
0.7
3.4
0.5
1.7
11.7
0.6
11.9
547
£30,000 less than £40,000
4.4
2.6
2.0
5.3
0.7
2.8
0.5
1.8
9.1
0.0
9.1
474
£40,000 less than £50,000
4.9
3.5
1.8
4.4
0.8
3.2
0.0
0.3
8.9
0.8
9.7
377
£50,000 or more
5.4
3.3
2.3
4.5
0.3
3.1
0.6
0.8
9.3
0.0
9.3
778
No income stated or not enough information provided
4.5
3.5
1.0
4.5
0.5
2.3
0.9
0.9
8.5
0.3
8.6
648
Tenure
Owners
5.2
3.6
1.7
4.6
0.5
2.8
0.5
0.9
9.2
0.3
9.4
2,464
Social renters
11.6
8.7
3.4
7.1
0.9
3.6
0.7
2.1
17.2
0.6
17.4
790
Private renters
6.6
5.5
1.6
6.1
1.1
3.4
0.4
1.1
11.7
0.7
12.0
588
Accommodation type
Houses
6.8
5.0
2.0
5.4
0.7
3.0
0.5
1.2
11.4
0.4
11.6
3,603
Detached
5.4
3.4
2.0
3.7
0.3
2.7
0.2
0.6
8.6
0.1
8.6
1,079
Semi-detached
7.4
5.4
2.4
5.7
0.8
3.1
0.5
1.3
12.5
0.5
12.9
1,406
Terraced
7.2
5.9
1.6
6.3
0.9
3.1
0.8
1.6
12.3
0.4
12.5
1,118
Flats/maisonettes
9.3
6.6
3.9
5.8
0.5
4.5
0.5
0.8
13.5
1.0
13.5
186
Output area classification
Blue collar communities
10.7
8.0
3.2
4.8
0.6
2.4
0.8
1.2
14.3
0.5
14.6
771
City living
5.0
4.5
0.6
7.1
1.2
3.9
0.9
1.1
10.1
2.0
10.1
92
Countryside
5.1
3.9
1.2
5.4
0.7
4.2
0.2
0.3
9.7
0.8
10.4
569
Prospering suburbs
4.7
3.0
2.0
4.9
0.4
3.1
0.3
1.4
9.4
0.3
9.6
964
Constrained by circumstances
9.9
6.2
4.5
8.1
0.7
4.5
1.3
1.8
16.5
0.6
16.5
301
Typical traits
7.4
5.8
1.7
5.1
0.6
2.6
0.7
1.4
11.4
0.3
11.4
767
Multicultural
4.3
3.6
1.0
5.5
1.3
2.9
0.0
1.3
9.6
0.1
9.6
385
Area type
Urban
6.9
5.1
2.1
5.3
0.6
2.9
0.5
1.3
11.4
0.4
11.6
2,888
Rural
6.7
4.9
2.2
5.9
0.9
3.7
0.5
0.8
11.6
0.5
11.8
961
Level of physical disorder
High
12.5
7.5
6.6
6.4
1.5
3.9
0.0
1.4
17.3
0.0
17.3
215
Not high
6.5
4.9
1.8
5.3
0.6
3.1
0.6
1.2
11.1
0.5
11.3
3,581
English Indices of Deprivation (Employment)
20% most deprived output areas
8.6
6.1
3.0
5.9
1.0
2.8
0.3
1.9
13.7
0.2
13.9
685
Other output areas
6.7
5.2
1.8
5.2
0.6
3.2
0.6
1.0
11.1
0.6
11.4
2,134
20% least deprived output areas
6.1
4.0
2.3
5.5
0.9
3.4
0.3
1.1
11.0
0.0
11.0
748
English Indices of Deprivation (Crime)
20% most deprived output areas
9.7
6.8
3.3
6.0
0.4
3.2
0.3
2.1
14.8
0.6
15.1
612
Other output areas
6.8
5.3
1.8
5.8
0.9
3.0
0.6
1.3
11.7
0.4
12.0
2,077
20% least deprived output areas
5.0
3.2
2.1
4.0
0.4
3.4
0.1
0.1
8.6
0.2
8.6
878
1. 'All violence' includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury. 'All thefts' includes theft from the person and other theft of personal property but also theft from inside and outside a dwelling and theft of bicycles where the property stolen or damaged belonged solely to the child respondent. 'Crime against the person' comprises all violence and thefts. See Section 5 of the User Guide for more information on crime types. 2. See Sections 7.1 and 7.2 of the User Guide for definitions of area and household characteristics.
## Bibliography
Botcherby, S., Glen, F., Iganski, P., Jochelson, K. and Lagou, S. (2011) Equality Groups'
Perceptions and Experience of Crime http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/bp4.pdf Chaplin, R., Flatley, J. and Smith, K. (Eds.) (2011) Crime in England and Wales 2010/11:
Findings from the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 10/11. London: Home Office. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/researchstatistics/crime-research/hosb1011/ Flatley, J., Kershaw, C., Smith, K., Chaplin, R. and Moon, D. (Eds.) (2010) Crime in England and Wales 2009/10: Findings from the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 12/10. London: Home Office.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/researchstatistics/crime-research/hosb1210/ Garcia, L., McDevitt, J., Gu, J. and Balboni, J. (1999) Psychological and Behavioural Effects of Bias and Non-Bias Motivated Assault, Final Report. National Criminal Justice Reference Service, December 1999, pp. 53–55, 87 and 94–95.
Hoare, J., Parfrement-Hopkins, J., Britton, A., Hall, P., Scribbins, M. (Ed.) and Flatley, J.
(Ed.) (2011) Children's experience and attitudes towards the police, personal safety and public spaces: Findings from the 2009/10 British Crime Survey interviews with children aged
10 to 15. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 08/11. London: Home Office.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/researchstatistics/crime-research/hosb0811/?view=Standard&pubID=889889 Home Office (2010) *User Guide to Home Office Crime Statistics*. London: Home Office.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/researchstatistics/crime-research/user-guide-crime-statistics/?view=Standard&pubID=866666 Iganski, P. (2001) *Hate Crimes Hurt More.* American Behavioral Scientist 45 (4). pp. 626–38.
Iganski, P. (2008) *Hate Crime and the City.* Bristol: Policy Press.
Jansson, K. (2006) Black and Minority Ethnic groups' experiences and perceptions of crime, racially motivated crime and the police: findings from the 2004/05 British Crime Survey. Home Office Online Report 25/06. London: Home Office. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/p dfs06/rdsolr2506.pdf Jansson, K., Budd, S., Lovbakke, J., Moley, S. and Thorpe, K. (2007) Attitudes, perceptions and risks of crime: Supplementary Volume 1 to Crime in England and Wales 2006/07. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 19/07. London: Home Office. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07
/hosb1907.pdf Moon, D. (Ed.), Flatley, J. (Ed.), Hoare, J., Green, B. and Murphy, R. (2010) Acquisitive crime and plastic card fraud: Findings from the 2008/09 British Crime Survey. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 08/10. London: Home Office.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10
/hosb0810.pdf Salisbury, H., and Upson, A. (2004) Ethnicity, victimisation and worry about crime: findings from the 2001/02 and 2002/03 British Crime Surveys. Home Office Research Findings 237.
London: Home Office. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/p dfs04/r237.pdf Copies of Home Office publications are available from the Home Office Science internet pages: http://homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/research-statistics/ | en |
3398-pdf |
Interest Start
Tender Title
Description of goods
Contract Start
Date
Contract End
Date
Contract
Reference
Number
Rochdale Borough Council
09/01/2017
DN232617
RRUFC BUSINESS FORUM - WEDNESDAY 8TH
FEBRUARY 2017 - 6.00PM
170000 - Education
10/01/2017
10/02/2017
Rochdale Borough Council
09/01/2017
DN232544
Training for Early Years Providers - Rochdale Council
05/02/2017
05/02/2019
261520 - Training
321100 - Social Community Care Supplies
& Services - Children
Rochdale Borough Council
17/01/2017
DN234197
Business Improvement District Feasibility Study
150000 - Consultancy
20/03/2017
12/05/2017
Rochdale Borough Council
01/02/2017
DN239193
Roofing works at Heywood Civic Centre
390000 - Works - Construction, Repair &
Maintenance
01/02/2017
30/04/2017
22/02/2017
31/03/2018
Rochdale Borough Council
07/02/2017
DN238969
Provision of social welfare advice and legal services: Debt,
Welfare benefits and housing advice
321000 - Social Community Care Supplies
& Services - Adult
321100 - Social Community Care Supplies
& Services - Children
Rochdale Borough Council
10/02/2017
DN240773
Rochdale Council - Insurer Engagement Day
200000 - Financial Services
04/03/2017
04/03/2017
Rochdale Borough Council
23/02/2017
DN240615
Integrated Community Equipment
27/03/2017
01/05/2017
321000 - Social Community Care Supplies
& Services - Adult
410000 - Social Community Care Supplies
& Services
Rochdale Borough Council
01/03/2017
DN245175
For The Provision of Silt Trap Pre- Planned and Reactive
Maintenance
390000 - Works - Construction, Repair &
Maintenance
03/04/2017
03/04/2019
Rochdale Borough Council
28/02/2017
DN233945
Rochdale Council Insurance Tender 2017 (Excluding
Brokerage Service)
201800 - Insurance
22/05/2017
22/05/2020
Rochdale Borough Council
06/03/2017
DN246413
Rochdale Council's Special Educational Needs & Disability
Information, Advice and Support Service
321100 - Social Community Care Supplies
& Services - Children
01/06/2017
31/03/2020
Rochdale Borough Council
20/03/2017
DN250521
Bikeability Cycle Training In Rochdale
26/07/2017
31/03/2018
231300 - Health & Safety
261520 - Training
401001 - Community Based Services
Rochdale Borough Council
27/03/2017
DN252985
Consultancy Services (Architectural Design Team, Business
Planning & Activity & Interpretation Brief)
150000 - Consultancy
| en |
2828-pdf |
## Freight Customer Panel 28 March 2019
The Freight Customer Panel is part of ORR's wider commitment to engage directly with freight customers. The panel provides a structured forum for engagement and helps to ensure our policies and regulatory decisions take into account the commercial environment that freight customers work within. The panel members assist us by contributing views, expressing opinions and advising us on freight issues. This note summarises the main themes and issues discussed at the sixth meeting of the Freight Customer Panel. The meeting was chaired by Catherine Williams, ORR Deputy Director of Railway Markets and Economics. Freight Customer Panel delegates: Chris Swan (Tarmac), David Turner (WH Malcolm), Maggie Simpson (RFG), Martin Woor (HPUK), Paul Garnham (MSC), Simon Blake (Aggregate Industries), Robert Brook (VTG Rail). Apologies: Alex Veitch (FTA). The panel focused on the following themes:
-
Terms of Reference
-
Health and Safety
-
Holding Network Rail to Account
-
Model clauses for Facility Access Agreements
-
Service Facility Transparency
-
Charges
##
ORR protects the interests of rail and road users, improving the safety, value and performance of railways and roads today and in the future Delay attribution review Freight panel customer event March 2019
## Purpose Of These Slides
■To explain the background, objectives and scope
of the delay attribution review
■To invite input from the freight customer panel
## Background - What Is Delay Attribution?
–
Delay attribution is the process by which the reasons for delays to train services are determined–both the
'what' and the 'who'.
## - What Is Delay Attribution Used For?
I.
To provide information to help understand the causes of poor performance on the network
II.
To provide data that underpins compensation payments between Network Rail and train operators for unplanned disruption.
## - Why Are We Reviewing Delay Attribution?
–
During PR18 several stakeholders raised concerns with the current delay attribution system, including:
×
issues with specific delay attribution rules;
×
effectiveness of the governance arrangements; and
×
the amount of industry resources the process requires.
–
Due to the importance of delay attribution we are keen that the process is fit for purpose and provides the right information and incentives for industry.
## Plan For The Structure Of The Review Scoping Stage Problem Solving And Implementation Stages Scope Of Review Next Steps
ORR will publish its
## Orr Protects The Interests Of Rail And Road Users, Improving The Safety, Value And Performance Of Railways And Roads Today And In The Future Annex Questions For Stakeholders (1) - Below Are The Questions We Have Included In Our Letter To Stakeholders. - Decision-Making And Value Added
•
What are the benefits of delay attribution to your organisation?
•
How do the outputs of the delay attribution process inform decisions in your organisation?
•
To what extent does delay attribution help support improved performance?
•
What requirements should an effective delay attribution framework meet?
–
Resources
•
How much resource (staff time, consultancy spend etc.) does your organisation devote to delay attribution?
•
How many delay attribution events roughly does your organisation deal with each year?
–
Accuracy
•
Are delay attribution systems sufficiently accurate to meet the needs of your organisation?
•
Are there any areas in particular need of improvement?
•
Do you use any systems to support delay attribution, beyond those that are standard to the industry?
## Questions For Stakeholders (2) - Below Are The Questions We Have Included In Our Letter To Stakeholders. - Dispute Resolution
•
What proportion of delay attribution events lead to disputes (by disputes, we mean incidents where the cause and/or the
responsible body are not agreed at the first stage)?
•
What is the typical time taken to resolve disputes?
•
What proportion of disputes require independent adjudication?
•
How satisfied are you with existing dispute resolution procedures?
•
What proportion of your overall resources devoted to delay attribution go towards dealing with disputes?
•
Are there particular types of incident or specific delay attribution rules that cause a disproportionate amount of disputes?
•
Do you have any delay attribution agreements with other industry parties, that follow rules other than those set out in the Delay Attribution Principles and Rules (DAPR)?
## - Effectiveness
•
What aspects of the delay attribution framework work well?
•
What aspects of the delay attribution framework would most benefit from improvement?
•
How do you feel improvements could best be achieved?
•
Are there are any aspects of the delay attribution framework that create perverse incentives?
Questions for stakeholders (3)
■Below are the questions we have included in our letter to
stakeholders.
- Proposals for improvement
- Can you tell us of any specific proposals that you believe would enable delay
attribution to better meet the requirements of your organisation and of the
wider industry?
ORR protects the interests of rail and road users, improving the safety, value and performance of railways and roads today and in the future
## Health & Safety
# Hams Hall Derailment, September 2018
## Learning Points
■Infrastructure maintenance at boundaries between private and NR
infrastructure
■Inspection regimes
■Arrangements for prioritising and review of infrastructure faults
identified during maintenance
## Health & Safety
■General discussion
■Any matters you wish to raise?
## Tank Containers- Assistance
■Location of access ladders
■Feasibility of loading with
ladders blocked in
ORR protects the interests of rail and road users, improving the safety, value and performance of railways and roads today and in the future
## Model Facility Access Agreement Background
■At last year's Freight Customer Panel meeting, we discussed if
ORR should develop a model freight facility access agreement,
similar to the well-used model connection contract.
■Various agreements have been developed and entered into over
the years, which in turn have been used as a "guideline" for future
agreements.
■Following positive feedback from both freight customers and freight
operating companies, we have been developing a type of model
freight facility access agreement (FAA) that we hope will be useful.
■We considered the development of a whole model contract (similar
to the connection contract), but this didn't seem the most practical
avenue due to the varying requirements of each agreement.
■However, we are instead proposing to provide a selection of model
clauses. We have done this by looking at previously approved FAAs and identifying the most popular clauses.
■We would intend the model clauses to be used on a "pick and
choose" basis, based on the needs of the agreement.
## 7. Operation And Maintenance 7.1 General
Without prejudice to the other provisions of this contract:
(a) the Train Operator shall maintain and operate the Specified Equipment used on the Facility in accordance with Clause [5.1] with a view to permitting the provision of the Services on the Facility in accordance with the permission to use under this contract ORR protects the interests of rail and road users, improving the safety, value and performance of railways and roads today and in the future
## Questions To The Panel
■Are model clauses, rather than a whole model contract, suitable for
the needs of an FAA?
■Does this approach appear user-friendly?
■Would you use this if you were looking to enter into an FAA?
- If so, which model clauses are most valuable? - Should alternative clauses be available to cater the type of facility owner?
■RPI and CPI - which would be preferable?
■Is the ORR guidance useful?
■Who should be consulted on this, and for how long?
ORR protects the interests of rail and road users, improving the safety, value and performance of railways and roads today and in the future
## Thank You
| en |
3106-pdf |
## Annual Report And Accounts 2014-15
(For the year ended 31 March 2015)
## Annual Report And Accounts 2014-15
(For the year ended 31 March 2015)
Accounts presented to the House of Commons pursuant to Section 6(4) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 Annual Report presented to the House of Commons by Command of Her Majesty Annual Report and Accounts presented to the House of Lords by Command of Her Majesty Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 2 July 2015
This is part of a series of departmental publications which, along with the Main Estimates 2015-16 and the document Public Expenditure: Statistical Analyses 2015, present the Government's outturn for 2014-15 and planned expenditure for 2015-16.
## © Crown Copyright 2015
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at Direct Communications Unit, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF. Telephone: 020 7035 4848 (09:00-17:00 Mon-Fri) Fax: 020 7035 4745 Print ISBN 9781474120937 Web ISBN 9781474120944 ID 04061501
07/15
Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum
## Contents
| i | Foreword from the Home Secretary | 3 |
|---|---|-----|
ii
Foreword from the Permanent Secretary
4
## Annual Report
1
Strategic Report
| | Departmental Structure | 5 |
|---|------------|--------------------|
| | Our Vision | 7 |
| | | Cut crime |
| | | Reduce immigration |
Prevent terrorism
19
Promoting growth by keeping the UK safe
22
| | Performance Indicators | 24 |
|---|----------------------------------|------|
| | Home Office Science | 28 |
| | Better Regulation | 29 |
| | Sustainability | 31 |
| | Our staff | 36 |
| | Strategic Review | 38 |
| | Consultancy Services expenditure | 41 |
| | Complaints | 42 |
| | Response to correspondence | 43 |
| | Payment of suppliers | 43 |
2
Directors' Report
| | Lead Non-Executive Board Member's Report | 44 |
|---|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|
| | Our Ministers | 46 |
| | Machinery of Government changes | 48 |
| | Going concern | 48 |
| | Future Developments | 48 |
| | Our Boards | 49 |
| | Recruitment policy | 52 |
| | Off-Payroll engagements | 53 |
| | Data Losses / Information Assurance | 54 |
| | Remuneration Report | 56 |
| | Governance Statement | 67 |
| | Statement of Accounting Officer's Responsibilities | 86 |
| | The Certificate of the Comptroller & Auditor General to the House of Commons | 87 |
3
2014-15 Annual Accounts
| | Statement of Parliamentary Supply | 90 |
|---|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|
| | Notes to the Departmental Resource Accounts (Statement of Parliamentary Supply) | 91 |
| | Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure | 99 |
| | Consolidated Statement of Financial Position | 100 |
|---|--------------------------------------------------------|-------|
| | Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows | 101 |
| | Consolidated Statement of Changes in Taxpayers' Equity | 102 |
| | Notes to the departmental accounts | 105 |
| | Annex - Departmental Core Data Tables | 167 |
|---|----------|-------|
| | Glossary | 179 |
Foreword by the Home Secretary, Rt Hon Theresa May MPImage of Theresa May I am immensely proud of what the Home Office has achieved in all areas of its work in the past five years. We have implemented a programme of radical police reform, introduced a landmark Modern Slavery Act, overhauled our immigration system, and acted swiftly to respond to the grave and growing threats we face from terrorism. Crime is down by more than a quarter since 2010, according to the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales. Over 870 bogus colleges have been shut. Our benefits system has been tightened and our deportation laws streamlined. We have clamped down on sham marriages, removed more than 24,000 foreign criminals and revoked the driving licences of over 9,500 illegal immigrants within the last year alone. And in our work to counterradicalisation we have trained more than 160,000 frontline workers, excluded more preachers of hate than any other government, and we are successfully taking down on average 1000 items of online terrorist-related material per week. I want to thank all Home Office staff for their hard work and dedication in delivering this record of achievement. Now with a Conservative majority following the general election, we are a new and different Government, and there is work to do for us to deliver on our manifesto commitments. The themes, however, remain the same: to cut crime, reduce immigration and prevent terrorism. They are themes that absolutely fit into those of the wider Government. We are a Government for one nation, and our work to tackle extremism will help us protect people, families and communities from those who seek to spread hatred and sow discord and division. We will actively promote the British values that underpin our pluralistic society and which allow us to prosper and live in peace. We are a Government for working people, and must build an immigration system which works in the national interest - fair to British subjects and legitimate migrants, and tough on those who flout the rules or abuse our hospitality as a nation. We must also strive to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Our work to ensure social justice - to tackle child abuse, modern slavery and violence against women - is of immense importance. The Home Office's achievements over the past five years have been significant. The work everyone in this department does makes a real difference to people's lives every single day. But with a clear and strong mandate, we must now work even harder, so that we can build a better life for the people of this country, and a Britain which is safer, fairer and stronger. Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Home Secretary
## Foreword By The Permanent Secretary, Mark Sedwillimage Of Mark Sedwill
In 2014-15 our priorities remained to cut crime, reduce immigration and prevent terrorism, whilst contributing to the government's growth agenda, and over the past year and the duration of the Coalition Government we achieved the main commitments asked of us. Crime is down and police reform has continued. The College of Policing is driving the implementation of professional standards across the police, and the Modern Slavery Bill was made law on 26 March 2015. However, a number of child sexual abuse (CSA) issues have emerged which led to the appointment, in February 2015, of Justice Lowell Goddard to lead the independent inquiry into CSA. It has also been recognised that CSA is an ongoing national threat and the scale of the challenge to tackle this alongside bringing justice to the victims cases, is significant, and will continue to be a high profile area of work for the Department over the next few years. Reducing the risk of terrorist attack continues to be a key departmental priority. We updated counter-terrorism legislation to ensure that the police and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to deal with the increased and evolving terrorism threat. We also implemented the Serious Crime Act, consolidating and updating earlier legislation to ensure, for example, that extremists are prevented from accessing terrorism training overseas. Through the Immigration Act 2014, we implemented fundamental changes to the UK removals and appeals processes. Whilst net migration increased over the course of the year, the act will reduce the pull factors which encourage people to come to the UK for the wrong reasons, and make it easier to remove people who should not be here. We also implemented the immigration health surcharge for non EEA nationals and, from 8 April 2015, introduced exit checks which will allow us to collect and analyse information on people leaving the UK. Demand for passports in the first six months of the year was higher than anticipated, affecting our delivery and causing unacceptable delays for some customers. To address this, Her Majesty's Passport Office ceased operations as an executive agency on 30 September 2014 and was incorporated into the Home Office. Further organisational change during the year saw the Gangmasters Licensing Authority becoming a non departmental public body of the Home Office, and the Disclosure and Barring Service becoming a public corporation. Home Office transformation continued during the year. As well as improving delivery, we have made good progress on our other three priorities of improving digital, skills and engagement, and how we lead and manage change. We have invested heavily in developing operational and management skills and improved our IT resilience, taking the first step in providing a modern IT capability for our staff. But there is still work to do which is why, building on the progress we have made this year, we are continuing with consistent competence as the key theme for the first year of the next Parliament. My role as Accounting Officer is to ensure effective financial management within a challenging financial landscape. We continue to drive value for money savings across all of our services, and we are planning for continued financial restraint during the next Parliament through to 2020. Our focus on medium term planning puts us in the best possible position to deliver further future savings, whilst, at the same time, minimising the impact on our operational activities. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all staff for their hard work during the last year. Mark Sedwill Permanent Secretary
## 1 Strategic Report Departmental Structure Headquarters
The Home Office's Headquarters is located at 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF.
## Bodies Included Within The Departmental Structure
The Home Office departmental boundary encompasses the central government Department, four Non- Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and the College of Policing. The NDPBs are the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Security Industry Authority, and the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner, and the College of Policing, (a quasi-NDPB). The accounts of these entities form part of the Home Office's consolidated financial statements. See note 22 to the accounts for further details. Her Majesty's Passport Office (HMPO) is responsible for issuing UK passports and for administering the civil (birth, marriage, death) registration process in England and Wales. HMPO became a division of the Home Office on 1 October 2014. Prior to that date, the HMPO was an executive agency of the Department. Its accounts for the first six months up until 30 September 2014 have been shown separately in the accounts.
## Non Departmental Public Bodies: Independent Police Complaints Commission (Ipcc)
The IPCC's primary statutory purpose is to secure and maintain public confidence in the police complaints system in England and Wales. Its three main functions are: oversight of the system to ensure complaints are handled well and any identified failings lead to improvements in policing; carrying out its own investigations into the most serious matters relating to the conduct of police; and considering appeals when a police force investigation is called into question. The IPCC is currently undertaking a three-year change programme to deliver the Home Secretary's commitment to ensure it investigates all "serious and sensitive cases" involving the police.
## College Of Policing
The College of Policing was established as a limited company on 1 December 2012, assuming responsibility for raising the professional status of police officers and police staff. It operates at arm's length from the Home Office, but has been consolidated within the departmental accounting boundary. The College of Policing is the professional body for policing in England and Wales. The College sets standards of professional practice, accredits training and sets learning outcomes, promotes good practice based on the best available evidence, supports partnership working and leads on ethics and integrity across policing.
## Security Industry Authority (Sia)
The Security Industry Authority is responsible for regulating the UK private security industry. There are around 380,000 SIA licences. Licences are valid for three years and there is high staff churn within the industry so numbers working in the industry may be significantly less. Around 770 businesses are members of the voluntary Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS). It reports to the Home Secretary under the terms of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. Responsibility is devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland and the SIA consults closely with the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly about regulation. Regulation of the private security industry supports the objectives of the Home Office to protect the public.
## Office Of The Immigration Services Commissioner (Oisc)
The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner is responsible for regulating immigration advisers by ensuring they are fit and competent and that they act in the best interest of their clients. The Commissioner has statutory regulatory and prosecutorial responsibilities, and is responsible for maintaining a regulatory regime. The Commissioner has responsibility for seeking out and taking action against those operating illegally, and promoting best practice, within the immigration advice sector. The type of organisations that the OISC regulates varies widely; from small community-based organisations and sole traders through to national charities and large specialist profit-making advisory services. Not-for-profit organisations are not required to pay a registration fee. Organisations that wish to be admitted to the regulatory scheme must demonstrate fitness and competence to do so. Thereafter, those who provide immigration advice and services must comply with the relevant code and rules.
## Gangmasters Licensing Authority (Gla)
The Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA) was established to tackle exploitation of vulnerable workers in the agriculture sector. The GLA administers a licensing scheme to regulate the supply of labour to the farming, food processing and shellfish gathering sectors. The GLA covers the whole of the UK carrying out intelligence led activity and inspection. The Home Office took over as the parent department for the GLA from Defra in April 2014.
## Entities Within The Core Department:
In addition to the executive NDPBs there are also advisory and tribunal non-departmental public bodies, office holders and other bodies that operate at arm's length from the Department, that do not publish accounts because they do not have any money delegated to them. Where there are costs, these are met from Home Office budgets. Advisory Non-Departmental Public Bodies - provide independent, expert advice to ministers on a wide range of issues. For the Home Office these are the: Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs; Animals in Science Committee; Migration Advisory Committee; National DNA Database Ethics Group; Police Advisory Board for England and Wales; Police Negotiating Board (which ceased to operate in England and Wales from 1 September 2014); and the Technical Advisory Board. Tribunal Non-Departmental Public Bodies - are usually concerned with the rights and obligations of individuals in relation to a branch of government or other public authority. They are the: Investigatory Powers Tribunal; Office of Surveillance Commissioners; Police Arbitration Tribunal (which ceased to operate in England and Wales from 1 September 2014); Police Discipline Appeals Tribunal. Other Arm's Length Bodies sponsored by the Home Office: Anti-Slavery Commissioner; Appointed person under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; Biometrics Commissioner; Forensic Science Regulator; HM Inspectorate of Constabulary; Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration; Independent Family Returns Panel; Independent Monitor of the Disclosure and Barring Service; Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; Intelligence Services Commissioner; Interception of Communications Commissioner; National Crime Agency Remuneration Review Body; Police Remuneration Review Body; Police ICT Company; Surveillance Camera Commissioner; Wimbledon and Putney Conservator. The National Crime Agency (NCA) was established as a Non Ministerial Government Department on 7 October 2013. The financial results of the NCA are not consolidated within the Home Office accounts. The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) was re-classified from a NDPB to a Public Non Financial Corporation on 31 July 2014 by the Office for National Statistics. The decision was backdated to apply from the creation of the service in December 2012. The results of the DBS are therefore not consolidated within the Home Office accounts.
## Our Vision
The Government's vision for the Home Office is set out in our Business Plan which lists four priorities:
## Our Four Priorities:
-
Cut crime;
-
Reduce immigration;
-
Prevent terrorism; and
-
Promote growth by keeping the UK safe.
The Home Office, its directorates, agencies and executive non-departmental public bodies work closely together to achieve the four Home Office priorities. Following the General Election in May 2015, the new Government added *Tackling Extremism and Preventing Abuse and Exploitation* to the list of priorities.
## 1. Cut Crime
Our objective is to support the police in cutting crime through work to: improve police accountability, transparency and integrity and public trust; improve police efficiency and effectiveness; reduce the drivers of crime, such as addressing the harm caused by misuse of drugs and alcohol and support local efforts to reduce crime; lead targeted action on key crime types, for example anti-social behaviour; ensure police powers and regulations are proportionate and effective; protect vulnerable victims; and join up with work across the wider Criminal Justice System. The Crime Survey for England and Wales, which is based on the experience of the public rather than police figures, shows that crime has fallen by almost two thirds since its peak in 1995, and is now at its lowest level since the survey began in 1981. The number of crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales was 3.8 million offences in the twelve months to the end of December 2014, a 2% increase compared with the previous year. The renewed focus on the quality of crime recording, and a greater willingness of victims to report crime, is thought to have led to improved compliance with national recording standards, leading to proportionally more crimes reported to the police being recorded by them. The implementation of an ambitious package of reforms has continued in 2014-15. Two important acts of Parliament were completed in March 2015: the Serious Crime Act strengthens the powers of the National Crime Agency, the police and other law enforcement agencies to pursue, disrupt and bring to justice serious and organised criminals; and the Modern Slavery Act will strengthen the response of law enforcement and the courts to slavery and trafficking. In addition, we have undertaken work to keep pace with emerging crime threats, including intensifying our focus on preventing sexual violence against children and vulnerable adults.
## Key Performance Indicator
The Home Office Business Plan includes a number of input and impact indicators to help the public assess the impact of policies and reforms. This data is published regularly on the GOV.UK website. For cut crime, the indicator is the number of police recorded offences where there is a known victim, which includes all violence and property offences but excludes crimes like drug offences.
tes me ra g cri hwoin phs s gra wo T
Source: ONS
-
Police recorded violent and property crime has fallen by 13 per cent between the year ending March 2010 and year ending December 2014, from 3.6 to 3.1 million offences.
-
There has been a corresponding fall in the number of violent and property offences per 1,000 population from 66 in the year ending March 2010 to 56 in the year ending December 2014.
Achievements between April 2014 and March 2015 include: Improve police accountability, transparency and integrity and public trust We took action to improve police accountability, re-balancing power towards communities, giving the public more information, and working with the police and other bodies to improve public trust in the police with an ambitious programme of reform.
## During This Year:
-
The College of Policing published its Code of Ethics in July 2014, which sets out the standards of behaviour that the public can expect from officers and staff in every role and at every level and will help guide decision making;
-
The majority of victims' services, including for victims of sexual and domestic violence and victim initiated Restorative Justice Services, are now commissioned by Police and Crime Commissioners to respond to local needs rather than by central government;
-
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) introduced its 2014-15 Inspection Programme to Parliament. The PEEL programme represents a radical shift in how police forces are held to account by enabling the public to see clearly across a range of simple categories, how their force is performing on cutting crime, providing a service that is fair, and providing value for money. HMIC published its Chief Inspector's first State of Policing assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the police in November 2014;
-
We improved oversight of the standards by which the police should handle complaints by granting the Independent Police Complaints Commission's (IPCC) additional powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;
-
We created a new offence of police corruption through the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015;
-
We announced a review of the police disciplinary system by Major General Clive Chapman; and following the review the Home Secretary announced her intention to introduce legislation to reform the police complaints system and the police disciplinary system (with legally qualified chairs of police discipline hearings and hearings in public) and to introduce measures to strengthen protections for police whistleblowers;
-
The Home Secretary established a statutory inquiry into undercover policing following Mark Ellison QC's review of possible corruption and the role of undercover policing in the Stephen Lawrence case. On 12 March 2015 it was announced that Lord Justice Pitchford would Chair the inquiry. The terms of reference will be set in consultation with interested parties and are due to be published before the summer recess. Mark Ellison will also co-ordinate a multi-agency review, reporting to the Attorney General, into potential miscarriages of justice involving undercover policing;
-
We implemented recommendations in Lord Justice Leveson's report on the press and the police, including publication of guidance on 'off the record' briefings, relationships with the media, and on gifts, hospitality and entertainment;
-
The College of Policing published its interim review of police leadership in March 2015. The review identified the challenges and opportunities likely to face policing in the coming decades and recommended changes required to enable everyone within policing to meet them. The review recommends implementing a culture of challenge at the top of forces, introducing career flexibility, embedding the Code of Ethics in selection processes and reviewing police powers in some roles;
-
The Police Federation was reformed so that officers in future will actively choose whether to become members and whether to pay subscriptions, and to improve transparency particularly around the use of Federation funds; and
-
We have published data on the police use of stop and search on data.police.uk
## Improve Police Efficiency And Effectiveness
HMIC's 'Valuing the Police' report, published in July 2014, found that police forces have largely met the financial challenge of the spending review with crime continuing to fall, victim satisfaction improving and forces protecting their frontline services.
## During This Year:
-
The College of Policing published its five-year strategy in November 2014 and has co-ordinated work to support the National Policing vision for 2016, which sets out how frontline officers and staff will be supported with the skills, leadership, technology and ways of working that, will allow them to provide high-quality policing;
-
This year's Police Innovation Fund, provided funding to a range of projects to support improved police ICT and digital working, including investment in body worn video across eight forces and the development and trialling of a standardised mobile policing solution that could be replicated across other forces;
-
An IT Supplier Summit was held in October 2014, attended by Police and Crime Commissioners, police forces and industry. The summit helped PCCs understand the potential for IT collaboration and was a major motivation for policing to develop IT standards;
-
We established a Police Information Communications Technology (ICT) Company, which became operational on 1 April 2015. The Police ICT company will support policing bodies to make the best use of technology to deliver efficient and effective policing and improve public safety;
-
PCCs and Chief Constables have agreed a vision for police procurement, founded on clear evidence of the costs and benefits of a collaborative approach, that takes advantage of opportunities to collaborate across the law enforcement community and wider public sector, increasing standardisation of goods bought and improved supplier and contract management;
-
We continued to reform police pay and conditions by implementing the majority of recommendations from Tom Winsor's independent review of police officer and staff remuneration and conditions, including enhanced entry requirements, direct entry at more senior ranks, and targeted pay & allowances that are more closely linked to contribution and reward professional skill & development;
-
The Police Negotiating Board and Police Advisory Board in England, Wales and Northern Ireland was replaced by the new Police Remuneration Review Body which became operational in September 2014; and
-
The 2015 Police Pensions Scheme successfully came into force on 1 April 2015 ensuring that police pensions will be maintained on a sustainable and affordable footing into the future.
Lead targeted action on key crime types Our reforms are tackling existing and emerging crime threats.
## During This Year:
-
We increased capability in the National Crime Agency's National Cyber Crime Unit and set up cyber teams in each of the nine Regional Organised Crime Units, following investment from the National Cyber Security Programme;
-
We continued to build on the Drug Strategy, launched in 2010, to tackle drugs as a key driver of crime. There are positive signs that this approach is working: there has been a long term downward trend in drug use over the last decade, the number of heroin and crack cocaine users in England continues to decline, and more people are recovering from their dependency now than in 2009/10;
-
The College of Policing, together with police forces and the National Crime Agency have provided cyber crime training to thousands of officers;
-
The 'Cyber Streetwise' campaign, launched in January 2014, has measurably influenced an estimated two million people to adopt safer online practices (e.g. using more secure passwords);
-
We have used our Computer Emergency Response Team to support the smooth running of both the Glasgow Commonwealth Games and the Newport NATO Summit;
-
We introduced legislation to tackle the illicit market in substances used as drug cutting agents in the Serious Crime Act;
-
We took action to address the harm caused by alcohol through twenty Local Alcohol Action Areas and
improved the tools available to local communities by introducing six new powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, working in partnership with the drinks industry to take more voluntary action through the Public Health Responsibility Deal, including several new pledges;
-
Forty-three areas benefitted from a frontline team and an expert support network as part of the Ending Gang and Youth Violence programme; and through the Serious Crime Act we strengthened and updated gang injunctions;
-
A Crime and Policing Knowledge Hub was established to help improve our understanding of and response to emerging crime types. The Hub arranged an international conference on crime and policing at the end of January 2015, at which the Home Secretary's keynote speech set out our thinking on the key drivers of crime;
-
We are working through our Border Force and the National Crime Agency to strengthen resilience against organised criminals and harmful substances crossing the border. Overt interventions throughout the year by Border Force officers have resulted in the seizure of illicit goods, including Class A drugs and firearms at UK ports of entry. There are many examples: for example, in April 2014 Border Force officers at Manchester Airport seized around 50 kilograms of heroin in a consignment of carpets from Pakistan and in January 2015 our officers discovered 30 kilograms of cocaine during a search of a lorry at Dover, with an estimated street value of £3.8million due to its exceptionally high purity; and
-
Border Force has also been at the forefront of tackling the global trade in smuggling endangered species. For example, in January 2015, Border Force officers seized 165 turquoise dwarf geckos, a critically endangered species. The seizure was referred to investigators from the National Crime Agency's Border Policing Command who arrested a man on suspicion of an importation offence.
## Protecting Vulnerable People
Tackling crimes against vulnerable people, for example, children, victims of slavery and women and girls who are the victims of violence presents a major challenge both in providing a service to victims and bringing perpetrators to justice.
## During This Year:
-
In July, following concerns raised about the original Home Office investigation into information received on child sexual abuse between 1979 and 1999, and whether the Department funded a pro-paedophile group, the Home Secretary announced a formal review lead by Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC. The report from this review was published in November 2014 and concluded that there was nothing to support concerns that the Home Office had deliberately or systematically removed or destroyed files to cover up organised child abuse or that it had failed in any deliberate way to refer individual allegations of abuse to the police. The review also failed to find evidence to corroborate allegations that the Department had funded a pro-paedophile group, but was unable to dismiss them completely. The Report did recommend improvements to the processes for recording allegations of child abuse and notifying the Police. The Department has improved its processes and continues to review how it handles information about child abuse to ensure it is recorded and referred to the Police appropriately;
-
Following the publication of the Jay report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham last year and the failures across children's services, the Home Secretary chaired a series of meetings with Secretary of State colleagues to consider both the findings and what the Government could do to help prevent these failures from happening again. A series of actions, announced in March 2015, will strengthen accountability and leadership in professions and local government; address the culture of inaction and denial that led to victims being dismissed and ignored; improve joint working and information sharing so that agencies intervene early; strengthen the protection of children who are at risk; reinforce law enforcement efforts to stop offenders; and provide greater support for victims and survivors;
-
The Home Secretary established a statutory Inquiry in March 2015 which will consider whether public bodies and other non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse;
-
The Modern Slavery Act received Royal Assent on 28 March 2015. This consolidates current offences relating to trafficking and slavery by creating two new civil orders to prevent modern slavery. It establishes an Anti-Slavery Commissioner and makes provision for the protection of modern slavery victims. We have also published a modern slavery strategy outlining a comprehensive response to modern slavery, including the efforts across government and law enforcement, with other countries, to tackle the problem at source and increase awareness within all communities;
-
Ministers announced a package of measures to address Violence against Women and Girls at the Girl Summit on Forced Marriage and Female Genital Mutilation in June 2014, including our intention to establish a Female Genital Mutilation unit, which is now in place, to promote learning for safeguarding professionals, and to launch an online resource pack for service commissioners with funding in local areas. The Violence Against Women and Girls progress report was published on 8 March 2015 setting out delivery against over a hundred cross-government actions and key indicators of success; and
-
We have established Border Force anti-trafficking teams at key ports, and undertaken operations at ports specifically to prevent victims being taken abroad to suffer Female Genital Mutilation. Border Force also participated in the 2014 White Ribbon Day in the London Borough of Hillingdon, to publicise the work it is doing with partners to combat Female Genital Mutilation.
In May 2014, experts from the internet industry met under the leadership of a UK-US taskforce to generate novel technical ideas to address online child sexual exploitation and to disrupt offenders, identify victims and keep children safe whilst online. The Prime Minister subsequently hosted the #WePROTECT summit in December 2014 to galvanise international action. The summit secured practical commitments by 47 countries, 2 international organizations, 10 civil society organizations and 14 leading companies to identify and protect victims and to strengthen global co-operation to track down perpetrators. A new Child Abuse Image Database went live in December 2014 and provides law enforcement agencies with better tools to search seized devices and increase their ability to identify victims.
## Strengthen The Fight Against Serious And Organised Crime
The Serious Crime Act enhances the powers of the National Crime Agency, the police and other law enforcement agencies to pursue, disrupt and bring to justice serious and organised criminals. In May 2015, the powers of the National Crime Agency were extended to Northern Ireland which will have a significant impact in the fight against organised crime.
## The Act Includes Provisions To:
-
Strengthen the operation of the asset recovery process by closing loopholes in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
-
Amend the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to provide for a new offence where an attack on a computer system causes severe damage to human welfare, the environment, the economy or national security;
-
Create a new offence targeting people who actively support, and benefit from, participating in organised crime; and
-
Improve the effectiveness of serious crime prevention orders and gang injunctions.
Ensure police powers and regulations are proportionate and effective Whilst the police need the right powers to cut crime, the powers must be proportionate and used in a way that maintains public trust and confidence.
## During This Year We Introduced:
-
A package of reforms that are changing the way that the police use stop and search powers. This follows the publication of HMICs report on stop and search which showed 27% of stop-and-search records reviewed did not contain reasonable grounds to search people. The 'Best Use of Stop and Search' Scheme was launched in August 2014 and revisions to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Code of Practice to clarify 'reasonable grounds' for suspicion and to make clear that improper use will lead to performance or disciplinary proceedings came into force on 19 March 2015;
-
A cross-Government review of powers of entry to remove unjustified powers and add further safeguards to protect the rights of individuals and businesses. We introduced a statutory code of practice, which came into force on 6 April 2015, that provides guidance and sets out considerations that apply to the exercise of powers of entry; and
-
We delivered the majority of the Home Office actions in the cross-government alcohol strategy including:
a) a ban on the worst examples of cheap alcohol being sold below cost price; strengthening mandatory
licence conditions, for example to target irresponsible drink promotions in pubs and clubs and working with the alcohol industry to do more to reduce the harm caused by alcohol; and
b) public consultations on the introduction of locally set licensing fees, the community and ancillary
sales notice and proposed changes to licensing powers of entry.
## Working Across The Wider Criminal Justice System
Coherent action across the criminal justice system towards a shared set of objectives is essential to ensure a more effective and efficient response to crime. We have delivered all the actions in Transforming the Criminal Justice System (CJS): A Strategy & Action Plan to Reform the Criminal Justice System published in 2013.
## During The Year We:
-
Increased the national take-up of police-led prosecutions for uncontested traffic and other specified offences;
-
Enabled the police to prosecute shoplifting offences through magistrates' courts, where the value of the good stolen is £200 or less, whilst preserving the defendant's right to elect a Crown Court trial;
-
Provided more details on case timeliness on www.police.uk so that members of the public can better
understand criminal justice services in their area and how they compare with others; and
-
In April 2014, youth and adult liaison and diversion schemes for offenders with mental health, learning disability or substance misuse problems were launched in an initial ten areas covering thirteen police forces. These new schemes are based in both police custody suites and courts and aim to identify, assess and refer people with mental health problems and other vulnerabilities for treatment and support at their earliest point of contact with police. In addition the schemes will work with criminal justice partners and magistrates to support the most appropriate justice outcomes, such as mental health treatment requirements. A Home Office funded pilot to provide an alternative place of safety, for people detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983, was launched in Sussex on 9 March 2015.
## 2. Reduce Immigration
Our objective is to continue to develop and implement policies to reduce net migration and tackle abuse, while attracting and retaining the brightest and best migrants to work, study or invest in the UK and to transform the immigration system so that it commands public confidence and serves our economic interests.
## During This Year:
- • - •
We introduced a new Immigration Act containing measures to stop migrants using public services to which they are not entitled, reduce the pull factors which encourage people to come to the UK for the wrong reasons, and make it easier to remove people who should not be here; To reduce non-EU net migration we have maintained the annual limit on economic migration. Despite the challenges we face on migration as a result of the UK's relative economic strength and our proud history of tolerance and acceptance to those who genuinely need our protection. Net long-term migration to the UK was estimated to be 318,000 in the year ending December 2014, a statistically significant increase from 209,000 in the previous 12 months, but below the peak of 320,000 in the year ending June 2005; The UK has a proud history of offering protection to those fleeing persecution, but illegal migrants who lodge spurious asylum claims detract valuable resources from those who need it most, and corrode confidence in the system. The current asylum system is designed to provide swift protection to those in need by making high quality decisions, but discourage abusive claims by removing the right to appeal a negative decision before removal in clearly unfounded cases and prioritising failed asylum seekers for removal. In the year ending March 2015, we enforced the removal of over 4,200 people who had sought asylum at some stage during their time in the UK; The Home Office has met its public commitment to decide all straightforward asylum claims received before April 2014 by end of March 2015, and aims to decide straightforward claims within six months. In addition, our detained fast track process enables us to take quick decisions in suitable cases. The number of outstanding decisions at 1 April 2015 is the lowest it has been since December 2013. There will always be some non-straightforward cases that are too complex to decide within six months for reasons outside our control. We aim to decide these cases within 12 months;
- • -
In 2014 the number of asylum claims in the EU was the highest it has been since 1992. However, compared with countries such as Germany - which saw a large increase in asylum claims in 2014, the UK has experienced a much more modest increase. We continue to work with EU partners to disrupt flows of illegal migration and enhance their asylum processing capacity. Working through the European Asylum Support Office, the UK has deployed over 20 asylum experts to other Member States in the last three years; To tackle problems at the port of Calais, we set out a number of commitments in a joint declaration on 20 September 2014, including £12 million from the UK towards bolstering security and infrastructure. The improvements under way as a result of this targeted investment build on the sustained UK support and investment in improving physical security and upgrading technology at Calais, for example enhancements made in 2014 to vehicle scanning equipment; As well as stopping people entering the UK, we are removing those with no right to be here. We have closed down bogus colleges and, to tackle issues around English language testing, we have conducted more enforcement visits;
- •
130 organised immigration crime groups disrupted in 2014-15; We have also continued our interventions into potential sham marriages. Since April 2014, we have intervened in over 2,900 suspected sham marriages, resulting in over 1,700 arrests and over 600 removals;
- •
We continue to work with law enforcement partners to strengthen our response to European Economic Area (EEA) criminals who cross our border, by ensuring that better quality data is available at the immigration control to support a refusal decision; By making the necessary legislative changes, we have ensured that Border Force officers are able appropriately to exercise powers of detention at ports, including those in Scotland and the juxtaposed controls. This was completed in time for the UK's connection to the Schengen Information System, which took place on 13 April 2015. This is one way through which Border Force will stop wanted criminals (such as those subject to European Arrest Warrants) at the border, enabling the police to arrest them before they enter the UK and commit further crimes here;
-
In the year ending March 2015, the number of passengers refused entry at UK ports rose by 11% to 18,373 (compared with 16,570 passengers refused entry in the year ending March 2014);
-
Our visa service has seen the vast majority of non-settlement visas dealt within target times and in February 2015 we brought our settlement caseload back into service standard; and
-
There have been significant improvements in responding to MP correspondence: our correspondence hubs are now responding to correspondence within 20 days in over 95% of cases (usually in 99% of cases).
## Key Performance Indicator
The Home Office Business Plan includes a number of input and impact indicators to help the public assess the impact of policies and reforms. For Reduce immigration, the indicator is the measure of net migration to the UK.
The following chart sets out net migration data. Figures for quarters ending in 2014 are provisional. Net migration estimates up to 2011 have been revised in light of the 2011 Census. Therefore they will not be consistent with the separate immigration and emigration figures shown. The revised estimates are only available for the years ending June and December each year.
Net long-term migration to the UK was estimated to be 318,000 in the year ending December 2014, a statistically significant increase from 209,000 in the previous 12 months, but below the peak of 320,000 in the year ending June 2005. 641,000 people immigrated to the UK in the year ending December 2014, a statistically significant increase from 526,000 in the previous 12 months. There were statistically significant increases for EU and non-EU nationals. Immigration of EU nationals increased to 268,000 in 2014 from 201,000 in 2013. Despite showing a slight decline from the last quarter, non-EU immigration increased to 290,000 in 2014 from 248,000 in the previous 12 months. While the increase in EU immigration continues the recent trend that began in 2012. An estimated 323,000 people emigrated from the UK in the year ending December 2014. Overall emigration levels have been relatively stable since 2010.
YE = Year Ending
Calendar Year
q1 = YE March q2 = YE June
q3 = YE Sep
q4 = YE Dec Achievements between April 2014 and the end of March 2015 include: Strengthen the system of granting students permission to enter or stay in the UK A number of policy changes have been made to attract the international students who we want to come to the UK, while clamping down on abuse. The figures show this strategy is working, with a 16% increase in the number of sponsored student visas applications for universities since 2010, and a rise of 30% for the elite Russell Group universities. In the year ending March 2015, we saw strong growth in the number of study visas granted with the largest increases in China (+3%), Brazil (+3%), Saudi Arabia (+4%) and Malaysia (+7%).
## Other Achievements During The Year Include:
-
Continuing action to curb student visa abuse, making the application process more rigorous and requiring colleges to improve course quality. This has resulted in an 11% decrease in the number of further education study-related sponsor applications in the year ending March 2015;
-
A significant increase in the number of interviews conducted on overseas applications. We have conducted about 150,000 interviews so far, of which 130,000 were for Tier 4 students. Tier 4 is for students coming to the UK for post-16 education.
-
Taking action against the individuals and institutions involved in the English language testing fraud uncovered earlier this year. We have set up a sponsorship working group with education sector stakeholders in order to support students that have been affected by, but not involved in, the fraud. As at 31 December 2014, 48 of the 57 colleges that were suspended in June 2014 have had their licences revoked, 4 have surrendered their licences and another 4 have been reinstated. One college remains suspended due to on-going legal proceedings. We have also suspended a further 34 private colleges, 19 of which have been revoked and 4 surrendered their licence. As at 31 December 2014 a total of 12 private colleges remained suspended including the college that was suspended due to ongoing legal proceedings. As at 31 December 2014, we made more than 11,800 refusal, curtailment and removal decisions, conducted more than 2,700 enforcement visits, served removal notices in person on over 800 people whom we also detained. We have removed over 500 of those people who we detained; and
-
Tackling the negative perceptions that students are not welcome in the UK by taking every opportunity to communicate the message that the UK is open to genuine international students and that we have a strong visa offer. We will continue to reiterate this message.
## Improve The Immigration System
In July 2014, the first phase of measures from the Immigration Act 2014 came into effect, including new powers to revoke driving licences and reforms to the penalty scheme for those who employ illegal workers. We have doubled the maximum penalty for employing an illegal worker to £20,000. In September 2014, we announced launch dates for the next phase of measures which introduce a requirement for private rental sector landlords to check a prospective tenant's immigration status. We have focused on reducing outstanding asylum casework and constraining asylum support costs. In March 2014, we cleared all straightforward pre-2011 cases and in June 2014, we did the same for pre-2012 cases (other than those which form part of the Older Live Cases cohort). We have also cleared our backlog of trafficking claims; 70% of new claims receive a final decision within 90 days. We also met our commitment to review and communicate decisions on outstanding legacy cases by the end of 2014 (other than in exceptional circumstances where we have been unable to conduct a review, for example because of a criminal investigation or litigation). The number of remaining exceptional cases is small and continues to reduce.
## Strengthen The System Of Granting Spouses Permission To Enter Or Stay In The Uk
The Court of Appeal has upheld the lawfulness of the new English language and minimum income threshold requirements, which were introduced in changes to the immigration rules. In addition, we have implemented changes to give the full weight of primary legislation to the public interest in those requirements under the qualified right to respect for private and family life under European Court of Human Rights Article 8. We have tightened the rules for family visas and, compared with the year ending September 2010, family visas granted were down by a third (-33%).
## Set An Annual Limit On The Number Of Non-Eu Economic Migrants Admitted To The Uk
In April 2014, the limit set for Tier 2 (General) visas was 20,700 for the rest of the Parliament. Individuals can apply for a Tier 2 (General) visa if they have been offered a skilled job in the UK, are from outside the European Economic Area or Switzerland and have been sponsored by a licensed sponsor.
## During This Year:
-
Our reforms have helped UK nationals into employment. Since the first quarter of 2010, employment levels have risen by 2.1 million, of which 1.3 million (61.4%) is accounted for by UK nationals, and 805,000 (38.6%) by non-UK nationals. Work visas issued were up by 9% in the 12 months to March 2015, compared with the year to March 2014, with skilled work visas issued up 13% over the same period;
-
In the year ending March 2015, there was a 12% increase in sponsored visa applications for skilled work to 55,589. Most of the increase was accounted for by the three largest sectors: Information and Communication (23,541, +11%), Professional, Scientific and Technical Activities (10,768, +20%), Financial and Insurance Activities (6,608, +10%);
-
We have made changes to Tier 1 routes to ensure that they remain open to those who will make the greatest economic contribution, whilst also preventing abuse. Recent changes include a higher investment threshold for the Tier 1 (Investor) category and a suspension of in-country switching into the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) category for most students and post-study workers; and
-
We have improved flexibility for businesses and their employees by allowing Tier 2 visas to be granted for up to 5 years at a time, rather than the previous 3 years.
## Transforming Border Security
We have continued to strengthen border security by introducing exit checks at all ports of departure, and by the continuation of the existing regime of full checks on entry in line with our Operating Mandate. Border Force has continued to enhance its law enforcement capabilities. It is now able to work even more effectively with its partners to exploit the border as a unique intervention point against individuals and goods that have the potential to cause social and economic harm to the UK.
## During This Year We Have:
-
Exceeded annual seizure targets for Class A Drugs, New Psychoactive Substances and Counterfeit Goods;
-
Strengthened the operation of the Warnings Index. The Index is used by officers to check arriving passengers and is part of the Critical National Infrastructure. We have invested in new technology platforms to improve resilience;
-
Exploited increasing volumes of Advance Passenger Information (API) and Passenger Name Records (PNR) to prevent harmful individuals from travelling to and entering the UK and identify others who are potentially of interest from law enforcement and security perspectives;
-
Improved our ability to identify and intercept prohibited commodities by introducing an improved targeting system for sea container traffic, and readying border actors for further improvements relating to other maritime targeting;
-
Improved the speed that legitimate travellers pass across the border by widening the pool of Registered Travellers, and increasing the number of electronic passport gates across the UK border control. These changes have also ensured that we continue to free up more border officer time to tackle to tackle criminals, traffickers and those who exploit vulnerable individuals;
-
Significantly increased the numbers of refusals of foreign nationals, including those from EU countries, with a history of offending through effective joint working with police forces across the UK;
-
Improved our ability to disrupt and deter people trafficking, including for the purpose of sexual exploitation or slavery;
-
Worked with Public Health England to support the introduction of additional checks to combat the threat of the Ebola virus; and
-
Worked with partners at ports with juxtaposed controls, and more widely with port owners and those in the haulage industry to strengthen our controls against illegal entry in response to a significant increase in the number of migrants trying to enter the UK by clandestine means in the Calais area and elsewhere. Border Force successfully prevented over 39,000 attempts at clandestine entry into the UK at those ports where Border Force operates controls in Northern France.
## Exit Checks
Exit checks were introduced on 8 April 2015 on scheduled commercial international air, sea and rail routes. The majority of airlines already provide Advance Passenger Information (API). Where this cannot be provided, for example on some rail and ferry journeys, carriers and ports now check travel documents and collect data by checking or scanning passports or national identity cards. Exit checks improves our ability to identify those who have left and those who have failed to leave the UK when they should have done so. They will help to inform work to identify those most likely to overstay and allow us to build an appropriate solution to deal with these individuals. They will also extend our ability to identify known or suspected persons of interest from a security, criminal, immigration or customs perspective and provide us with additional opportunities to take appropriate action. In implementing exit checks the Government worked closely with ports and carriers to go with the grain of their businesses. As planned, the new arrangements were introduced on time, within budget and with no adverse effects for the travelling public.
## Improve Enforcement Capability
We have now closed the Enforcement Transition Programme, a programme which oversaw the development of Immigration Enforcement from the former UK Border Agency, as national structures and processes are now in place to improve delivery against core objectives.
## During This Year We Have:
-
Developed a new operating model to tackle the breadth of immigration abuse, underpinned by the four Ps of Protect, Prevent, Pursue and Prepare. This new way of working tackles abuse with a wider spectrum of interventions and with a greater emphasis on partnership working and increasing compliance with the law;
-
Implemented new powers to revoke driving licences and strengthened and simplified the civil penalty scheme to prevent illegal working. We have recovered more civil penalties against employers than ever before These actions are ensuring the denial of benefits and services to those who have no legal right to them, to aggressively encourage voluntary departure from the country;
-
Deporting Foreign National Offenders continued to be a priority for IE in 2014 and we removed well over 5,000 in the last financial year. We are now making the most of the new 'deport first, appeal later' provisions in the Immigration Act 2014; and
-
Revised our approach to Assisted Voluntary Returns. The scheme is now only available to non-detained individuals, to prevent abuse of the system.
## Tackle European Economic Area (Eea) Criminality
We have continued to take steps to deal with European Economic Area (EEA) criminality.
## During This Year We Have:
-
Increased our use of the existing public policy test to deport or refuse entry to EEA criminals;
-
Amended the law to discourage meritless immigration appeals;
-
Ensured that the new re-entry bar on EEA nationals who have been administratively removed is being applied proportionately; and
-
Increased the information flows on criminality committed in the UK and abroad by EEA nationals.
## Her Majesty'S Passport Office
Significant levels of passport demand since the start of 2014 affected our delivery of UK passports to customers and, for some of them, caused unacceptable delays over the summer. A range of contingency measures were introduced by Ministers in June to ensure that passports were delivered on time for people who needed to travel. We have taken steps to prevent a recurrence of events We removed agency status from HM Passport Office and made the organisation directly accountable to Ministers. Demand forecasting has been reviewed and a new senior management structure put in place. These measures, along with a significant increase in operational resource, have provided customers with the level of service they rightly expect, whilst maintaining the high standards of passport security and supporting the Department's aims on crime prevention and public protection.
## 3. Prevent Terrorism
Our objective is to reduce the risk to the UK and its interests overseas from terrorism, so that people can go about their lives freely and with confidence. This will be achieved through our work to deliver the UK's Strategy for Countering Terrorism (CONTEST) by stopping terrorist attacks; stopping people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism; strengthening our protection against terrorist attacks and mitigating the impact of terrorist attacks. In August 2014, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre raised the national threat level from international terrorism from SUBSTANTIAL to SEVERE, meaning a terrorist attack is highly likely. The principal threat continues to come from militant Islamist terrorists, notably in Syria and Iraq. The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and other terrorist groups there have recruited foreign fighters, who have travelled from the UK and Europe. ISIL has the intent and resources to direct and encourage terrorist activity in the West in parallel to its territorial ambitions. Al Nusrah Front (ANF), Al Qa'ida's affiliate in Syria, is also engaged in providing training to foreign fighters. In addition, Al Qa'ida core, its affiliates and other regional terrorist groups remain intent on targeting Western interests. Terrorist tactics are changing. While many groups still aspire to conduct large-scale attacks, others now encourage attacks which are simple and can be carried out by people acting on their own. Measures in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 strengthen our powers and capabilities to tackle specific threats relating to Syria and Iraq, including providing additional means to disrupt the travel of foreign fighters to and from the region, as well as improving our ability to manage them on their return. The Government has also provided additional funding for the security and intelligence agencies and police to increase their investigative resource; and for the expansion of the cross-Government Prevent programme. Further details on the terrorist threat and the UK's response are included in the recently published CONTEST
Annual Report 2014: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/contest-uk-strategy-for-countering-terrorism-annual-reportfor-2014. Achievements between April 2014 and the end of March 2015 include: Maintain the ability of the Police and the Security and Intelligence Agencies to identify and disrupt terrorist threats to the UK and its interests overseas Following the increase in the threat level in August 2014, the Prime Minister announced new legislation to ensure the police, and security and intelligence agencies , have the appropriate legal powers and capabilities to tackle Syria and Iraq related terrorist threats.
## The Act Contains The Following Measures:
-
Temporary Passport Seizure: providing the police with a new power at the border to seize temporarily (initially for 14 days, extendable with court permission to a maximum of 30) the passports and other travel documents of outbound individuals suspected of intending to travel to engage in terrorist-related activity;
-
Temporary Exclusion Order: temporarily disrupting the return of a British citizen suspected of involvement in terrorist activity abroad, ensuring that their return is managed by the police; and
-
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMS): the legal threshold for imposing a TPIM notice has been raised to the 'balance of probabilities'. The regime now includes powers to: relocate a subject, restrict a subject's travel outside the area where they reside, require a subject not to meet with organisations or other persons specified and prohibits them from acquiring/holding a firearms license, offensive weapons or explosives. The maximum sentence for breaching a TPIM travel measure has been increased from five to ten years.
We remain committed to ensuring that powers and capabilities available to the police and security and intelligence agencies are necessary and proportionate, and subject to effective oversight. In November the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) of Parliament published a report on the intelligence relating to the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013. The report illustrated the rigorous public scrutiny that is now applied to the activities of the intelligence agencies in this country. The Government's response was published in February 2015. Bring forward proposals to enable the protection of the public and the investigation of crime in cyberspace, including introducing legislation as necessary In April 2014, the European Court of Justice issued a judgment declaring the EU Data Retention Directive (DRD) invalid. Following the judgment, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) was passed in July 2014. The Act provides a clear statutory basis, in primary legislation, for the Government to require domestic communications service providers to retain certain types of communications data. In addition the Act makes explicit that, as Parliament always intended, any company providing telecommunications services to customers in the UK must comply with lawful authorisations under Part 1 of RIPA, regardless of where those companies are based. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 amended DRIPA to improve law enforcement agencies' ability to identify which device or individual is responsible for sending a communication on the internet.
## Stop People Becoming Terrorists Or Supporting Terrorism Through Delivery Of The Prevent Strategy
Removing terrorist material from the internet remains a high priority. A dedicated police unit - the Counter- Terrorism Internet referral Unit (CTRIU) - continues to refer content which breaches UK terrorism legislation to the communication industry. If companies agree that it breaches their own terms and conditions, they remove it. We have removed more than 46,000 pieces of unlawful terrorist-related content since December 2013. Content relating to Syria and Iraq represents around 70% of the CTIRU caseload. We have continued work to prevent people from travelling to Syria and Iraq in connection with extremist or terrorist activity; and (where there are no grounds for prosecution) managing the risk from those who have returned. We are providing parents and young people with advice and mentoring for young people. We are also providing training for frontline staff who may come into contact with people considering travel, including training in over 120 schools in Prevent priority areas. Literature explaining the risks of travel has been distributed to mosques, travel agents, ports and money transfer bureaux across the country. In July, the Home Secretary backed 'Families Matter' a national campaign led by a community organisation aimed at deterring young people from travelling to Syria and Iraq and encouraging family members of those who might be about to travel to seek help.
## The Counter-Terrorism And Security Act Contains The Following Measures In Relation To Our Prevent Work:
-
Creating a duty on a range of Government organisations working with the public including the police, local authorities, prisons, schools and universities, to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism; and
-
Putting 'Channel' (our existing multi-agency voluntary programme to identify and provide support to people at risk of radicalisation) on a statutory basis, to ensure it is delivered consistently nationwide.
## Improve Uk Border And Aviation Security Against Terrorists
Our highest Protect priority remains border and aviation security. Investment in data analytics has improved our understanding of complex travel patterns, increasing our ability to identify and address threats to the UK. Better targeting technologies have improved our ability to scrutinise cargo for explosives, firearms, money and drugs. We also now process advance passenger information (i.e. the bio-data included on a passenger's travel document) for around 180 million individual journeys annually, both to and from the UK. Terrorist groups (particularly those in Yemen and Syria) remain determined to attack civil aviation. We continue to improve UK aviation screening capability by further rolling out security scanners and exploring new detection technology. But aviation security is not just about screening in the UK; since July 2014 we have also been working with a number of other countries and airlines to apply additional security screening of passengers flying to the UK.
Following recent terrorist attacks in Europe we are at the forefront of European work to collect and share more information about people travelling to Syria and Iraq (notably through Passenger Name Records) and to do more to control the movement of firearms across Europe. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 adds to existing border and aviation security powers by enhancing aviation, shipping and international rail security with provisions relating to passenger data, authority to carry (i.e. 'no fly' schemes) and security and screening measures.
## Improve The Ability Of The Emergency Services To Work Together During A Major Or Complex Incident
The Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Programme (JESIP) concluded in September 2014. We have trained over 11,000 Operational & Tactical Commanders, designed and rolled out a control room training course and conducted live-play exercises across every region of the UK. The emergency services are now successfully applying JESIP principles in a range of non-terrorist incidents.
## 4. Promoting Growth By Keeping The Uk Safe
Our objective is to promote growth and support business through work to: cut crime; open up public services; improve the operation of our immigration system so it is an asset to UK competitiveness; strengthen our dialogue with key countries for mutual benefit; build on the success of our world leading brands; and continue to support small and medium-sized companies through our procurement strategy.
## Achievements Between April 2014 And March 2015 Include: Overhauling Our Visa And Immigration Service
We have invested substantial resource in communications both in the UK and overseas to improve information for customers and to tackle misperceptions about the visa service, both in the UK and overseas. We have created new fact sheets, briefing and marketing materials for our visa offer, which can be accessed by other government departments and partners on the GREAT brand library (www.greatbritaincampaign.com). We have established a cross-government communications group called 'Open for Business and Tourism' to maximise our resources and to ensure a consistent approach to our communications. We issued 1.5 million entry clearance visas in the period April to September 2014. These figures are comparable with the same period last year when Electronic Visa Waiver applications are included.
## We Have:
-
Continued to develop new premium services for high net-worth individuals and businesses in key growth markets. A priority visa service has already launched in over 100 countries. The Super Priority (same day) service launched in China in August 2014. Both services will be expanded;
-
Launched a number of key initiatives in China. An intuitive online application form has been introduced for some visitors designed for use on mobile and tablet platforms. Customers who want extra flexibility can also use a passport pass back service (which allows applicants to retain their passport while their application is processed);
-
Expanded the VIP mobile biometric service where, for an additional fee, we visit customers at their preferred location to take their biometrics and documents;
-
Continued to pilot an elite service for global business leaders, the GREAT club. We have partnered with Tech London Advocates to hold interactive sessions with economically important groups, such as the technology sector. Both have received very positive feedback from users; and
-
Expanded the range of countries in which we offer tailored priority (3-5 day) and super priority (24 hour) services and brought forward a range of other customer improvements.
## Trade On Our World Leading Brands
The Home Office's Security Industry Engagement Directorate was established in 2013 to coordinate cross government implementation of the security aspects of the 2012 National Security through Technology White Paper. In the last year:
## We Have:
-
Promoted government and industry expertise overseas, through targeted trade visits and hosting inward delegations;
-
Signed a security memorandum of understanding with Qatar, which will broaden and deepen security relationships between our respective countries;
-
Co-ordinated and supported international events in Brazil and Japan, looking at opportunities for industry to help secure their respective Olympic and Paralympic Games;
-
Supported the security industry: the Home Secretary attended an influential UK counter terrorism exhibition to provide public and visible support;
-
Co-ordinated and led a ministerial trade visit to Pakistan focused on protective security.
-
Organised and led a maritime security consortium trade event in Nigeria on HMS Iron Duke. We are working with industry to follow up on significant opportunities that were created at this event;
-
Established and co-ordinated a quarterly industry and government security growth partnership steering group, providing a new approach to the innovation, promotion and delivery of UK security capabilities; and
-
Jointly led a ministerial security session at Commonwealth Games British Business House which provided the climate for international delegations to build relationships with UK industry partners ranging from small medium enterprises to multi-national corporations.
## Make Lawful Travel And Trade With The Uk Easy And Attractive
We continue to meet our service level agreements for queue performance at ports and airports, notably including over the peak summer period and during the Glasgow Commonwealth Games. Improvements have been made at a number of ports, such as Stansted, Manchester, and Edinburgh, including new signage and passenger information. This is proving successful, with increased passenger use of electronic passport gates. The Registered Traveller scheme allows trusted individuals to pass quickly through the Border passport control using electronic gates. The pilot has been expanded and, from July 2014, registered travellers have been able to use electronic gates at London Gatwick and Heathrow Airports. In addition, Fast Track lanes are in place at London Heathrow terminals. A new, flexibly resourced Fast Track service was introduced at London Heathrow Terminals 1 and 4 in April and Terminal 2 in June 2014. The new service includes a 15-minute queue target (95% of Fast Track queues within 15 minutes), and to date this target has been achieved. We are continually refining our targeting capabilities to better identify individuals and goods that may pose a risk of harm, ensuring that genuine goods and people may pass through border controls more quickly.
## Performance Indicators
This section contains information and data collected by the Department to help measure the impact of our policies and reforms. The Home Office Business Plan includes our input and impact indicators and other data sets. Progress is published regularly on the Home Office website. We have continued to publish information on how we have spent our budget through the Quarterly Data Summary (QDS). Each QDS report has been available centrally through the Government Interrogation Spending Tool (GIST) at https://www.gov.uk/gov.uk. Making this information publically available is a key component if the government's Transparency Agenda, and is intended to enable the public to judge the performance of the Department and assess whether the Home Office is having the effect they want.
## Contextual Information On Spending Figures
The definitions for the spending figures can be found at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/commonareas-spend-data-definitions. For the financial year 2014-15, the QDS has been revised and improved in line with Action 9 of the Civil Service Reform Plan to provide a common set of data that will enable comparisons of operational performance across Government so that departments and individuals can be held to account. The QDS (shown in the Spending table below) breaks down the total spend of the department in three ways: by Budget, by Internal Operation and by Transaction.
## Contextual Information On Results Figures
The measurement annexes for Input indicators, Impact indicators are available on the Home Office website. Structural Reform Plan figures are based on the Home Office Business Plan 2013-15.
## Spending
Home Office Core Department and Executive Agencies (as per Cabinet Office definitions)
2014-2015 Spending
Actual
Total Spend (£m)
12,833.35
(A) Spend by budget type (£m) (A1) DEL, Sub-Total
10,991.30
(A2) AME, Sub-Total
1,842.05
(A3) Other expenditure outside DEL and AME
0.00
(A1+A2+A3) Total Spend
12,833.35
(B) Spend by internal operation (£m) (B1) Cost of running the estate, Sub-Total
108.77
(B2) Cost of running IT, Sub-Total
697.54
(B3) Cost of corporate services, Sub-total
90.76
(B4) Policy and policy implementation, Sub-Total
10,782.13
(B5) Other costs
1,154.15
(B1+B2+B3+B4+B5) Total Spend
12,833.35
(C) Spend by type of transaction (£m) (C1) Accruals based procurement spend, Sub-Total
2,342.13
(C2) People costs, Sub-Total
1,185.05
(C3) Grants, Sub-Total
9,341.87
(C4) Other costs
(35.70)
(C1+C2+C3+C4) Total Spend (£m)
12,833.35
Results Input Indicators
2014-15
2013-14
Context
Cost per head of population of total police force cost
£174
£188
This excludes the Metropolitan police service and the City of London police figures. The 2014-15 cost is based upon actual government grant funding and council tax income received by the police during the year.
Cost per passenger processed at the UK border
£2.804
£3.05
This data may fluctuate as a result of deployment decisions in response to risk and operational requirements, which influence the balance between passenger processing and customs related activity at the border.
£166
£173
Cost per decision for all permanent and temporary migration applications
£62.935
£57.716
Cost of producing and issuing a passport
Impact Indicators
2014-15
2013-14
Context
3,142,935 victim-based crimes
recorded by the police in the 12
months to December 2014
Crime rates - victim-based crime reported to the police
As of 31 December 2014, UK law
enforcement estimated that there
were around 5,800 organised crime
groups - comprising some 40,600
individuals - causing harm to the UK.
The size, value and nature of organised crime and our success in diminishing it and its profitability
The Home Office estimates that
the social and economic costs of
organised crime in this country are at
least £24 billion a year.
The Serious and Organised Crime
Strategy Annual Report for 2014
reports on progress delivering the
Strategy.7
318,000 - data for the end of
Net migration to the UK
December 2014
4
Rounded to the nearest 5p
5
Unit cost of all passports processed in the UK - first full year of international and domestic business
6
Unit cost of all passports processed in the UK - international costs are not included as 2013-14 was a transitional year during which we repatriated the
service to the UK
3,107,159
victim-based crimes
recorded by the police
in the 12 months to
December 2013
The year to December 2014 data shows a rate of 55.2 victim-based recorded offences per 1,000 population
Law enforcement
agencies estimate there
are around 5,500 active
organised crime groups
operating to the detriment
of the UK, comprising
about 37,000 people.
The Home Office
estimates that the social
and economic costs of
organised crime in this
country are at least £24
billion a year.
209,000 - data for the
end of December 2013
| Impact Indicators | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|-------------------------|-----------|------------------------|
| £279m | £265m | Annual level of |
| revenue protected | | |
| through detecting | | |
| goods where | | |
| excise duty has | | |
| not been declared | | |
| 99% | 99% | Clearance of |
| passengers | | |
| at the border | | |
| within published | | |
| standards | | |
| Percentage | | |
| of migration | | |
| applications | | |
| decided within | | |
| published | | |
| standards - In | | |
| country | | |
| 96% | n/a | |
| 99.6% | n/a | Migration applications |
| decided within | | |
| published standards | | |
| are now calculated | | |
| individually for in and | | |
| out of country cases. | | |
| The service standards | | |
| changed during the | | |
| 2014-15 financial | | |
| year, and we are | | |
| now unable to report | | |
| against the old service | | |
| standards. | | |
| Percentage | | |
| of migration | | |
| applications decided | | |
| within published | | |
| standards - Out of | | |
| country | | |
| 52% | 60% | Percentage of |
| asylum applications | | |
| concluded in one | | |
| year | | |
| 87.6% | 99.6% | Passport application |
| processed within | | |
| target | | |
## Structural Reform Plan Actions 2014-15
The structural reform plan was published under the 2010 to 2015 Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. The draft structural reform plan published in July 2010 was replaced by the Home Office business plan 2011-158, which was updated to the Home Office business plan 2012-20159. The latest status of progress in delivering actions in our business plan are available on the No 10 website10.
## Home Office Science
Under the leadership of the Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA), Professor Bernard Silverman, Home Office Science brings together a wide range of disciplines to provide a credible evidence base for policy decision-making and apply and develop relevant science and technology for front line operations. It also provides effective regulatory functions and stimulates innovation and economic growth through science, engineering and technology.
## Home Office Science Is Responsible For:
-
Informing and improving policy development and implementation;
-
Improving operational effectiveness;
-
Providing specialist operational capabilities;
-
Supporting the Home Office's independent scientific advisory committees;11
-
Producing accurate and informative statistics;
-
The effective and proportionate regulation of forensic pathology and the use of animals in science;
-
Supporting regulation of the quality of forensic science and the use of surveillance camera systems;12 and
-
The delivery of the National DNA Database (NDNAD).
## Key Home Office Science Achievements In 2014-15:
-
Providing physical science and technology expertise and advice to policing and the criminal justice system, including:
–
–
Completed type approval of two new preliminary drug screening devices, to enable testing under the drug-driving offence that came into effect in March 2015;
–
–
The NDNAD processed more than 500,000 DNA transactions during the year and was upgraded to accommodate DNA profiles generated from new DNA-17 chemistries, which provide more sensitive and discriminating tests than the previous standard; and
–
–
Independently assessed the water cannon purchased by the Metropolitan Police Service.
-
Informing evidence-based policy and operational decision-making through research and analysis, such as:
–
–
The Chief Scientific Adviser produced for the first time an estimate of the 'dark figure' of UK cases of modern slavery;
–
–
Publication of research on migration, including reports on socio-economic characteristics and labour market characteristics of migrants;
–
–
Completion of the Serious Organised Crime databook, which provides trend analysis on the scale, nature and response to serious organised crime threats; and
–
–
Publication of statistics on immigration, hate crime, metal theft, and business crime;
-
The operation of effective regulatory and advisory functions, including:
–
–
Delivery of the two Coalition Commitments on the use of animals in science: a policy ban on the testing of Household Products in animals; and publication of a Delivery Plan and a one-year progress report on working to reduce the use of animals in research; and
–
–
Publication by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) of a number of reports, including a major report on the impact of powdered cocaine on society; and
-
The promotion of growth through the launch of the Security Innovation and Demonstration Centre, which aims to form collaborative partnerships between industry, academia, policy-makers and endusers in order to address grand challenges.
## Better Regulation
The Government's priorities for the Home Office have been to cut crime, reduce immigration, prevent terrorism, and to promote growth by keeping the UK safe. In developing policies according to these priorities, the Home Office has continued to have regard to the Government's Principles of Regulation; regulating business and civil society organisations only where there is a robust and compelling case to do so. Whilst working to achieve these objectives, the Home Office has contributed to the Government's Better Regulation agenda and Red Tape Challenge programme, which together have focused on reducing the overall burden of regulation on business so as to stimulate investment and growth in the UK economy.
## Regulatory Activity For The Reporting Year
Regulatory activity for the reporting year is covered by the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Statements of New Regulation (SNR7, SNR8 and SNR9), published by Government to inform business of regulatory changes, and to track the Government's performance. These publications cover the period from January 2014 to June 2015 and record that the Home Office brought forward two low cost regulations in this time, and eleven deregulatory or 'zero net cost' (regulatory measures where the benefits to business equal or exceed the costs) measures; with an estimated net benefit to business of £7million per annum. Relevant Home Office policies developed or implemented during this period include the removal of the requirement for personal licence holders within the alcohol sector to renew their licence; updating the poisons regulations to reduce burdens on retailers, whilst simultaneously improving control over the sale of poisons; and the introduction of Primary Authority for the restriction of underage sales of alcohol, improving consistency of enforcement and reducing burdens for retailers. In addition, two EU measures were implemented during this period.
## Eu Measures Implemented During This Period:
-
the implementation of the EU regulation on the Marketing and Use of Explosives Precursors; and
-
the implementation of Article 4(4) of the EU Firearms Directive concerning record-keeping of firearms transactions.
In both cases the Home Office implemented in a proportionate way that kept burdens on business to a minimum.
## Audit Of Legislation
In 2014, the Home Office completed a comprehensive audit of its legislative stock, from 1850 to 2013, in order to identify opportunities for deregulation. The audit confirmed a range of efforts in the last Parliament to reduce burdens on business, and recognised that the Home Office has deregulated when it has been possible to do so without compromising the safety and security of the public. Further deregulatory opportunities were identified, including, for example, one to reduce burdens on the palliative care sector. The audit of legislation also identified opportunities for the revoking of redundant regulations and the consolidation of legislation, in alignment with the Government's Red Tape Challenge programme. As a result the Department has been able to double its contribution to the Red Tape Challenge, increasing to 76 the number of regulations scrapped or improved during this Parliament.
## Regulatory Activity During The Parliament - The Ninth Statement Of New Regulation
The SNR9 was the final statement in this Parliament and reports the Government's regulatory and deregulatory activity since 2011. A link to the SNR9 document can be found here: The Ninth Statement of New Regulation13.
Over the course of the Parliament, the Home Office introduced 13 regulatory measures and 20 deregulatory or 'zero net cost' measures. The net balance of the Home Office's regulatory activity during the Parliament produced an estimated cost to business of £94.34million per annum.
Many of the regulatory measures contributing to this figure have, however, been introduced to address the concerns of both business and the wider society. For instance, an impact assessment of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act, considered a cost to business of £30.4million. This has led to significant reductions in metal theft, benefitting in particular the rail and telecommunications industries, and reducing delays for rail passengers. The Home Office estimates that the wider benefits to business of this measure are in the region of £100million. Other regulations with significant impacts on business include the banning of vehicle immobilisation on private land without legal authority and combating rogue wheel clamping practices. The Home Office recognises that it is often how regulations are implemented, rather than the regulations themselves, that is of most concern to business. Initiatives to reduce the burden of regulatory compliance during this Parliament include the introduction of online electronic licensing systems, for licensing both controlled drugs and the use of animals in scientific procedures; simplifying the application process and reducing the time taken to issue licences to businesses.
## Sustainability Home Office Sustainability Priorities Are To:
-
Assess and manage social and environmental impacts and opportunities in policy development and decision making;
-
Deliver on the Greening Government Commitments14 (GGC) by 2014-15; and
-
Procure from small businesses with the aspiration that 25% of all spend in contracts should be awarded to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) by 2016-17.
## Governance Arrangements
Overall accountability for delivering and mainstreaming sustainability in the Home Office falls to the Permanent Secretary and is championed by our Chief Commercial Officer. A Home Office Minister has oversight and responsibility for sustainability and attends the Home Affairs Greening Government Commitments (GGC) subcommittee. Day to day delivery is carried out by the Sustainability Team, who seek input and advice from a virtual Sustainability Implementation Group, which comprises members from Home Office business units and functional teams. The Sustainability Team acts as a focus and challenge to the Department to ensure sustainability principles are embedded into the business.
## Ggc Progress Managing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Buildings And Travel
We have achieved a 27% reduction in greenhouse gases against a 2009-10 baseline. This exceeds the 25% GGC target and has been achieved by estate consolidations and energy saving measures.
| Managing greenhouse gas emissions | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 |
|-------------------------------------|------------|------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|---------------------------|
| 8,523 | 9,072 | 7,630 | 10,171 | 9,626 | 9,114 | Domestic travel related |
| emissions | | | | | | |
| Building related emissions | 54,852 | 47,601 | 40,279 | 39,793 | 36,674 | 36,989 |
| Non-Financial | | | | | | |
| Indicators | | | | | | |
| (tCO2e) | | | | | | |
| (nominal) | | | | | | |
| 63,375 | 56,673 | 47,909 | 49,964 | 46,300 | 46,103 | Reported greenhouse |
| gas emissions | | | | | | |
| 10,190 | 9,548 | 8,349 | 8,826 | 8,566 | 8,134 | Building energy |
| expenditure | | | | | | |
| Financial | | | | | | |
| Indicators | | | | | | |
| (£'000) | | | | | | |
| Not | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | CRC registration and |
| license expenditure | applicable | | | | | |
| Not | Not | 503 | 523 | 404 | 702 | CRC (carbon reduction |
| commitment) allowances | applicable | applicable | | | | |
| 13,277 | 12,004 | 11,297 | 14,303 | 17,101 | 15,692 | Expenditure on official |
| domestic business travel | | | | | | |
| 57 | 26 | 17 | 3 | 2 | 7 | Expenditure on accredited |
| carbon offsets (for air | | | | | | |
| travel) | | | | | | |
| Total expenditure | 23,524 | 21,580 | 20,167 | 23,656 | 26,075 | 24,536 |
## Managing Our Buildings
Although energy use has fallen in each of the last three years, this year's carbon conversion factors have resulted in a small rise in greenhouse gases this year compared to last. Nevertheless we have delivered a 32% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from our buildings against 2009-10 baseline.
## We Have:
-
Consolidated our estate, taking opportunities to vacate buildings as leases end;
-
Incentivised our facilities managers suppliers to invest in new technologies such as boiler controls and voltage optimisers;
-
Managed energy demand to minimise consumption through on-line monitoring to identify unexpected changes and facilitate urgent rectification by adjusting temperature settings and hours of plant operation;
-
Installed more efficient computer hardware and architecture; and
-
Reduced the amount of oil used for heating.
Energy use, in several of our buildings, can be viewed online15.
The Department purchases over 84% of its electricity from renewable sources.
| 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | Managing greenhouse gas emissions |
|----------------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------------------------------|
| from buildings | | | | | | |
| Electricity: non-renewable | 26,227 | 22,203 | 19,173 | 16,896 | 6,490 | 4,806 |
| Electricity: renewable | 16,971 | 16,891 | 14,702 | 15,365 | 23,704 | 26,475 |
| Non-Financial | | | | | | |
| Indicators | | | | | | |
| (tCO2e) | | | | | | |
| Gas | 6,774 | 5,623 | 4,938 | 6,388 | 5,589 | 4,920 |
| 318 | 237 | 350 | 166 | 162 | 102 | Liquefied Petroleum Gas |
| (LPG) | | | | | | |
| Oil | 3,302 | 2,016 | 694 | 956 | 586 | 574 |
| Fugitive emissions | 1,260 | 631 | 422 | 22 | 143 | 112 |
| Total | 54,852 | 47,601 | 40,279 | 39,793 | 36,674 | 36,989 |
## Managing Travel
Greenhouse gas emissions from travel arise from our vehicle fleet, hire cars, taxis, staff travelling in their own vehicles (where this is reimbursed) and business air travel. Overall travel emissions have increased by 7% against the 2009-10 baseline but there has been a small drop against 2013-14. The number of domestic flights taken has fallen by 8% against the baseline and 12% against 2013-14. There has been an increase in usage of vehicles (except grey fleet) and rail travel, with more mobile units carrying out more operational deployments throughout the UK.
| 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | Managing greenhouse gas emissions |
|----------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------------------------------------|
| from travel | | | | | | |
| tCO2e | Air | 1,198 | 1,020 | 1,022 | 1,152 | 1,231 |
| Rail | 1,557 | 1,445 | 1,348 | 1,720 | 1,836 | 1,854 |
| Non- | | | | | | |
| Financial | | | | | | |
| Indicators | | | | | | |
| 2,163 | 2,100 | 1,578 | 1,607 | 1,390 | 1,146 | |
| Grey | | | | | | |
| fleet | | | | | | |
| 16 | | | | | | |
| Hire car | 918 | 1,101 | 1,073 | 1,270 | 1,672 | 1,858 |
| Taxis | 53 | 53 | 35 | 35 | 48 | 31 |
| Fleet | 2,634 | 3,353 | 2,574 | 4,387 | 3,449 | 3,262 |
| Total | 8,523 | 9,072 | 7,630 | 10,171 | 9,626 | 9,114 |
| 15,241 | 11,631 | 8,917 | 11,603 | 15,928 | 13,963 | ('000) |
| Number | | | | | | |
| Domestic | | | | | | |
| flights | | | | | | |
| Air | 1,329 | 959 | 1,031 | 1,222 | 1,365 | 1,363 |
| Rail | 7,430 | 5,958 | 5,747 | 8,257 | 8,828 | 9,646 |
| Financial Indicators | | | | | | |
| (£'000) | | | | | | |
| (nominal) | | | | | | |
| Grey fleet | 2,496 | 2,234 | 1,800 | 1,878 | 1,551 | 1,226 |
| Hire car | 524 | 743 | 829 | 976 | 1,375 | 1,512 |
| Taxis | 577 | 486 | 403 | 430 | 439 | 288 |
| Fleet | 921 | 1,624 | 1,487 | 1,540 | 3,543 | 1,657 |
| Total | 13,277 | 12,004 | 11,297 | 14,303 | 17,101 | 15,692 |
## Managing Water
The majority of water is used by our staff and visitors. Some larger buildings use water for cooling or catering. We have reduced water consumption by 43% against the 2009-10 baseline through building vacations; investment in water-saving technology; improved facilities management awareness and on-line metering.
| Managing water | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 |
|--------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| Supplied | 306 | 248 | 227 | 198 | 200 | 172 |
| Abstracted | 4 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Non-Financial | | | | | | |
| Indicators | | | | | | |
| ('000 m | | | | | | |
| 3 | | | | | | |
| ) | | | | | | |
| Total water | 310 | 253 | 229 | 201 | 204 | 175 |
| 557 | 386 | 349 | 340 | 378 | 389 | Financial |
| Indicators (£'000) | | | | | | |
| (nominal) | | | | | | |
## Managing Office Waste
Office waste includes shredded and un-shredded used paper, dry mixed recyclables, food waste, sanitary waste and packaging. We have achieved a 31% reduction against the baseline target of 25%. Total office waste has fallen due to a combination of factors including reductions in packaging, changes to our building portfolio and staff behaviour and improvements in waste data accuracy within our supply chain. Recovery rates have fallen from 78% to 66%. This may be due to changes in measurement in our waste supply chain and the use of round-robin collections. In our London Headquarters we recover 100% of office waste.
16
Private cars used for official business travel
| Managing office waste | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 |
|--------------------------|------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|----------------|
| Recycled | 4,445 | 3,569 | 2,991 | 2,639 | 2,297 | 2,429 |
| Composted | Not Known | Not Known | Not Known | 6 | 59 | 99 |
| Not Known | Not Known | Not Known | 154 | 82 | 70 | |
| Non- | | | | | | |
| Financial | | | | | | |
| Indicators | | | | | | |
| (tonnes) | | | | | | |
| Incinerated | | | | | | |
| with energy | | | | | | |
| recovery | | | | | | |
| 4,445 | 3,569 | 2,991 | 2,799 | 2,438 | 2,598 | Total |
| recovered | | | | | | |
| Not Known | Not Known | Not Known | 3 | 19 | 21 | Incinerated |
| without energy | | | | | | |
| recovery | | | | | | |
| Landfill | 1,240 | 1,290 | 1,504 | 1,022 | 989 | 1,283 |
| Total waste | 5,685 | 4,859 | 4,495 | 3,824 | 3,446 | 3,902 |
| Total recovered | 626 | 478 | 391 | 365 | 291 | Not |
| Applicable | | | | | | |
| 99 | 103 | 120 | 85 | 83 | Not | |
| Financial | | | | | | |
| Indicators | | | | | | |
| (£'000) | | | | | | |
| (nominal) | | | | | | |
| Applicable | | | | | | |
| Landfill and | | | | | | |
| incinerated | | | | | | |
| without energy | | | | | | |
| recovery | | | | | | |
| 725 | 581 | 511 | 450 | 374 | Not | Total disposal |
| cost | Applicable | | | | | |
## Managing Office Paper
We have reduced paper purchased by 19% against the 2009-10 baseline. Progress over the last five years is shown below. Following a steady decline in paper use we have experienced two year on year increases. This is attributable to the passport application process (whereby work done overseas was transferred to the United Kingdom) and other operational arrangements in London. This year we have encouraged the use of digital media and used the wider 'Save it!' campaign to demonstrate to staff the cost of printing, providing tips on double sided printing and reducing papers printed for meetings.
| 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | Managing paper |
|------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|------------------|
| (A4 equivalent) | | | | | | |
| Non-Financial Indicators | | (reams) | | 398,001 | 376,832 | 287,220 |
| Financial Indicators (£'000) | 672 | 739 | 833 | 581 | 686 | 847 |
## The Data
All arms-length bodies are represented in this section, except the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner which are not required to report (based on their size) and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) which is now a Public Corporation. We have restated some figures from last year to take account of improvements in data quality and the removal of DBS data. Many of our buildings are shared with others and managed by landlords, these are not reported. All data is UK only. Carbon Smart provides limited data checks for all GGC reporting requirements. The greenhouse gas conversion factors used can be found in the government environmental impact reporting requirements for business.17
## Sustainable Procurement
We ensure that sustainability is factored into how we buy goods and services and ensure that value for money is reflected over the lifetime of the contract. For example the Government Buying Standards (GBS)18 are incorporated throughout the procurement process. We continue to exceed our expenditure with SME target. As at January 2015 this was 18.6%. By using the annual CAESER (Corporate Assessment of Environmental, Social & Economic Responsibility) assessment tool, we are able to monitor the sustainability performance of our core suppliers and track progress. We have developed a Corporate Social Responsibility Procurement Guide to provide contract managers with guidance and examples of best practice. We have also launched a web based Commercial Intelligence Tool that monitors critical factors, including sustainability, of our most important contracts.
## Embedding Sustainability
This year we have prioritised:
-
Influencing the performance of our supply chain and the police estate and police procurement decisions;
-
Measuring the carbon cost of crime and sustainability of asylum accommodation and services;
-
Benchmarking our buildings energy performance; and
-
Improving guidance for policy makers.
Further information on these priorities, rural proofing, climate change adaptation and more detailed information of our performance against GGC will be published later this year in our 2014-15 Sustainability Report19.
## Estates Strategy
The Department owns limited freehold property. Most property assets are leasehold. Our Estate Strategy has been updated to support ongoing business and transformation delivery plans over the next five years. The strategy sets out a programme to reduce our property holdings by surrendering leases and using our existing strategic properties more efficiently and effectively by encouraging staff to work in more flexible and agile ways, enabled by the working environment and infrastructure. We are working with other Departments and the Government Property Unit to recycle and release surplus land and accommodation. A specific estate strategy is being developed for the Immigration Removal Estate. We have well established strategic hubs in Croydon, Liverpool, Sheffield and Greater London. We will be consolidating sites in Manchester in 2015-16. We obtain alternative use valuations for freehold properties where there may be potential for securing greater value through relocation and disposal. This has led to the disposal of Bramshill Police College and sale subject to planning consent for residential re-development of the former Police College at Harrogate in 2014-15.
## Our Staff Our Diversity Strategy
The Department's vision is to make the most of our diversity by promoting effective and authentic leadership, by seeking behaviour change and by securing tangible outcomes. Four interlinking strategic aims have been set out in the strategy for 2013–16 to help us achieve this:
## Aims Of Our Diversity Strategy 2013-16
-
Leading a diverse workforce;
-
Creating a representative workforce;
-
Delivering an inclusive working environment; and
-
Improving how we deliver services to the public.
The role of Civil Service, including our Home Office, diversity champions is to foster and embed equality for a designated specific protected characteristic across the Civil Service and their department, to improve performance as an employer and in the service we deliver to our customers. The Home Office Diversity Strategy Board with the support of the Diversity Delivery Group, is responsible for setting and overseeing the delivery of the strategy.
## Diversity Strategy Board Responsibilities
-
Define and set the Department's strategic direction on diversity;
-
Drive the development of an organisational culture that is inclusive and recognises, respects and values difference; and
-
Holds business areas accountable for mainstreaming equality and diversity into their business to deliver their objectives.
## Health And Wellbeing
The Home Office's Health and Wellbeing Strategy was launched during 2014-15. This sets out three key aims including that every member of staff working in the Home Office fully understands that their health and wellbeing matters. A new attendance management policy was launched during this period with a key focus on employee wellbeing and encouraging managers to provide early support to staff both to prevent and reduce absence. Specific projects during the year relating to health and wellbeing have included the delivery of structured focus groups and workshops for such issues as the management of musculoskeletal injury and stress. These have been aimed at employees and managers to enable them to deal with workplace risk in relation to health and wellbeing and reduce the likelihood of ill health and absence. A programme of environmental surveys has also been initiated to assess the impact of environmental stressors such as noise, particulate and fume and develop controls where required to sustain a healthy workforce.
## Workforce
The Department has robust and flexible workforce plans in place for the next year which will allow it to continue to manage its workforce, deliver business priorities and live within expenditure plans. Where appropriate, we have deployed our workforce flexibly; for example UK Visas and Immigration staff were deployed on Her Majesty's Passport Office business over the summer of 2014 and we will continue to use our workforce in such ways in future years. We have been promoting opportunities for staff to work flexibly including access to the Civil Service Job Share Finder tool. To further support working parents we have also published policy and guidance on the right to shared parental leave (SPL) introduced in The Children and Families (C&F) Act 2014.
## Capability And Skills
Building the capability of our people remains central to our ability to deliver better as an organisation. 2014-15 saw the introduction of the first cross Home Office Skills Plan. This set out priority areas for development to contribute to Home Office transformation and the achievement of consistent competence across the Department.
## Progress Against The Plan Has Included:
-
Take up of 1,000 places on the new Management Fundamentals programme to improve the capability of our managers;
-
Expanding the offer of the Leadership Development programme to staff based overseas;
-
Professionalisation of operational skills; and
-
Improving commercial, digital, policy making and project delivery.
The refreshed Home Office Skills Plan for 2015-16 sets out ten priority areas where learning and development can be translated into improved performance and productivity and delivery of Home Office objectives. The priority areas are:
## Priority Areas For Learning And Development
-
Leadership of Operations and Change;
-
Management Skills;
-
Operational Skills;
-
Working with Ministers;
-
Policy Making;
-
Commercial and Finance;
-
Project Delivery;
-
Digital;
-
Data Analytics; and
-
International.
This plan will position the Home Office for the challenges of future years when demand for its services is likely to be larger in a technically more advanced world. It is also likely that there will be a requirement for more highly skilled, more productive and more flexible staff who are capable of driving their own development in support of an agile Home Office.
## Community Involvement
The Home Office recognises that staff who undertake voluntary work not only benefit the communities in which they live and work, but also gain skills and experience that may be useful in the workplace. Staff can apply for special leave with pay of up to five working days a year to work outside the Home Office as a volunteer. More days are available, for example, for staff who undertake community work as a special constable (ten days), a magistrate (eighteen days) or a school governor (six days). Links to a wide range of volunteering opportunities are advertised on the departmental intranet.
## Gender
The Home Office is committed to ensuring that both men and women are able to reach their full potential in the Home Office. We are continuing to look to attract a larger number of female senior civil servants to work in the Department. The Home Office is a member of '*Opportunity Now*' - a business-led organisation that works to highlight the business benefits of gender equality in private, public and education sectors. We are also participating, along with other Whitehall departments, in a project run by the Demos consultancy company to look at the benefits of women's networks, especially in the public sector. In addition, we have held focus group discussions, hosted by the gender champion, to explore the 'Women in Whitehall' report's findings and recommendations on the barriers to the progression of talented women. These discussions identified four common themes around: leadership and culture; children and ageism; policy and practice and the retention of talent. In January 2015, the Department's Diversity Strategy Board (DSB) agreed priorities to be taken forward, which include focus on supporting women to fulfil their potential, confidence building and improving opportunities by providing better support for parents and pro-actively promoting flexible working opportunities.
Number of male and female employees20:
Female
Male
Total at 31 March
2015
Directors21
3
7
10
Senior Managers22
83
158
241
Employees
17,306
16,395
33,701
## Strategic Review Funding
The Home Office is accountable to Parliament for its expenditure. Parliamentary approval for its spending plans is sought through the Main Estimates presented to the House of Commons, specifying the estimated expenditure and asking for the necessary funds to be voted. The Department draws down voted funds in year from the Consolidated Fund as required. The Estimates include a formal description ("ambit") of the services to be financed. Voted money cannot be used to finance services that do not fall within the ambit. At the Supplementary Estimate stage, a number of changes were made to the Department's Estimate. These included:
## Changes Made To The Department'S Estimate At The Supplementary Estimate Stage:
-
Funding amounting to £237 million was agreed in relation to estimated Tribunal costs;
-
An AME budget increase of £819 million mainly related to estimated police pension costs;
-
Funding of £4.4 million for the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which transferred from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;
-
Additional funding to cover the costs of policing the NATO summit (£35 million);
-
Additional costs of £80 million in relation to the utilisation of existing provisions, including related to the 2011 riots damages costs;
-
Programme funding to cover additional Border Force operational costs at Calais (£6 million); and
-
A number of transfers with other departments in relation to court costs associated with the Immigration Act of 2014, support for the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement project, funding to cover work with the victims of child sexual exploitation and additional funding to strengthen national cyber security.
20
21
Members of the Executive Management Board
22
All managers at Senior Civil Service (SCS) level
## Outturn
The Statement of Parliamentary Supply (SOPS), which is the main parliamentary control schedule, reports the outturn against Estimate (the Estimates Boundary). Additional detailed actual spending during 2014-15 against Estimate sub-heads is reported in the Analysis of Net Resource Outturn by Section (note 2.1 to the SOPS). Estimates for each sub-heading are finalised in the Supplementary Estimate with work to formulate these numbers taking place in December each year.
## Estimate And The Accounts
The Estimate does not include income classified as Income Payable to the Consolidated Fund. It also excludes expense associated with the write-off of Income Payable to the Consolidated Fund related debtor invoices. These are, however, included in the accounts. Further differences exist between the accounts (and Estimates) and the budgeting boundaries:
a)
The resource budgeting boundary excludes items such as capital grants provided by the Home Office to Local
Authorities (resource budgeting boundary excludes all capital grants); and
b)
The budgeting boundary includes items which are not reported in the Estimate or accounts, for example, on
balance sheet PFIs. (HO Estimate boundary is the same as the budgeting boundary as it includes all our DEL and AME). Payments to suppliers are classified as resource expenditure for budgetary purposes.
In accordance with the Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM), explanations are provided for significant variances from the Net Estimate for Resources, or where it is thought appropriate to provide additional disclosure. The overall spend for the year was in line with expectations at £13.195 billion (including resource, capital & AME).
The total DEL resource at £10.980 billion (resource only) shows an under spend for 2014-15, against the Supplementary Estimate, of £157 million (a variance of 1.4%). This is broken down as follows:
-
DEL admin under spend of £76 million; and
-
DEL programme under spend of £81 million.
The main cause of the underspend was final legal/litigation costs being less than expected. A number of legal cases concluded during the year, and the spend was generally less than originally forecasted. This was in line with Treasury expectations following a reserve claim at the Supplementary Estimates. Across the business areas, the resource spend was generally in line with both expectations and delegated budgets. However, the significant variances between actual spend and delegated budgets within business areas are explained below: Following the publication of the Supplementary Estimate, there has been significant restructuring within the Home Office. This resulted in further internal reallocation of budgets between business areas as financial pressures developed. This means that the variances highlighted in note SOPS2.1 (Analysis of net resource outturn by section) do not reflect the actual variances between revised delegated budgets and outturn. The variances explained below compare actual expenditure with revised delegated budgets as reported to the Executive Management Board, rather than the Estimate rows as in note SOPS2.1.
## Significant Variances Between Actual Spend And Delegated Budgets:
-
Her Majesty's Passport Office income was £74 million higher than planned due to greater than expected demand for passports;
-
In meeting the increased demand for passports, HMPO incurred additional costs of £15 million compared to the original budget;
-
The Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism under spent by £6 million, as a result of additional Asset Recovery income being realised;
-
Border Force under spent by £5 million largely due to the planned reductions in the Border Systems Portfolio;
-
The Corporate Services spend was £3 million greater than expected, largely due to increased estates costs and reduced Bramshill sale proceeds;
-
There was an under-recovery of UK visa and immigration income (£5 million) largely driven by lower in-country migration demand and lower visit visa volumes. These reductions in demand were partially offset by higher than forecast uptake of optional premium services both in the UK and overseas;
-
Increased UK visa and immigration costs (£19 million) were driven by higher asylum support costs caused by increased intake related to the problems in Syria and North Africa. Operational costs were £29 million higher than planned, primarily due to additional legal costs and workforce costs; and
-
The Department incurred reduced immigration enforcement expenditure (£37 million) due to lower detention, escorting and removal costs.
Annually Managed Expenditure (AME), at £1,842 million, shows an under spend of £275 million. The vast majority of the departmental AME spend relates to the police pension top-up payment (£1.424 billion) and the establishment, at the Treasury's request, of a provision (which we have estimated to be £460 million) to reflect the probability that litigation results in revised lump sum pension payments for retired police officers following the Pensions Ombudsman's ruling. Capital at £373 million showed an under spend of £18 million against budget. The majority of this underspend (£6 million) related to PFI capital adjustments and reduced police grants (£4 million) including those related to the Innovation Fund. The remainder of the underspend was caused by reduced detention estate and IT project costs. The overall spend of the Department is declining, in line with reduced budgets. However, the resource spend of £12.822 billion in 2014-15 was greater than the pre-restated spend of £11.950 billion in 2013-14. The temporary increase in spend was due a number of exceptional items, often outwith the direct control of the Department. These included:
-
The establishment of a police pension provision at the Treasury's request following recent litigation (which we have estimated to be £460 million);
-
An increase between years of police pension top-up payments (£138 million);
-
Significant one-off legal/litigation costs (£150 million);
-
Additional policing costs for the NATO Summit meeting (£35 million); and
-
The Gangmasters Licensing Authority being consolidated within the departmental boundary for the first time in 2014-15.
## Statement Of Financial Position
The year end Statement of Financial Position (balance sheet) was in line with expectations. There are a number of points to note:
-
From 1 October 2014, Her Majesty's Passport Office is included in the results for the core Department, having previously been an executive agency. Non current asset balances at the year end reflect this change;
-
The Department sold the Bramshill site during the year, and therefore the assets held for resale declined to £7 million;
-
The Department had a cash balance of £166 million at the year end. Although this balance was lower than in the previous year, it still reflects significant receipts from other government departments late in the reporting year;
-
Current provisions moved from £139 million at the start of the year to £505 million at the year end. This movement reflected, in the main, the creation of a pension scheme provision. The Treasury asked the
Department to establish this provision to reflect the estimated cost of probable revised lump sum payments for eligible retired police officers; and
-
Non current provisions increased from £138 million at the start of the year to £177 million at the year end. This was mainly due to an adverse movement in the pension liability for the Forensic Science Service of £42 million.
## Cash Requirement
The overall cash requirement at 31 March 2015 was £12.616 billion, compared with a net control total figure of £12.952 billion. This was in line with expectations, reflecting both cash drawn down and in year movements in working capital.
## Contingent Liabilities
As required by the FReM, notes 17 and 18 also disclose the Department's contingent liabilities not required to be disclosed under IAS37, but which have been reported to Parliament in accordance with Managing Public Money. The Department is taking steps to help minimise the risks of these contingent liabilities crystallising as part of its normal risk management processes.
## Spend On Consultancy Services And Temporary Staff
The Home Office has a robust consultancy and contingent labour expenditure control process. This process ensures that all requests to appoint external consultancy services or extend existing arrangements, require approval by the Consultancy & Contingent Labour (CCL) Board. This control covers the Home Office core, agencies and NDPBs. The CCL Board, chaired by the Commercial Director, was established in October 2010 and meets at least every two weeks. Consultancy requests over £20,000, if approved by the CCL Board, are submitted to the Permanent Secretary for approval and then onwards to the Home Secretary and the relevant minister. The same process applies to new contingent labour posts, unless included in the CCL board's quota (delegated authority allowing the board to agree up to 20 roles per quarter). Consultancy requests over 9 months are also submitted to The Cabinet Office Efficiency & Reform Group. Full year spend in 2014-15 on Consultancy and Contingent Labour (CCL) by the Home Office, including agencies and NDPBs, was £89.6 million. The figure represents an increase of 1.2% from 2013-14 spend which was £88.5 million (after DBS CCL costs of £1.9million in 2013-14 have been removed for comparative purposes). Her Majesty's Passport Office this year has been included within Home Office HQ. The Home Office monitors consultancy/agency staff costs to ensure that the continuing expenditure represents best value for money for the organisation. Of the £78million spend by the Home Office core Department, £41million is for agency staff predominantly in UK Visas and Immigration. Delays in recruitment of fixed term staff throughout the year, primarily through CCL staff conversion meant that agency Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff were retained in permanent posts although the overall FTE was generally within the budgeted FTE. Additionally, at the start of 2014-15 we experienced a higher than expected demand for passports and UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) staff were diverted from migrant casework processing to passports in order to ensure service levels were met. Agency staff have been retained as a flexible resource to deal with backlogs in migrant casework and asylum applications.
| Consultancy Services | 2014-15 total expenditure (£000) |
|---------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Home Office core Department | 12,714 |
| Independent Police Complaints Commission | 677 |
| College of Policing | 152 |
| Security Industry Authority | 1,077 |
| TOTAL | 14,620 |
| Contingent Labour/Agency Costs | 2014-15 total expenditure (£000) |
| Home Office core Department | 65,402 |
| Independent Police Complaints Commission | 2,291 |
| College of Policing | 5,374 |
| Security Industry Authority | 1,902 |
| Gangmasters Licensing Authority | 7 |
| TOTAL | 74,976 |
| Total Consultancy Services and Contingent Labour/Agency | |
| Costs | |
| Home Office core Department | 78,116 |
| Independent Police Complaints Commission | 2,968 |
| College of Policing | 5,526 |
| Security Industry Authority | 2,979 |
| Gangmasters Licensing Authority | 7 |
| TOTAL | 89,596 |
## Complaints To The Parliamentary Ombudsman
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) received a total of 1,222 complaints against the Home Office in the calendar year ending 31 December 2013. This is the period for which the most recently published Parliamentary Ombudsman's report23 is available.
| Enquiries | Complaints | Complaints |
|--------------|---------------|---------------|
| received | assessed | resolved |
| through | | |
| intervention | | |
| 1,222 | 550 | 64 |
All recommendations made by the Ombudsman were complied with. The number of enquiries about the Home Office decreased by 14% in 2013, falling from 1,417 to 1,222. This was driven by a 13% decrease in enquiries about what was the UK Border Agency or the UK Border Force, who accounted for 87% of all enquiries about the Home Office. There was also a 35% drop in enquiries about HM Passport Office. The proportion of enquiries about the Home Office where the customer was seeking advice on where and how to complain decreased from 68% to 57% with the remaining 43% taken on as complaints to be assessed.
2014-15 total expenditure (£000)
Investigations
Complaints
Investigations
upheld or partly
not upheld
accepted for
investigation
upheld
The Ombudsman assessed 550 complaints, similar to the 541 that they assessed in 2012. Of these, 518 were about what used to be the UK Border Agency or the UK Border Force. The number of complaints accepted for investigation rose from 29 to 117 as a result of changes in the Ombudsman processes. Of these, 104 related to the former UK Border Agency or the UK Border Force. The number of complaints upheld or resolved through intervention rose from 79 to 87. All of these related to what was previously known as the UK Border Agency or the UK Border Force.
## Learning From Complaints
Complaints about what was the UK Border Agency covered many different areas of their business, but the main theme running through those cases was delay. The Department believes that complaints are an opportunity to improve its services and looks upon complaints as:
-
Opportunities for us all to learn about the quality of the service we give, and at times to improve it;
-
To improve our service, rather than just fixing a specific problem for an individual; and
-
To take responsibility for complaints on our subject area. We 'own' the complaint on behalf of the organisation; the complainant 'owns' the original issue.
Also, the Home Office has published its complaint handling procedure, so the public can understand the process. Home Office staff are requested to familiarise themselves with it before handling a complaint in the interests of consistency. For more information on the Ombudsman complaints process, classification of complaints and where to find recent reports and consultations refer to: http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/home
## Performance In Responding To Correspondence From The Public
In 2014-15, Home Office Headquarters received 12,232 letters and emails from the public which required our response. We replied to 95% of this correspondence within the target of 20 working days.
## Payment Of Suppliers
The Home Office has signed up to the Confederation of British Industry's (CBI) prompt payment code and BS7890, the British Standard for payment. Through the adoption of measured Service Improvement, accurate and timely management information and effective business engagement, we continue to maintain our prompt payment performance throughout the year. We aim to pay all valid invoices within five days of receipt of the compliant invoice. We paid 88% of invoices within 5 working days in 2014-15 (2013-14: 87%). We paid 99% of invoices within 30 days in 2014-15 (2013-14: 99%). Mark Sedwill Accounting Officer Date: 5 June 2015
## Directors' Report Lead Non-Executive Board Member'S Report Composition
There were a number of changes in Board membership during the year and the Home Office only had two NEDs in place for most of this period. This naturally created some discontinuity. However, four Supervisory Boards were held and were well attended and interactive.
## Quality
Board agendas have covered a number of topics: from strategic updates through to 'deep-dive' items such as a review of the project portfolio, key risks and budget challenges and planning. The meetings were focused, effectively chaired; with debate encouraged. Agendas were relevant and set appropriately to afford Board insight and scrutiny. The logistics of meetings and communications were timely and well managed. The support of the Board Secretariat is appreciated.
## Departmental Involvement Of Neds
During the year, NEDs have chaired and been members of the Audit and Risk and Nominations Committees and sat on key appointment panels. They have also contributed to specific issues where an external perspective was helpful, such as the Home Office Transformation programme including the Borders portfolio, the changes to HM Passport Office and the Triennial review of the IPCC. Numerous other activities have involved NEDs such as attendance at staff away days and mentoring of individuals within the Department. NEDs also attend the Permanent Secretary's weekly thematic Executive Management Board meetings on an individual basis, which is invaluable in gaining a greater insight into the issues the Department faces.
## Conclusion & Recommendations
In summary, the Supervisory Board has added value with interactive debate and thematic reviews. The Department has made good use of the external expertise NEDs provide at the Board and in numerous other forums and activities.
## Evaluation Of Board Effectiveness
In light of the fact that only two NEDs were in place (and for some months only one NED), a full Board evaluation is not appropriate. It is recommended that a full review be carried out once new NEDs are in place. Actions identified in earlier evaluations have, however, been reviewed and updated as follows:
## Update On Actions
-
Minutes or updates from sub-committees of the Board to be circulated between Board meetings; committee Chairs to provide updates at every Board meeting or should significant issues arise. Updates are now provided at Board meetings.
-
Board to consider whether monthly briefings between Board meetings on key departmental issues would improve information flows between meetings. The ability for NEDs to attend Executive
Management Board meetings now ensures that key departmental issues are more easily communicated.
-
A review of the Supervisory Board Operating Framework by the Board Secretariat. The Board
Secretariat is reviewing Board governance structures to be agreed following the General Election.
-
Risk reporting data to be re-evaluated to ensure that it includes a sharper focus on key Arm's Length Body risks. Risk reporting does cover Arm's Length Bodies but further work could be done on this.
-
Board to consider scheduling at least two informal meetings a year in addition to a Strategy Away day. Not applicable until all NEDs are in place.
-
Board to consider whether routine discussions should be condensed to the first thirty minutes of Board meetings, to allow the discussion of one priority issue for the rest of the meeting. Specific topics have been discussed and routine discussions reduced.
-
Board members to be briefed on any high-profile issues as they arise, if possible before media coverage. Partly complete, some issues have been briefed.
-
Proposals to be developed for Non-Executive Directors to be aligned with different Home Office work streams and to provide a source of external challenge where requested. In place. Both NEDs are aligned with different subject areas.
## Sue Langley Home Office Lead Non-Executive Our Ministers
The following ministers were responsible for the Department during 2014-15:Image of Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Rt Hon Theresa May MP Secretary of State for the Home OfficeImage of Rt Hon Lord Bates Rt Hon Lord Bates Lords Minister and Minister for Criminal Information (from 6 August 2014)Image of Lord Taylor of Holbeach Lord Taylor of Holbeach Lords Minister and Minister for Criminal Information (until 5 August 2014)Image of Lynne Featherstone MP Lynne Featherstone MP Minister of State for Crime Prevention (from 4 November 2014) Rt Hon Mike Penning MP Minister of State for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (jointly with the Ministry of Justice) (from 15 July 2014)Image of James Brokenshire MP James Brokenshire MP Minister of State for Immigration and Security Image of Karen Bradley MP Karen Bradley MP Minister for Modern Slavery and Organised Crime Image of Rt Hon Damian Green MP
Rt Hon Damian Green MP Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Jointly with Ministry of Justice) (until 14 July 2014)Image of Norman Baker MP Norman Baker MP Minister of State for Crime Prevention (until 3 November 2014)
## Machinery Of Government Changes
The entities consolidated within the departmental boundary during 2014-15 are listed in Note 22 to the accounts. The Department continued to undergo re-organisation during the year. On 9 April 2014, the Prime Minister announced that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (formally a Non-Departmental Public Body of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) transferred to the Home Office. In line with merger accounting principles, the prior year numbers have been restated to include the results of the GLA. The financial impact of Machinery of Government (MoG) changes are explained in more detail in Note 26. The other key organisational changes during the year are listed below: a) following a ruling from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the Disclosure and Barring Service was reclassified as a Public Corporation, and hence it is no longer included within the Home Office departmental boundary; and b) Her Majesty's Passport Office (HMPO) ceased operating as an executive agency of the Department on 30 September, and was integrated within the core Department thereafter.
## Going Concern
The Consolidated Statement of Financial Position as 31 March 2015 shows taxpayers' equity of £(269.3) million,
(2013-14 £137.0 million). In common with other government departments, the future financing of the Department's liabilities is to be met by future grants of Supply and the application of future income, both to be approved annually by Parliament. Accordingly, it is appropriate to adopt a going concern basis for the preparation of these financial statements.
## External Auditor
These financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 and are subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The total notional NAO audit fee for the core Department and its agencies was £505,000 (2013-14, £701,000), of which that for the core Department alone was £400,000 (£495,000 2013-14). The audit fee for the Department's non-departmental public bodies was not notional and totalled £269,000 (£248,000, 2013-14 restated for Machinery of Government changes). No remuneration has been paid to the NAO during 2014-15 for non-audit work (2013-14 £nil). As far as the Accounting Officer is aware, there is no relevant audit information of which the auditor is unaware. The Accounting Officer has taken all the steps that he ought to have taken to make himself aware of any relevant audit information and to establish that the auditor is aware of that information.
## Political And Charitable Donations
The Home Office has not made any political or charitable donations during 2014-15.
## Future Developments
The 2013 Spending Round (SR13) imposed significant reductions in departmental expenditure for the financial year 2015-16. The Department's resource expenditure limits (excluding depreciation) will be £10,320 million (post Main Estimate). Within this resource settlement, the Department's administration budget (excluding depreciation) will reduce to £400 million, equivalent to more than a 50 per cent real-terms reduction compared to the 2010-11 baseline used in Spending Review 2010. In line with the most recent Office for Budget Responsibility projections, the Home Office is anticipating that further reductions will be required through the course of the next Parliament. We have put in place a programme of work to develop the Department's medium-term plans up to 2020, and the transformation plans that will be required to deliver further savings whilst meeting expectations on service standards and public protection. Plans will be finalised as part of any future spending round process led by HM Treasury.
## Our Boards Supervisory Board (Sb)
The Secretary of State-chaired Supervisory Board (SB) monitors the Department's performance against its business plan at a strategic level and provides the overall leadership of the Department. It consists of ministers, non-executive directors, drawn primarily from the commercial private sector, and senior departmental officials. The Board's agendas over the last year have covered:
-
A range of 'hot topics' that the Department has been dealing with and updates on delivery priorities;
-
Performance against strategic priorities;
-
Input from sub-committees particularly on Internal and External Audit and Risk Management issues;
-
In year financial performance and forward financial plans including transformation projects;
-
Consideration of lessons to be learnt from previous experiences such as those concerning the Passport Office, and
-
Staff Skills and Development planning.
It is supported by sub-committees on Audit & Risk Assurance, Remuneration, Nominations and Governance subcommittees. The membership of the Supervisory Board during 2014-15 is listed below:
Ministers Rt Hon Theresa May
Secretary of State for the Home Office
MP Rt Hon Lord Bates
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Criminal Information (from 6 August 2014)
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Lords Minister and Minister for Criminal Information (until 5 August 2014)
Lynne Featherstone MP
Minister of State for Crime Prevention (from 4 November 2014)
Rt Hon Mike Penning MP
Minister of State for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, jointly with the Ministry of Justice (from 15 July 2014)
James Brokenshire MP
Minister of State for Immigration and Security
Karen Bradley MP
Minister for Modern Slavery and Organised Crime
Rt Hon Damian Green MP
Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, jointly with the Ministry of Justice (until 14 July 2014)
Norman Baker MP
Minister of State for Crime Prevention (until 3 November 2014)
Officials Mark Sedwill
Permanent Secretary
Peter Storr
Acting Director General, International and Immigration Policy Group (from 2 March 2015)
Charles Farr
Director General, Office for Security and Counter-terrorism
Mike Parsons
Chief Operating Officer
Sir Charles Montgomery
Director General, Border Force
Sarah Rapson
Director General, UK Visas and Immigration
Mary Calam
Director General, Crime and Policing Group
Kevin White
Director General, Human Resources
Mandie Campbell
Director General, Immigration Enforcement
Peter Fish
Director General, Legal (from 22 April 2014)
Mike Anderson
Director General, International and Immigration Policy Group (until 2 March 2015)
| Tyson Hepple |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2014 until 31 March 2015) |
| Mark Thomson was appointed Director General of Her Majesty's Passport Office on 1 April 2015. |
## Non-Executive Directors
| Sue Langley | Lead Non Executive Director from 1 May 2014 |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------|
| Val Gooding | resigned 30 April 2014 |
| Alan Brown | from 11 August 2014 |
## Role Of The Executive Management Board (Emb)
The EMB, chaired by the Permanent Secretary and made up primarily of senior officials, is the Department's senior management team, providing corporate strategic leadership and overseeing the day-to-day running of the Department. It supports the Supervisory Board in driving the development of the Department's leadership and wider capability, and setting the strategy for developing all Home Office staff; in maintaining oversight of performance; and in ensuring that all parts of the organisation are working together effectively. The EMB, which meets almost weekly, is chaired by the Permanent Secretary. Members of the EMB were:
## Officials
| Mark Sedwill | Permanent Secretary |
|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Peter Storr | Acting Director General, International and Immigration Policy Group |
| (from 2 March 2015) | |
| Charles Farr | Director General, Office for Security and Counter-terrorism |
| Mike Parsons | Chief Operating Officer |
| Sir Charles Montgomery | Director General, Border Force |
| Sarah Rapson | Director General, UK Visas and Immigration |
| Mary Calam | Director General, Crime and Policing Group |
| Kevin White | Director General, Human Resources |
| Mandie Campbell | Director General, Immigration Enforcement |
| Peter Fish | Director General, Legal (from 22 April 2014) |
| Mike Anderson | Director General, International and Immigration Policy Group (until 2 March |
| 2015) | |
| Tyson Hepple | Acting Director General, Her Majesty's Passport Office (from 10 November |
| 2014 until 31 March 2015) | |
## Non-Executive Directors
Independent non-executive directors of the Home Office Board are recruited through fair and open competition. All non-executive directors on the Supervisory Board are appointed by the Home Secretary. Non-executive di
rectors of the board are appointed for an initial period of three years with an option to extend for a further three years. These appointments can be terminated with one month's notice period. The start and end dates of the non-executive directors were as follows:
| Non-Executive Director | Start Date | End Date |
|--------------------------|-----------------|------------------|
| Sue Langley | 1 December 2013 | 30 November 2016 |
| Val Gooding | 4 January 2011 | 30 April 2014 |
| Alan Brown | 11 August 2014 | 10 August 2017 |
Sue Langley was appointed Lead non-executive director from 1 May 2014.
## Public Appointments
All appointments to Home Office sponsored public bodies are made in accordance with the principles of merit, openness and fairness, as set out in the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) Code of Practice. From 01 April 2014 appointments have been managed centrally by a dedicated team in Human Resources for greater consistency of approach. As a result, the Department's compliance and capability risk rating was revised from Amber/Red to Amber/Green in January 2015, indicating a moderate rather than significant compliance risk to the organisation and / or moderate concerns with capability to achieve successful appointments. In 2014-15 the Department made 36 new public appointments, 13 re-appointments and extended the terms of eight individuals for up to one year. The Department has been a frontrunner across government in complying with the Cabinet Office aspiration that 50% of appointees are female, achieving a ratio of 53% for 2013-14 and 47% for 2014-15. To ensure that Ministers continue to be presented with a choice of appointees from a strong and diverse field, the Department will focus on implementing further strategies in 2015-16 to attract candidates from under-represented groups.
## Appointment Of Senior Officials
The Permanent Head of the Department was appointed by the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the Head of the Home Civil Service and with the agreement of the Ministerial Head of the Department. All Executive Management Board appointments are permanent Civil Service appointments, the terms of which are set out in the standard Senior Civil Service contract. These appointments are for an indefinite term under the terms of the Senior Civil Service contract. The rules for termination are set out in Chapter 11 of the Civil Service Management Code.
## Ministers' And Board Members' Remuneration
Ministers' remuneration is set by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 (as amended by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1996) and the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991. The Permanent Secretary's pay is set by the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the Permanent Secretaries' Remuneration Committee. The committee's membership and terms of reference were announced by the then Prime Minister on 9 February 1995 (Hansard, cols 245-247).
Details on remuneration are set out in the Remuneration Report beginning on page 56. The Home Office received the following accolades during 2014-15.
## Home Office Accolades 2014-15
-
Gold benchmark in Race for Opportunity (Race) and Opportunity Now (gender) (ranked in the top 10% of public sector organisations) ;
-
Stonewall star performer and top 100 (5th overall); and
-
Times top 50 employers for women.
During 2014-15, the Home Secretary signed the Time to Change Pledge, which aims to combat stigma regarding mental health in the workplace. In particular, a "movement" was initiated around mental health to address stigma, raise awareness and to bring together the mental health buddy networks. In addition the Department has fully supported the national Dementia Friends campaign. The Home Office is implementing the Civil Service Talent Action Plan which seeks to understand and address the barriers to progression for women, disabled, BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) and LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) staff. Career progression, talent management and succession planning are important aspects of our strategy. The Department provides resources to specific internal staff support networks - these include Home Office Women, *The Network* covering members of staff from black and minority ethnic communities, the Home Office Disability Support Network (HODS) and Spectrum covering lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender members of staff. There are also several faith groups within the Home Office: Home Office Sikh Association; Home Office Christian Network; Home Office Islamic Network; Home Office Hindu Connection and the Home Office Jewish Network.
## Employment Of Disabled Persons Policy
We work to ensure that disability is not regarded as a barrier to recruitment or promotion. The Department is committed to ensuring that disabled staff have access to the same opportunities as other staff, not only when they first join the Department but at all stages in their career. Additionally, we provide internal support to staff with disabilities through the HODS, our disabled staff support network. We also have a number of buddy networks for a variety of disabilities where staff can obtain peer support and advice. The Department operates a Guaranteed Interview Scheme, which guarantees an interview to anyone with a disability whose application meets the minimum criteria for the post. Once in post, disabled staff are provided with any reasonable support/adjustments they might need to carry out their duties.
## Consultation With Employees
The Home Office has in place a consultative framework for engaging trade union representatives. There are four recognised Trade Unions and facility time is provided to allow union representatives to take part in industrial relations duties.
## Staff Sickness
The rolling year average working days lost to sick absence for the Home Office as at 31 March 2015 is 6.69 days (7.11 days in 2013-14). This figure is per staff year which is in line with cross-Government guidelines from Cabinet Office.
## Recruitment Policy
In May 2010 an external recruitment freeze was announced across the Civil Service. Exceptions to the recruitment freeze continue to be approved in accordance with Cabinet Office Guidelines. During the year, the Home Office filled 1,882 posts through external recruitment The majority of this recruitment was to support the delivery of frontline business objectives. The remaining external recruitment filled specialist posts where the department was not able to source suitable candidates from within the Civil Service, for example, roles supporting the 'Digital by Default' agenda.
## Off-Payroll Engagements
Following the Review of Tax Arrangements of Public Sector Appointees published by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 23 May 2012, departments and their arm's length bodies must publish information on their highly paid and/or senior off-payroll engagements. The tables below provides the total number of off-payroll engagements, who are earning in excess of £220 per day plus new engagements during the year and also a table showing those who were board members or senior officials during the year. This table shows the number of off-payroll engagements as of 31 March 2015, for more than £220 per day and that last for longer than six months.
| Number of existing engagements as of 31 March 2015 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| Of which: |
| Number that have existed for less than one year at time of |
| reporting |
| Number that have existed for between one and two years at |
| time of reporting |
| Number that have existed for between two and three years at |
| time of reporting |
| Number that have existed for between three and four years at |
| time of reporting |
| Number that have existed for four or more years at time of |
| reporting |
All existing off-payroll engagements, outlined above, have at some point been subject to a risk based assessment as to whether assurance is required that the individual is paying the right amount of tax and, where necessary, that assurance has been sought. For all new off-payroll engagements, or those that reached six months in duration, between 1 April 2014 and 31 March 2015, for more than £220 per day and that last for longer than six months.
Number of new engagements, or those that reached six months in duration, between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2014
Number of the above which include contractual clauses giving the Department the right to request assurance in relation to income tax and National Insurance obligations
Number for whom assurance has been requested
70
-
25
Of which… Number for whom assurance has been received
58
-
19
Number for whom assurance has not been received25
12
-
6
Number that have been terminated as a result of assurance not being received.
year end and have not hit the 6 months assurance threshold at date of reporting Of 18 for whom assurance was not received, 17 have left, and one is now on the payroll
| Main |
| Agencies | ALBs |
|------------|---|------------|--------|
| Department | | | |
| 49 | - | 26 | |
| 57 | - | 8 | |
| 28 | - | - | |
| 6 | - | - | |
| 10 | - | - | |
| Main | | Agencies | ALBs |
| Department | | | |
| 70 | - | 25 | |
| 24 | | | |
| 70 | - | 25 | |
| - | - | - | |
For any off-payroll engagements of board members, and/or, senior officials with significant financial responsibility, between 1 April 2014 and 31 March 2015.
| Main | Agencies | ALBs |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------|--------|
| Department | | |
| - | - | 1 |
| or, senior officials with significant financial responsibility, | | |
| during the financial year. | | |
| 11 | - | 11 |
| members, and/or, senior officials with significant financial | | |
| responsibility", during the financial year. This figure should | | |
| include both off-payroll and on-payroll engagements. | | |
## Data Losses / Information Assurance
Information Assurance (IA) and managing information risk continue to be priorities for the Home Office with work being progressed in several key areas; cyber issues have been added for the first time this year to the enhanced maturity assessment used by the Department to provide comprehensive assurance to our SIRO and ultimately, the Home Office Board. For 2014-15 this involved six month reviews and a bespoke action plan for each part of the Department, evidencing the Home Office's continued commitment and improvement in this area. Work has also begun to prepare for a National Archives Information Management Assessment of the Home Office in June 2015 which will provide external validation of the maturity assessment work undertaken this year. In response to significant organisational changes across the Department, a programme of work is underway to ensure that our records of information assets and their associated Information Asset Owners (IAOs) are accurate and properly maintained. By the end of 2014-15 this programme had delivered the necessary training to over 200 of those IAOs. Delivering the baseline assurance necessary to build a robust IA culture will be an on-going process, especially as HMPO have been brought into the Home Office since this programme of work was initiated. Data related incidents of all types are managed through the process designed by Home Office Corporate Security (CS). Any business area suffering an incident is supported by CS through every stage, ranging from initial information gathering and necessary immediate action, to management of the associated risks and finally, lessons learned.
## Personal Data Related Incidents Information Commissioner'S Office In 2014-15
No incidents have been formally reported to the Information Commissioner's Office during the 2013-14 reporting period.
| Category | Nature of Incident | Total |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 0 | I | Loss of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices or paper |
| documents from secured government premises. | | |
| 0 | II | Loss of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices or paper |
| documents from outside secured government premises | | |
| 0 | III | Insecure disposal of inadequately protected electronic equipment, |
| devices or paper documents. | | |
| IV | Unauthorised disclosure. | 0 |
| V | Other | 0 |
Incidents deemed by the data controller not to fall within the criteria for report to the Information Commission
ers Office but recorded centrally within the Department are set out in the table below. Small localised inci dents are not recorded centrally and are not cited in the table below.
| Category | Nature of Incident | Total |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2 | I | Loss of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices or paper |
| documents from secured government premises. | | |
| 6 | II | Loss of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices or paper |
| documents from outside secured government premises | | |
| 0 | III | Insecure disposal of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices |
| or paper documents. | | |
| IV | Unauthorised disclosure. | 14 |
| V | Other | 11 |
Note: For the purpose of reporting, "Home Office Group" includes core Home Office, Her Majesty's Passport Office (HMPO) and excludes Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and other Arm's Length Bodies (ALBs).
## Remuneration Report Service Contracts
The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 requires Civil Service appointments to be made on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. The Recruitment Principles published by the Civil Service Commission specify the circumstances when appointments may be made otherwise. Unless otherwise stated below, the officials covered by this report hold appointments which are open-ended. Early termination, other than for misconduct, would result in the individual receiving compensation as set out in the Civil Service Compensation Scheme. Further information about the work of the Civil Service Commission can be found at www.civilservicecommission.
org.uk
## Remuneration Policy
The remuneration of senior civil servants is set by the Prime Minister following independent advice from the Review Body on Senior Salaries (SSRB). The Review Body sometimes advise the Prime Minister on the pay and pensions of Members of Parliament and their allowances, on Peers' allowances and on the pay, pensions and allowances of Ministers and others whose pay is determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975. In reaching its recommendations, the Review Body has regard to the following considerations:
-
The need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people to exercise their different responsibilities;
-
Regional and local variations in labour markets and their effects on the recruitment and retention of staff;
-
Government policies for improving the public services including the requirement on departments to meet the output targets for the delivery of departmental services;
-
The funds available to departments as set out in the Government's Departmental Expenditure Limits;
-
The Government's inflation target; and
-
Evidence received about wider economic considerations and the affordability of recommendations provided.
In making recommendations, the Review Body considers any factors that the Government and other witnesses may draw to its attention. In particular:
-
Differences in terms and conditions of employment between the public and private sector and between the remit groups, taking account of relative job security and the value of benefits in kind;
-
Changes in national pay systems, including flexibility and the reward of success;
-
Job weight in differentiating the remuneration for particular posts;
-
The need to maintain broad linkage between the remuneration of the three main remit groups, while allowing sufficient flexibility to take account of the circumstances of each group; and
-
The relevant legal obligations, including anti-discrimination legislation regarding age, gender, race, sexual orientation, religion and belief and disability.
The Review Body sometimes make other recommendations to relate reward to performance where appropriate; maintain the confidence of those covered by the review body's remit that its recommendations have been fairly and properly determined and the remuneration of those covered by the remit is consistent with the Government's equal opportunities policy. Further information about the work of the Review Body can be found at www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ review-body-on-senior-salaries. The disclosures within this Remuneration Report are subject to audit.
## Ministers
The Ministers responsible for the Department during 2014-15 are reported on pages 46 - 47.
## Membership Of The Home Office Supervisory Board
The membership of the Supervisory Board during 2014-15 is reported on pages 49 - 50.
## Executive Management Board (Emb)
The membership of the Executive Management Board during 2014-15 is reported on page 50.
## Non Executive Directors
The information details relating to the non-executive directors is reported on page 51.
## Remuneration Committees
The Home Office Remuneration Committee work to Cabinet Office guidelines to determine the amount of nonconsolidated performance-related pay for senior civil servants (SCS) within the Home Office. To assess the 2013- 14 performance year the committees comprised:
Pay Band 3 Remuneration Committee Mark Sedwill (Chair), Sue Langley, Jane Cosgrove Pay Band 2 Remuneration Committee Mark Sedwill (Chair), Mike Anderson, Mary Calam, Mandie Campbell, Charles Farr, Sir Charles Montgomery, Mike Parsons, Sarah Rapson and Kevin White Pay Band 1 Remuneration Committee Mark Sedwill (Chair), Mike Anderson, Mary Calam, Mandie Campbell, Charles Farr, Sir Charles Montgomery, Mike Parsons, Sarah Rapson and Kevin White
The assessment and review of performance for senior civil servants is based on individual performance. Individuals were ranked in three performance groups in each pay band:
## Group 1 - Top 25% Of Performers Group 2 - Achieving 65% Of Performers Group 3 - Low 10% Of Performers
For the 2013-14 performance year, only Group 1 was eligible for a non-consolidated performance payment. Arrangements for senior civil service pay and reward are determined centrally by the Cabinet Office following recommendations from the independent Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB).
For the 2013-14 performance year Cabinet Office guidelines continued to allow for consolidated pay increases limited to an average award of 1%, and up to 3.3% of the SCS pay bill to be used for non-consolidated performance payments. The Home Office awarded the staff in Groups 1 & 2 a pay increase limited to an average award of 1% which was dependent on individual performance and pay position. It paid out 1.1% of the SCS pay bill on non-consolidated performance payments to staff in Group 1; this equates to £279,500. Bonus payments for the 2013-14 performance year were paid in July 2014. These were up to £10,500 (Pay Band 3); £7,500 (Pay Band 2) and £5,500 (Pay Band 1). The assessment and review of performance for the 2014-15 performance year will be undertaken shortly.
## Remuneration (Including Salary) And Pension Entitlements
The following sections provide details of the remuneration and pension interests of the Ministers and most senior management (i.e. Board members) of the Department.
Single total figure of remuneration
Ministers
Salary (£)
Benefits in kind
(to nearest £100)
2014-15
2013-14
2014-15
2013-14
2014-15
2013-14
2014-15
2013-14
67,505
68,169
-
-
21,000
25,000
89,000
93,000
Rt Hon Theresa May MP Home Secretary
Lord Taylor of Holbeach27
36,438
(until 5 August 2014)
(105,076)
105,076
3,100
11,000
N/A
N/A
40,000
116,000
47,339
-
-
-
16,000
-
63,000
-
Rt Hon Lord Bates28
(from 6 August 2014)
(72,470)
12,936
-
-
-
4,000
-
17,000
-
Lynne Featherstone MP (from 4 November 2014)
(31,680)
22,568
Rt Hon Mike Penning MP (from 15 July 2014)
(31,680)
-
-
-
8,000
-
30,000
-
James Brokenshire MP
31,680
24,396
(32,344)
-
-
11,000
12,000
43,000
36,000
Karen Bradley MP
22,375
3,360
(23,039)
-
-
7,000
1,000
29,000
4,000
17,03229
Rt Hon Damian Green MP (until 14 July 2014)
(31,680)
32,344
-
-
4,000
12,000
21,000
44,000
26,66429
15,650
Norman Baker MP (until 3 November 2014
(31,680)
(32,344)
-
-
5,000
5,000
32,000
21,000
The salary shown for MP ministers only relates to the difference between their MP's salary and their minister's salary, as the MP element is paid via the House of Parliament and not the Home Office.
| Pension benefits |
|---------------------|
| (to nearest £'000) |
| 26 |
| (to nearest £'000) |
(140-145)
Director General, Office for Security and
Counter -Terrorism
Single total figure of remuneration
Board members30
Salary (£'000)
Bonus payments
Chief Operating Officer
Sir Charles Montgomery34
Director General, Border Force
Peter Storr
Acting Director General, International and
Immigration Policy Group (from 2 March 2015)
Charles Farr32
Mike Parsons33
Mark Sedwill
Permanent Secretary
Remuneration (salary, benefits in kind and pensions)
130-135
(130-135)
Kevin White
Director General, Human Resources
Mandie Campbell36
Sarah Rapson35
Director General, UK Visas and Immigration
Mary Calam
Director General, Crime and Policing Group
Director General, Immigration Enforcement
Director General, International and Immigration
Policy Group (until 2 March 2015)
Mike Anderson37
Single total figure of remuneration
Board members30
Single total figure of remuneration
Non Executive Directors
excludes increases due to inflation or any increase or decrease due to a transfer of pension rights. A change in personal circumstances may lead to a negative in year pension benefit being reported.
annual leave relating to his time at the FCO.
30
Peter Fish replaced Jonathan Jones as the Home Office's legal adviser in April 2014. Peter remains on the Treasury Solicitors payroll and is still a Director General there. Peter is not a formal member of the Home Office
35
Sarah Rapson made a salary sacrifice of £2,196.00
37
Included in Mike Anderson's Home Office salary is a payment of £10,089.00 for excess annual leave not taken.
31
The value of pension benefits accrued during the year is calculated as (the real increase in pension multiplied by 20) add (real increase in any lump sum) less (the contributions made by the individual). The real increase
32
Charles Farr became a permanent Home Office member of staff on 15 July 2014 after his secondment from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). Included in his salary is a payment of £24,461.25 for excess
33
Mike Parsons' salary included a recovery of £416.66 relating to a 2013-14 overpayment
34
Sir Charles Montgomery's 2013-14 salary included £4,962 for his March 2013 salary as he joined mid March, 2013
36
Included in Mandie Campbell's salary is a performance related bonus of £7,500 for her previous role.
38
Tyson Hepple made a salary sacrifice of £899.10. Included in Tyson's salary is a performance related bonus of £2,500 for his previous role.
39
Sue Langley was promoted to Lead NED in May 2014. Her 2014-15 salary is therefore lower than the full year equivalent for a Lead NED.
The non-executive directors listed above are those who sat on the Home Office Board, the Home Office Supervisory Board and the Executive Management Board. Non-executive directors do not receive bonuses. Other non-executive directors are employed by the Home Office's agencies and NDPBs and their details can be found in the accounts of these bodies.
## Salary
'Salary' includes gross salary; overtime; reserved rights to London weighting or London allowances; recruitment and retention allowances; private office allowances and any other allowance to the extent that it is subject to UK taxation. This report is based on accrued payments made by the Department and thus recorded in these accounts. In respect of Ministers in the House of Commons, departments bear only the cost of the additional Ministerial remuneration; the salary for their services as an MP (£66,396 from 1 April 2013, £67,060 from 1 April 2014) and various allowances to which they are entitled are borne centrally. However, the arrangement for Ministers in the House of Lords is different in that they do not receive a salary but rather an additional remuneration, which cannot be quantified separately from their Ministerial salaries. This total remuneration, as well as the allowances to which they are entitled, is paid by the Department and is therefore shown in full in the figures above.
## Benefits In Kind
The monetary value of benefits in kind covers any benefits provided by the Department and treated by HM Revenue and Customs as a taxable emolument.
## Bonuses
Bonuses are based on performance levels attained and are made as part of the appraisal process. Bonuses relate to the performance in the year in which they become payable to the individual. The bonuses reported in 2014-15 relate to performance in 2013-14 and the comparative bonuses reported for 2013-14 relate to the performance in 2012-13.
## Pay Multiples
Reporting bodies are required to disclose the relationship between the remuneration of the highest-paid director in their organisation and the median remuneration of the organisation's workforce. The banded remuneration of the highest paid director in the Home Office in the financial year 2014-15 was £180,000 - £185,000 (2013-14, £180,000 - £185,000). This was 5.8 times (2013-14, 5.6 times) the median remuneration of the workforce, which was £31,260 (2013-14, £32,695). In
2014-15, no
(2013-14,
0)
employees received remuneration in excess of the highest-paid director.
Remuneration40
ranged from £10,000 - £15,000 to £180,000 - £185,000 (2013-14, £10,000 - £15,000 to £220,000 - £225,000).
The following table shows the median earnings of the Department's workforce and the ratio between this and the earning of the highest paid director.
| Band of Highest Paid Director's Total Remuneration (£'000) | 180-185 | 180-185 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|
| Median Total (£) | 31,260 | 32,695 |
| Remuneration Ratio | 5.8 | 5.6 |
The highest paid director has remained the same in both financial years. During 2013-14 there was a buyout of some Terms and Conditions of many civil servants, increasing total remuneration. During 2014-15 the total remuneration of these employees reduced as the buyout related to 2013-14 only. In addition, during 2014-15 many of the new staff joined at lower salaries than those leaving. These differences explain the increase in the Remuneration Ratio of 0.2.
Distribution of Headcount of Senior Civil Service (SCS) salaries (actual) as at end of March 201541 (unaudited)
| Salary Bands | SCS within the range as at end |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------|
| of March 2015 | |
| 42 | |
| £60,000 - £70,000 | 26 |
| £70,000 - £75,000 | 32 |
| £75,000 - £80,000 | 36 |
| £80,000 - £85,000 | 25 |
| £85,000 - £90,000 | 26 |
| £90,000 - £95,000 | 18 |
| £95,000 - £100,000 | 7 |
| £100,000 - £105,000 | 11 |
| £105,000 - £115,000 | 10 |
| £115,000 - £125,000 | 7 |
| £125,000 - £145,000 | |
| 43 | |
| 8 | 3.74% |
| £150,000 - £155,000 | 3 |
| £155,000 - £160,000 | 2 |
| £160,000 - £165,000 | 1 |
| £180,000 - £185,000 | 1 |
| £185,000 - £190,000 | 1 |
| Grand Total | 214 |
| 44 | |
| 100.00% | |
accounts which are based on average figures.
42
Staff numbers are headcount of SCS, including grade equivalents. Where individual £5k bands contain less than five individuals, some have been combined as per ONS statistical disclosure controls. However, those
earning above £150k are subject to full disclosure.
Figures are for current paid civil servants only, in line with ONS guidelines on headcount reporting
| 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|----------------|----------------|
| (Mark Sedwill) | (Mark Sedwill) |
| Percentage | |
## Pension Benefits
| Ministers | Accrued | Real in | CETV at | CETV at | Real |
|----------------------------------------------|------------|-----------|------------|------------|-------------------------|
| pension | crease in | 31/3/15 | 31/3/14 | increase | |
| at age | pension | in CETV | | | |
| 65 as at | at age 65 | | | | |
| 31/3/15 | | | | | |
| £'000 | £'000 | £'000 | £'000 | £'000 | |
| 5 - 10 | 0 - 2.5 | 126 | 96 | 14 | Rt Hon Theresa May MP |
| Home Secretary | | | | | |
| - | - | - | - | - | Lord Taylor of Holbeach |
| (until 5 August 2014) | | | | | |
| Rt Hon Lord Bates (from 6 August 2014) | 0 - 5 | 0 - 2.5 | 34 | 19 | 9 |
| Lynne Featherstone MP (from 4 November 2014) | 0 - 5 | 0 - 2.5 | 58 | 51 | 3 |
| Rt Hon Mike Penning MP (from 15 July 2014) | 0 - 5 | 0 - 2.5 | 59 | 50 | 5 |
| James Brokenshire MP | 0 - 5 | 0 - 2.5 | 43 | 32 | 5 |
| Karen Bradley MP | 0 - 5 | 0 - 2.5 | 15 | 9 | 2 |
| Rt Hon Damian Green MP (until 14 July 2014) | 0 - 5 | 0 - 2.5 | 60 | 56 | 3 |
| Norman Baker MP (until 3 November 2014 | 0 - 5 | 0 - 2.5 | 41 | 34 | 4 |
## Ministerial Pensions
Pension benefits for Ministers are provided by the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF). The scheme is made under statute (the regulations are set out in Statutory Instrument SI 1993 No 3253, as amended). Those Ministers who are Members of Parliament may also accrue an MP's pension under the PCPF (details of which are not included in this report). The accrual rate has been 1/40th since 15 July 2002 (or 5 July 2001 for those that chose to backdate the change) but Ministers, in common with all other members of the PCPF, can opt for a 1/50th accrual rate and a lower rate of member contribution. An additional 1/60th accrual rate option
(backdated to 1 April 2008) was introduced from 1 January 2010. Benefits for Ministers are payable at the same time as MPs' benefits become payable under the PCPF or, for those who are not MPs, on retirement from Ministerial office from age 65. Pensions are re-valued annually in line with Pensions Increase legislation. From 1 April 2014 members paid contributions between 8.4% and 17.9%
depending on their level of seniority and chosen accrual rate. The accrued pension quoted is the pension the Minister is entitled to receive when they reach 65, or immediately on ceasing to be an active member of the scheme if they are already 65. In line with reforms to other public service pension schemes, it is intended to reform the Ministerial Pension Scheme in 2015. The new scheme will be a Career Average pension scheme, have an accrual rate of 1.775%, revaluation based on the change in prices, a Normal Pension age equal to State Pension age and a member contribution rate of 11.1%.
## The Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (Cetv)
This is the actuarially assessed capitalised value of the pension scheme benefits accrued by a member at a particular point in time. The benefits valued are the member's accrued benefits and any contingent spouse's pension payable from the scheme. A CETV is a payment made by a pension scheme or arrangement to secure pension benefits in another pension scheme or arrangement when the member leaves a scheme and chooses to transfer the pension benefits they have accrued in their former scheme. The pension figures shown relate to the benefits that the individual has accrued as a consequence of their total Ministerial service, not just their current appointment as a Minister. CETVs are calculated in accordance with The Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 and do not take account of any actual or potential reduction to benefits resulting from Lifetime Allowance Tax which may be due when pension benefits are taken.
## The Real Increase In The Value Of The Cetv
This is the element of the increase in accrued pension funded by the Exchequer. It excludes increases due to inflation and contributions paid by the Minister. It is worked out using common market valuation factors for the start and end of the period.
| Board members | Accrued |
|---------------------|------------|
| pension at | |
| pension age | |
| as at 31/3/15 | |
| and related | |
| lump sum | |
| Real increase | |
| /(decrease) | |
| in pension | |
| and related | |
| lump sum at | |
| pension age | |
| £'000 | £'000 |
| 60-65 | 2.5-5 |
| Permanent | |
| Secretary | |
| 55-60 plus | |
| lump sum | |
| 165 -170 | |
| 0-2.5 plus | |
| lump sum | |
| 0-2.5 | |
| Peter Storr | |
| Acting Director | |
| General, | |
| International and | |
| Immigration Policy | |
| Group (from 2 | |
| March 2015) | |
| 0-5 | 0-2.5 |
| Director General, | |
| Office for Security | |
| and Counter | |
| -Terrorism | |
| 5-10 | 2.5-5 |
| Chief Operating | |
| Officer | |
| 5-10 | 2.5-5 |
| Montgomery | |
| Director General, | |
| Border Force | |
| 30-35 | 5-7.5 |
| Director General, | |
| UK Visas and | |
| Immigration | |
| 35-40 plus | |
| lump sum | |
| 110-115 | |
| 5-7.5 plus | |
| lump sum | |
| 20-22.5 | |
| Mary Calam | |
| Director General, | |
| Crime and Policing | |
| Group | |
| Kevin White | |
| Director General, | |
| Human Resources | |
| 65-70 plus | |
| lump sum | |
| 205-210 | |
| 0-2.5 plus | |
| lump sum | |
| 2.5-5 | |
| 45-50 plus | |
| lump sum | |
| 145-150 | |
| 5-7.5 plus | |
| lump sum | |
| 15-17.5 | |
| Mandie Campbell | |
| Director General, | |
| Immigration | |
| Enforcement | |
CETV at 31
March 2015
Real increase /(decrease) in
CETV
CETV
at 31
March
2014
Employer
contributions
to
partnership
pension account
1,236
1,223
11
565
443
95
1,481
1,462
20
831
717
76
Real increase /(decrease) in
CETV
CETV at 31
March 2015
CETV
at 31
March
2014
Board members
Accrued
pension at
pension age
as at 31/3/15
and related
lump sum
Real increase
/(decrease)
in pension
and related
lump sum at
pension age
Employer
contributions
to
partnership
pension account
£'000
£'000
£'000
£'000
£'000
£'000
25-30
0-2.5
420
365
29
Mike Anderson Director General, International and Immigration Policy Group (until 2 March 2015)
448
427
5
25-30 plus
lump sum
80-85
0-2.5 plus
lump sum
0-2.5
Tyson Hepple Acting Director General, Her Majesty's Passport Office (from 10 November 2014 until 31 March 2015)
## Civil Service Pensions
Pension benefits are provided through the Civil Service pension arrangements. From 30 July 2007, civil servants may be in one of four defined benefit schemes; either a final salary scheme (classic, premium or classic plus);
or a whole career scheme (nuvos). These statutory arrangements are unfunded with the cost of benefits met by monies voted by Parliament each year. Pensions payable under classic, premium, classic plus and nuvos are increased annually in line with Pensions Increase legislation. Members joining from October 2002 may opt for either the appropriate defined benefit arrangement or a 'money purchase' stakeholder pension with an employer contribution (partnership pension account).
Employee contributions are salary-related and range between 1.5% and 6.85% of pensionable earnings for classic and 3.5% and 8.85% for premium, classic plus and nuvos. Benefits in classic accrue at the rate of 1/80th of final pensionable earnings for each year of service. In addition, a lump sum equivalent to three years initial pension is payable on retirement. For premium, benefits accrue at the rate of 1/60th of final pensionable earnings for each year of service. Unlike classic, there is no automatic lump sum. classic plus is essentially a hybrid with benefits for service before 1 October 2002 calculated broadly as per classic and benefits for service from October 2002 worked out as in premium. In nuvos a member builds up a pension based on his pensionable earnings during their period of scheme membership. At the end of the scheme year (31 March) the member's earned pension account is credited with 2.3% of their pensionable earnings in that scheme year and the accrued pension is uprated in line with Pensions Increase legislation. In all cases members may opt to give up (commute) pension for a lump sum up to the limits set by the Finance Act 2004. The partnership pension account is a stakeholder pension arrangement. The employer makes a basic contribution of between 3% and 12.5% (depending on the age of the member) into a stakeholder pension product chosen by the employee from a panel of providers. The employee does not have to contribute, but where they do make contributions, the employer will match these up to a limit of 3% of pensionable salary (in addition to the employer's basic contribution). Employers also contribute a further 0.8% of pensionable salary to cover the cost of centrally-provided risk benefit cover (death in service and ill health retirement). The accrued pension quoted is the pension the member is entitled to receive when they reach pension age, or immediately on ceasing to be an active member of the scheme if they are already at or over pension age. Pension age is 60 for members of classic, premium and classic plus and 65 for members of nuvos.
Further details about the Civil Service pension arrangements can be found at the website www. civilservicepensionscheme.org.uk New Career Average pension arrangements will be introduced from 1st April 2015 and the majority of classic , premium , classic plus and nuvos members will join the new scheme. Further details of this new scheme are available at http://www.civilservicepensionscheme.org.uk/members/the-new-pension-scheme-alpha/
## Cash Equivalent Transfer Values
A Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV) is the actuarially assessed capitalised value of the pension scheme benefits accrued by a member at a particular point in time. The benefits valued are the member's accrued benefits and any contingent spouse's pension payable from the scheme. A CETV is a payment made by a pension scheme or arrangement to secure pension benefits in another pension scheme or arrangement when the member leaves a scheme and chooses to transfer the benefits accrued in their former scheme. The pension figures shown relate to the benefits that the individual has accrued as a consequence of their total membership of the pension scheme, not just their service in a senior capacity to which disclosure applies. The figures include the value of any pension benefit in another scheme or arrangement which the member has transferred to the Civil Service pension arrangements. They also include any additional pension benefit accrued to the member as a result of their buying additional pension benefits at their own cost. CETVs are worked out in accordance with The Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 and do not take account of any actual or potential reduction to benefits resulting from Lifetime Allowance Tax which may be due when pension benefits are taken.
## Real Increase In Cetv
This reflects the increase in CETV that is funded by the employer. It does not include the increase in accrued pension due to inflation, contributions paid by the employee (including the value of any benefits transferred from another pension scheme or arrangement) and uses common market valuation factors for the start and end of the period. Mark Sedwill Accounting Officer 5 June 2015
## Governance Statement Scope Of Responsibility
As Accounting Officer, I have responsibility for maintaining a sound system of internal control that supports the achievement of the Home Office's policies, aims and objectives, whilst safeguarding the public funds and departmental assets for which I am personally responsible, in accordance with the responsibilities assigned to me in '*Managing Public Money'*.
I delegate my responsibility as Accounting Officer to Accounting Officers of the Department's Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and other public bodies. My relationship with Accounting Officers is set out in statements contained in the respective Framework Arrangements, Financial Memoranda and designatory letters. Each of the Home Office NDPBs produce their own Governance Statement which is published in their Annual Report and Accounts. The systems in place are designed to manage risk to a high level rather than to eliminate all risk of failure to achieve policies, aims and objectives; it can therefore only provide high and not absolute assurance of effectiveness.
This Governance Statement covers the year ending 31 March 2015 but will remain open until the Home Office Annual Report and Accounts are signed.
## Governance, Control And Risk Management Framework
We continuously review the effectiveness of the Department's governance, control and risk management framework through our corporate governance structures and key controls. The main elements of the governance structure are:
## Main Elements Of The Governance Structure
-
The Home Office Supervisory Board (SB), provides advice to the Home Secretary in setting the
Department's strategic direction. This has been delivered through a series of standing agenda items, including corporate reporting (overall performance against strategic objectives, risk and resource); updates on major programmes and projects; and updates from the sub-committees on Audit and Risk Assurance and Nominations and Governance. The Supervisory Board is chaired by the Home Secretary. Its membership is made up of the six Home Office ministers, the Permanent Secretary, nine other senior officials and two Non-Executive Directors. The SB met on four occasions between April 2014 and January 2015. Attendance at those meetings is outlined in the annex following this Governance Statement;
-
The Home Office Executive Management Board (EMB), which is responsible for driving the
development of the Department's leadership and wider capability. It also discusses and challenges the development of the Home Office's key policies and programmes and ensures that all parts of the organisation are working together. This has been delivered through a wide ranging programme of discussions at almost weekly board meetings, led by individual board members. EMBs focus thematically on operational, policy and enabling functions. During the year operational EMBs have incorporated an element of Ministerial oversight with a particular focus on the immigration system. The EMB met on 32 occasions between April 2014 and March 2015. Attendance at those meetings is outlined in the annex following this Governance Statement. The EMB meets three weeks out of every four focusing in turn on the key priority areas of the Home Office that cut across separate managerial responsibilities in the Department;
-
The Home Office Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC), which provides independent advice to the Accounting Officer and SB members on the adequacy of arrangements for corporate governance, internal control and risk management. The ARAC met on five occasions between April 2014 and March 2015. Attendance at those meetings is outlined in the annex following this Governance Statement; and
-
The Home Office Senior Leadership Group on Risk and Safety **(SLGRS)** recommends to the Board which of the top risks should be included on the Home Office Corporate Risk Register. The Senior Leadership Group on Risk and Safety meets monthly. It has a remit that includes keeping the Board informed of emerging risks as well as considering how better to improve risk management capability in the Department.
The main governance, control and risk management controls are highlighted below:
## The Main Governance, Control And Risk Management Controls Are:
-
The Portfolio and Investment Committee (PIC, a sub-committee of EMB), which is chaired by the Chief Operating Officer, considers and makes investment approval decisions on programme and project business cases; and reviews the overall Home Office portfolio and, by exception, scrutinises individual programmes and projects during their lifecycle;
-
The Internal Audit Unit (IAU), which completes a risk based programme of audits annually and provides independent advice to the ARAC;
-
The Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO), who provides an assessment of the Department's information risk exposure and provides assurance on this;
-
The application of the Home Office Assurance Framework. This is designed to supplement risk management arrangements. The framework describes 'what good control looks like' in the context of the Home Office business and it describes the benchmark standards that management should follow; and
-
The work of the Performance and Risk Directorate, which is responsible for modernising performance reporting and promoting continuous improvement across the Home Office.
## Home Office Audit And Risk Assurance Committee (Arac)
The Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC) comprises two non-executive Home Office Supervisory Board members, together with one independent external member. The Committee provides independent advice and guidance to the Permanent Secretary as Accounting Officer, and to the Supervisory Board on corporate governance, internal control and risk management. The Committee's oversight extends to all Non-Departmental Public Bodies in the group. They each have their own Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, but arrangements are in place for audit assurances and significant issues arising within their remit to be notified to the Home Office Audit and Risk Assurance Committee and the Accounting Officer Members reviewed the comprehensiveness of the internal audit coverage in meeting the Supervisory Board and Accounting Officer's needs, and assessed the reliability, quality and integrity of these assurances.
## During 2014-15 The Home Office Arac Considered:
-
The Chief Internal Auditor's Opinion for 2013-14;
-
The Department's Commercial Directorate Improvement Plan;
-
Approval of the 2013-14 Home Office Annual Report and Accounts;
-
Interim 2014-15 Home Office Annual Report and Accounts;
-
The NAO 2013-14 Audit Completion Report;
-
The NAO Management Letter for 2013-14, including audit recommendations;
-
The NAO Planning Reports for 2014-15 for the Home Office and HMPO Annual Reports and Accounts;
-
A number of NAO value for money reports;
-
Departmental risk management reporting and management;
-
The draft Her Majesty's Passport Office closure accounts;
-
Approval of the final National Fraud Authority Annual Report and Accounts;
-
Internal Audit Plan Update Reports;
-
Draft audit strategy and plan for 2015-16;
-
Internal Audit Outstanding Actions Updates; and
-
The Audit and Risk Assurance Committee Annual Report for 2013-14.
The Chair has provided updates for the Supervisory Board on the work of the Audit Committee. The Chair also submits an annual report which includes an assessment of the effectiveness of the Department's control framework.
## Nominations And Governance Committee
The Nominations and Governance Committee (NGC) is chaired by a non-executive Home Office Supervisory Board member and comprises the Permanent Secretary, the Chief Operating Officer and the Director General of Human Resources. The Committee supports the Supervisory Board in its responsibilities in relation to identifying and developing leadership and high potential; scrutinising the incentive structure; and succession planning. The committee met for the fourth time on 20 April 2015 to review progress made over the previous 12 months and consider plans for the future. Members agreed that appropriate processes and systems were well established and embedded across the organisation, with the greatest maturity at Senior Civil Service level. The committee agreed that a more holistic approach should now be taken to make talent management and succession planning more dynamic and responsive to strengthen the pipeline of leaders. Strong diverse leadership, at all levels, will be essential for the successful transformation of the Department by 2020. Some positive steps have been taken in this direction with more work planned. Incentives and rewards for senior leaders remain tightly controlled but the department has been increasingly innovative within these constraints. More consideration needs to be given to non-financial incentives to attract and retain talented individuals in key posts.
The Committee agreed that their responsibilities should be split between the Executive Management Board and Senior Talent Board, with appropriate oversight by at least one non-executive Supervisory Board member. Following each meeting, the Chair updates the Supervisory Board on the work of the Committee.
## Evaluation Of Board Effectiveness
A full evaluation of board effectiveness was not conducted due to only two NEDs being in place. This is explained in the Lead Non-Executive Director's Statement (pages 44-45). The Department is recruiting two additional NEDs to ensure there is a full complement of skills and experience.
## Governance Compliance
Government policy on departmental governance is outlined in Corporate Governance in Central Departments: Code of Good Practice (Cabinet Office, July 2011). This Code operates on a 'comply or explain' basis, whereby departments are asked to disclose any element of the Code with which they are not fully compliant, explaining their rationale and any alternative measures which have been put in place to meet the objectives of the Code. The Home Office meets the provisions outlined in the Code through the operation of the Home Office Supervisory Board, with one exception. The Chief Internal Auditor (CIA) does not receive an invitation to attend the Supervisory Board. However, the CIA does have the facility to provide updates and briefings to the Executive Management Board as well as routine sight of the Board agendas and papers. Additionally, the CIA also has a programme of one to one sessions with the Permanent Secretary. The Supervisory Board has oversight of delivery of the Department's Business Plan. Through its operation, it assures sound financial management; sets the Department's risk appetite and ensures appropriate controls are in place to manage risk; has oversight of the performance of the Department's sponsored bodies; and ensures the Department has the capacity to deliver against current and future needs.
## Risk Management
The Corporate Code of Governance requires all Boards to set 'risk appetite' (the amount of risk you are prepared to accept) for the Department. This requires a judgement on the balance to be struck between further reducing risk and the cost of doing so. The Home Office guidance defines different levels or profiles of risk severity under the headings of:
## Home Office Levels Or Profiles Of Risk Severity Headings:
-
Public protection;
-
Financial;
-
The reputation of the Government and the Home Office; and
-
Delivery of objectives.
The Senior Leadership Group on Risk and Safety, which reports to the Executive Management Board, uses these profiles with their knowledge of the business to recommend to the Board which the critical risks are and what level to manage them down to. Risk management is one of the key processes in the Home Office, and is integral to everything we do to prevent terrorism, cut crime and reduce immigration. The Executive Management Board is committed to continue to improve our risk management process throughout the year: "The Home Office Executive Management Board is committed to effective risk management. The Home Office exists to keep the British public safe and the risk management culture we have built in the Department underpins this. We intend to demonstrate an ongoing commitment to improving risk management throughout our organisation45."
Our strategy has three elements: ensuring all our people have an awareness and understanding of the risks that affect the public and our business; ensuring that our people are competent at managing risk; and that our management controls assess risks and act to prevent, control or reduce them. Our risk systems are audited each year to test the robustness of our governance. Our risk management approach is to be clear about what we are trying to achieve; to identify what might stop us from achieving these objectives; to assess the risks identified; to take action to mitigate them to an agreed level and then to review progress through a structured process which is set out in the Home Office Risk Management Policy and Guidance document. We expect our managers to lead by example and ensure risks are identified, assessed and managed. We encourage frontline staff to identify risks and speak out about their concerns to their managers. Each month managers across the Home Office, including all of our executive arms length bodies, ensure that their local risk assessments are up to date and have been reviewed. These feed into the Senior Leadership Group on Risk and Safety (see below) and then to the Home Office Executive and Supervisory Boards - the latter chaired by the Home Secretary and with Ministerial and Non-Executive Director attendance. Information from these boards is fed back to the Risk Improvement Forum, so that all risk coordinators, who support the Risk Directors, can feed back the latest intelligence on our top risks, levels of exposure and readiness back down through the networks of risk coordinators embedded in all areas of our business. In addition quality assurance is provided by the main Home Office Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, as well as the committees that sit in other Home Office bodies. Home Office Internal Audit is closely involved in the management of the risk cycle including an annual audit of the effectiveness of our risk arrangements. Last year we set up a dedicated Performance and Risk Directorate by bringing together a number of functions to improve the performance of the Home Office and better manage its risks including:
## Improvements Since The Last Annual Report:
-
Replacing our quarterly Risk Committee with a new monthly Senior Leadership Group on Risk and Safety, lead by Home Office Directors. The group is much more focused on real-time risks and threats and provides an early warning role for the Executive Management Board. The group conducts deep dives into our risks to assess capability and adequacy of response with a focus on lessons learned;
-
Expanding our Director 'Gold Leads' to cover more of the Department's cross-cutting risks and issues. Gold leads, appointed by the Permanent Secretary, are empowered to manage specific threats across internal commands. They ensure that the whole Department's resources are used to best effect, for example in managing our response to the Ebola outbreak;
-
Enlisting the help of a senior Trusted Advisor to ensure lessons are learned including learning lessons through corporate storytelling where managers, through narrative, pass on their learning of handling significant events and incidents. We have also introduced a new lessons learned repository to ensure that corporate knowledge and learning is captured; and
-
Maintaining a strong commitment to risk training and capability building, particularly of front-line staff. This is so all key grades understand the principles of risk management, its criticality to our business objectives and how to identify and manage risks the Home Office way. Over 100 front-line staff and risk coordinators have been trained in this last financial quarter alone, from all areas, across the whole UK.
The nature of the Department's business means that it has to manage a range of significant risks across its operational, policy and enabling functions. The main strategic risks to the Department are recorded in the Home Office Corporate Risk Register. A full refresh of the Home Office Corporate Risk Register was undertaken during 2014 and risks are added as necessary. The risks contained in the Corporate Risk Register are currently:
## Significant In-Year Risks And Issues:
-
Failure to identify, stop, manage or remove (from the UK) high-risk individuals;
-
The volume of immigration threatens the integrity of our immigration controls;
-
British Passport application volumes exceed capacity;
-
Failure to prevent a terrorist attack against the UK;
-
Failure to prevent a serious border or immigration system security breach;
-
Failure to manage the threat caused by the conflicts in Syria/Iraq and the wider area;
-
Failure of the Communications Capabilities Development Programme;
-
Lack of coordination and clarity on our approach to illegal/criminal online activity;
-
Loss of control of public order;
-
Perceptions or examples of inappropriate police behaviour undermine the public's trust in the police and in our police reforms;
-
Failure to identify and respond effectively to child sexual exploitation; and
-
Unplanned financial pressures cause a departmental overspend in 2014-15.
The most significant strategic issues that occurred during the period are outlined below.
## Policing
In our 2013-14 Governance Statement we recognised that: "The police service continues to be transformed, building on the election of the Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). Challenges have been identified in terms of keeping pace with changing technology and encouraging improvements in police leadership and public perception of police integrity." We have taken action on these challenges this year as we continue to drive police reform.
## Police Funding
Our focus has been on ensuring that our reforms give the police the platform to operate smarter and more efficiently and collaboratively. The 2015-16 police funding settlement was delivered effectively and on time, with force level allocations approved by Parliament on 10 February 2015. We worked closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to ensure council tax referendum proposals were published before Christmas to help PCCs with their financial planning. A dedicated analytical team within the Police Resources Policy Team is making steady progress on developing a new police funding model. This model will ensure that declining resources are allocated effectively so that the police can continue to deliver with smaller budgets. This is complex and time-consuming work. Advice on next steps (including options around external consultation and timing of implementation) will be provided to ministers in due course. The Police Innovation Fund (PIF) continues to grow. The focus on the initial fund was on technology projects (including collaborative ones) and the next round will have a wider focus. Bidding for the 2015-16 PIF closed on 2 January. 166 bids were received, worth a total of £117 million in 2015-16 and almost £79 million for 2016-17. Following assessment and moderation, 71 bids received either full or partial funding. The value of funding these bids amounts to £43.85 million in 2015-16 and £28.1 million in 2016-17. Bids were subject to a robust assessment against published criteria before Ministerial decisions were made and announced in March. The bidding process was improved this year and decisions announced before the start of the financial year. We will continue to ensure that adherence to grant conditions are subject to appropriate scrutiny.
## Changing Technology
The Police Science and Technology Unit (PSTU) was created within the Policing Directorate. PSTU will be responsible for the policy on supporting the police to make the best use of technology and unlock efficiency/ effectiveness benefits. Work is at an early stage, but PSTU has begun regular interaction with Home Office Technology, force leads, the Centre for Applied Science and Technology, and industry. PSTU focuses on bringing the capability of mainstream policing to a point where they are able to properly address the opportunities and risks presented by existing technology. A new team has been established to work with the National Policing Lead to deliver this. The Police Innovation Fund has ensured that policing keeps pace with changing technology by supporting a range of projects to improve police ICT and digital working, including investment in body worn video across eight forces and the development and trialling of a standardised mobile policing solution that could be replicated across other forces.
## Police Ict
At the General Meeting of the Police ICT Company on 25 March the members of the Company which include: 39 police forces; the Metropolitan Police; and British Transport Police, PSNI and the National Crime Agency agreed the new Articles of Association and appointed a new Company Board of Directors. The Home Office, acting on behalf of the government, is not a member of the Company but is eligible to become a member should it so wish. Under the Articles of Association, the Company's objectives are restricted specifically to support and enable policing and other associated bodies to make the best use of technology to deliver efficient and effective policing and improve public safety. These powers do not include the ability to mandate forces to act, as this power remains with the Home Secretary. The Company was launched on 1 April 2015.
## Improvements In Police Leadership
The officer workforce is more representative in terms of gender and ethnicity than it has ever been. To encourage further improvements in police leadership, the College of Policing is undertaking a fundamental review of police leadership and taking significant steps to promote greater diversity within policing. This year, we have also implemented new policies to further improve police leadership; measures include the introduction of direct entry superintendents and fast track schemes. The first cohorts of each began their training in autumn 2014.
## Integrity
The Policing Directorate's Police Integrity and Powers Unit (PIPU) analysis of public trust in the police appears to show that this has remained stable at around two thirds for the past few decades. High profile police failures do not appear to impact on people's trust in the police; rather it is their own personal experience and that of peers that impacts. We are working to improve our understanding of this trust and what factors influence it. We are increasing the integrity of the police through a series of proposed reforms to the police complaints and police disciplinary systems, along with reforms to the role and powers of the IPCC and measures to strengthen protections for police whistleblowers. This work is alongside work already underway to expand the capacity of the IPCC to enable it to investigate independently all serious and sensitive matters involving the police.
## Reform
Significant work on policing powers has also progressed. On 30 April 2014, the Home Secretary informed Parliament of the new Best Use of Stop and Search Scheme. On 30 November, when the Scheme was formally launched, all forces had voluntarily signed up and were implementing the Scheme. Additionally, reforms to the current arrangements for authorising and scrutinising pre-charge bail decisions have been consulted on and an amendment introduced in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will ensure that 17 year olds are treated as children for the purpose of overnight detention in police custody. More broadly, to ensure the coherence of police reform, The Police Strategy and Reform Unit (PSRU) in Policing Directorate has continued to work with policing partners to understand the impact of the reforms. PSRU have also ensured continual improvement of policing governance (in particular Police and Crime Commissioners, Police and Crime Panels and the reform of ACPO) and encouraged a culture of innovation (Police Now, national picture of emergency services collaboration and support for the Innovation Fund). There is also dedicated resource focussed on the future of systems, which provides regular updates to the Home Secretary.
## Police And Crime Commissioner (Pcc) Scrutiny
Effective scrutiny of PCCs, particularly on how they spend public money, is central to the proper functioning of the PCC model. Where a Police and Crime Panel (who scrutinise the actions of PCCs) suspect that a PCC may have operated outside of the law they have the power to refer the PCC to the IPCC for investigation. The IPCC has investigated PCCs on several occasions throughout the last year, with two investigations still ongoing, no PCC has been charged with any offence. Further to this official measure PCCs are obliged, through the Local Policing Bodies (Specified Information Order) 2011, to publish a range of information. This transparency requirement ensures the public have access to the information they need to make an informed decision when voting for their PCC. In May 2014, according to an internal analysis the average level of compliance by PCCs with the overall requirements of the Specified Information Order (SIO) had reached approximately 90%, with all PCCs publishing details of their expenses. The procurement requirements of the SIO remained a weakness in particular the publication of Invitations to Tender (ITTs) and contracts valued over £10k. A follow up survey in September 2014 suggested that just over half of OPCCs have published all of the necessary procurement information. Moreover, around 76% of the required procurement information across all OPCCs has been published. Despite this positive progress some difficulties clearly still remain, for instance the redaction of contracts has caused delay in their publication for some OPCCs. OPCCs are conscious of their individual shortfalls in compliance with the SIO, and we continue to work with them to improve the overall compliance rate by providing good practice examples. We are also exploring whether other tools such as the procurement data storage hub BravoSolution could further support PCCs in meeting their publication obligations.
## Hmic Powers Concerning Pcc Scrutiny
A package of measures regarding HMIC, including an extension of HMIC's remit to include the inspection of PCC staff who are employed to support the force and are delivering policing functions, will be considered for possible first session legislation in the next Parliament. Additionally, the recent Home Office consultation 'Improving Police Integrity' sought views on an extended remit for HMIC in inspecting PCC staff playing a role in the police complaints system. The Government response proposed that HMIC retain the ability to inspect the efficiency and effectiveness of the police complaints system, even if some complaints' functions sit with PCC staff. Reform of the Police Federation (HASC report published 16 May): Having commissioned the "Normington" Review, which reported in early 2014, the Police Federation embarked this year on a major programme of reform to respond to high-profile criticisms of the culture, management and finances of the Federation and to implement the Normington recommendations. The Home Secretary announced in May 2014 additional measures that she intended to bring forward
## Measures Announced By The Home Secretary:
-
Cessation of all Government funding of the Police Federation;
-
Regulation changes to:
–
–
End automatic membership for police officers;
–
–
Ensure that new officers had to actively decide whether to join and pay subscriptions to the Federation; and
–
–
Clarify the Home Secretary's power to scrutinise all central and local accounts held by the Federation.
She also announced an intention to bring forward at the earliest opportunity proposals for the Freedom of Information Act to apply to the Federation. We have been working with the Federation since that time in developing its change programme and mapping the need for regulatory change to support the programme. Government funding of the Federation ceased as of September 2014 and we consulted the Federation on planned regulation changes in November/December 2014. Amending regulations were laid in Parliament in March 2015 and have now come into effect. We continue to work with, and challenge, the Federation in the further implementation of reforms, in line with the recommendations and timetable outlined by Normington. The application of the Freedom of Information Act to the Federation will require primary legislation.
## Independent Panel Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse
On 7 July 2014, the Home Secretary announced an Inquiry to consider whether public bodies and other non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. Since that announcement, the first two Inquiry Chairs that were appointed both made the decision to resign due to a lack of public confidence in their impartiality. Dame Butler-Sloss resigned on 14 July, and Fiona Woolf resigned on 31 October. On 3 November the Home Secretary made a statement to Parliament about how she would engage with survivors' groups and parliamentarians before appointing a new Chair. Since then both the Home Secretary and officials have held several roundtable meetings with victims and victims' representatives. On 4 February 2015 the Home Secretary announced her decision to disband the current inquiry and appoint Justice Lowell Goddard as Chairperson to lead a new Inquiry which was put on a statutory footing. On 12 March the Home Secretary issued a further statement formally appointing Justice Goddard as Chair of the Inquiry, appointing the Panel and announcing the terms of reference. The Inquiry is now on a statutory footing.
## Increase In Reporting Of Child Sexual Abuse (Csa):
The volume of reporting of CSA has increased rapidly during the last year and continues to be the focus of intense public and political scrutiny. Following the publication of the Jay report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham last year about the appalling failures across children's services, The Home Secretary chaired a series of meetings with Secretary of State colleagues to consider the findings, and what the Government can do to help prevent these failures from happening again. This built on the existing work of the Home Office-led National Group on Sexual Violence against Children and Vulnerable People published a progress report and action plan for 2015 on 12 March 2015. There is also a number of official-level groups which co-ordinate work on sexual abuse and exploitation across Government. The Director of Safeguarding leads a cross Whitehall Group of Directors which has been established to drive work forward. This is in recognition that government has yet to develop a clear, cross-cutting strategy to set the direction for this work, partly because our understanding of the scale of CSE is still evolving. A strategy is now being developed for consideration by the Government. As part of this work, consideration is being given as to how to streamline the governance structure in this area. We are also reviewing the police response to CSA, including the impact of further increases in reported cases and how this can be managed, for example through workforce changes, training, prioritisation and allocation of resources. This work be considered during across-Government and will include an assessment of the impact of increases in CSA on the wider Criminal Justice System.
## Transforming Home Office Operations
Over the course of the past year, we have continued to improve and transform Home Office operations. The Public Accounts Committee's (PAC) report published on 29 October 2014, which followed the NAO's report on the same subject published on 22 July 2014, looked at the progress made since the Home Secretary's decision on 26 March 2013 to split the UK Border Agency into an immigration and visa section and an immigration law enforcement organisation. Whilst the report concluded that performance in most areas transferred from the UK Border Agency has held steady, it also raised a number of challenges facing the border and immigration system, including asylum intake pressures, removing those with no right to be in the UK, and the Department's use of IT and financial planning. We have looked to address these challenges with the following:
## Response To 29 October Pac Report:
-
Through the Immigration Act 2014, the Department is removing incentives for people to stay illegally in the UK, including by restricting access to public services, work and benefits. This includes systematic data sharing with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA);
-
In asylum, the Department has recruited over 200 decision makers, and is focused on building and retaining a skilled workforce, utilising appropriate reward and recognition arrangements and performance management tools to effectively manage new asylum intake;
-
The Department is addressing key challenges relating to the standardisation of technology, the reduction of the Department's reliance on legacy systems, and the reduction of costs through the Home Office Technology Strategy. Replacement of borders and immigration technology, while supporting day-to-day operations, is a complex task that will be delivered incrementally over the coming years;
-
Financial planning and performance monitoring are now being conducted in consolidated corporate functions, which are leading to improved consistency of measurement, better coordination and performance uplift in key areas. A newly-consolidated financial model has been designed and is being used to support 2015-16 financial planning, where the Department is preparing for a £500 million budget reduction in cash terms; and
-
Additionally, the Department is taking action upstream to counter illegal migration to the UK. It is active in joint EU efforts to tackle illegal immigration and combat the activities of people smugglers and traffickers, including by playing a leading role in the new Khartoum Process (Horn of Africa) and the Silk Routes Partnership (Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan), building partner countries' capacity to tackle migratory flows.
## Foreign National Offenders (Fnos)
There are also ongoing risks associated with the monitoring, management, detention and removal of FNOs. The NAO published a report on managing and removing Foreign National Offenders in October 2014. The report examined the process for managing and removing FNOs in its entirety, from their entry into the UK and the prison system, to their deportation or administrative removals from the UK. The NAO recognised that more effort and resources have been put into managing and removing FNOs, and that this area continues to be inherently challenging, but concluded that progress since 2006 had been slower than it would expect. In November 2014 there was a Public Accounts Committee evidence session to discuss the report. The Committee identified a number of areas where improvements were still needed, such as improving the availability of good quality data and making the most of opportunities to remove FNOs earlier. They did however recognise the potential of recent changes, such as the radical reform of the appeals process through the Immigration Act 2014. We are already making many of the improvements needed and the Immigration Act 2014 is beginning to bear fruit in terms of increased removals numbers. Management of FNOs will continue to be of the utmost importance to the Home Office and wider HMG going forward. Operation Nexus continues to roll out nationally to help us work better with the Police to remove FNOs. Officers are embedded in Metropolitan Police custody suites across the capital, custody suites in the West Midlands and operate in other police stations in Manchester, Kent, Cleveland, Merseyside, Cheshire, Wales and West Yorkshire. Since its inception, Operation Nexus has helped to remove over 3,500 foreign nationals.
## Immigration Abuse
Our new strategy and delivery model (the 4Ps) is enabling us to have a greater impact on immigration abuse in all its forms. Last year we provided an update on the inception of the Interventions and Sanctions Unit which was created to manage relationships with key partners and deny benefits and services to those who have no legal right to them. This year we have done far more with partners, and have a more systematic approach to data sharing. Routine data sharing of known immigration offenders with HMRC, DVLA and CIFAS has seen thousands of sanctions applied including licences revoked, bank accounts refused and tax credits stopped. External and organisational challenges around migration remain as demand in key markets and routes is expected to grow. There is a continued and growing risk of abuse in the immigration system. We have managed the pressures on migration through the Reducing Net Migration Board which has brought together policy, operations, intelligence and performance units; by adjusting policy as necessary, for example on students; and by implementing the provisions in the Act to make removals easier and to deter illegal immigration. On criminality, we have secured over 200 prosecutions with sentences totalling more than 300 years. We have developed our working with partners, including the National Crime Agency (NCA) the Office for Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) and overseas governments, to crack down on organised immigration crime.
## Detention
A number of serious allegations were raised about the conduct of staff employed by detention estate contractors at Yarl's Wood and Harmondsworth immigration removal centres. We expect the highest standards from contractors who manage the detention estate and the serious allegations about Serco staff at Yarl's Wood required an immediate response. Several Serco staff have been suspended and Serco has also commissioned an independent review of its culture and staffing at Yarl's Wood. We have also made clear that we expect to see the swift and comprehensive introduction of body-worn cameras for staff at Yarl's Wood, and the implementation of other measures across the detention estate. All the allegations will be considered by Stephen Shaw, the former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, as part of his independent review of detainee welfare.
## Professionalism
We are also committed to ensuring consistently high standards of professionalism and personal conduct across the organisation. Following the collapse of sham marriage trials in October 2014, we took immediate action to address capability, capacity and professional conduct failings in Criminal Investigations, alongside the wider drive across the business to ensure professional standards are adhered to consistently. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is leading an independent investigation in to the collapse of the trials, as well as looking specifically at the actions of the officers involved.
## Border Controls
Published operational instructions and guidance, and officers' record keeping have been identified by the Border Force Operational Assurance Directorate and by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders & Immigration (ICIBI) as matters of concern. An Internal Audit review of operational guidance also recommended improvements in current practices. Currently, reviews are under way with the aim of consolidating and simplifying where possible. A working group has been established to develop and implement an improvement plan. This work will complement the current review of operational (customs) policy that seeks to promote simplicity and accessibility, and eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and complexity in the records that officers are required to make.
## Replacing The Warnings Index And Semaphore Systems
The failure of the Warnings Index system on 30 April 2014 generated significant media interest. The cause was an unexpected outage arising from encryptor changes, a vulnerability that was not foreseeable and had not been identified during testing. Since the incident, firmware has been upgraded to mitigate against the recurrence of the vulnerability. This is working successfully. The 'Digital Services at the Border' (DSAB) programme was launched following a review of the current primary border systems; Warnings Index and Semaphore. The programme will deliver a digitally-driven border security IT system and new processes that will support Border Force, law enforcement, immigration, customs and security and counter-terrorism agencies in the discharge of their responsibilities. DSAB is adopting a fundamentally different approach to traditional large-scale technology build and delivery that will instead introduce technology in smaller incremental pieces. The existing WI service is more stable and resilient as a result of its successful migration in October 2014.
## Educational Testing Services
Following evidence of cheating at several of their UK test centres, in February 2014, Educational Testing Service (ETS), one of the five companies licensed to carry out secure English language tests was suspended from conducting further testing in the UK and a criminal investigation was launched with the National Crime Agency.
We have been investigating many of the colleges and universities involved because of wider concerns about their conduct. At certain private Further Education colleges, as many as three quarters of the file checks were a cause of concern. ETS's American parent company have analysed test results from its test centres in the UK and have identified 33,725 invalid results and 22,694 questionable results. In June 2014 we suspended the highly trusted sponsor licences of Glyndwr University and 57 private colleges. A decision was subsequently made on 21 November to reinstate Glyndwr University's sponsor licence on a limited basis, with a further review that was conducted in January 2015. As at 31 December 2014, 48 of the 57 colleges that were suspended in June have had their licences revoked, four have surrendered their licences and another four have been reinstated. One remains suspended due to ongoing legal proceedings. We have also suspended a further 34 private colleges, 19 of which have been revoked and four surrendered their licence. As at 31 December a total of 12 private colleges remained suspended including the aforementioned college that has been suspended due to ongoing legal proceedings. As at 31 December, the Home Office had made more than 11,800 refusal, curtailment and removal decisions, conducted more than 2,700 enforcement visits, served removal notices in person on and detained over 800 people and removed over 500 of those detained. The Permanent Secretary commissioned a review of all the suppliers of English language testing services by an independent auditor, Moore Stephens LLP. Additionally Moore Stephens conducted a review on the provision of the Life in the UK test by Learn Direct. We adopted the recommendations of these reports both into our current assurance regimes with the existing Secure English Language Test (SELT) providers and to inform the next generation of language testing contracts. The previous licensing arrangements concluded on 5 April. An Invitation to Tender was launched on 7 October 2014 to secure the future provision of SELTs. The requirements sought through this procurement incorporated additional and enhanced integrity and security measures recommended by Moore Stephens. The future generation of language testing contracts will make it easier for us to audit providers and give us a greater range of powers to tackle any failures by them. Two providers have been selected to deliver SELTs in the UK and the rest of the world and began operations from 6 April.
## Asylum Claims Awaiting Processing
In the NAO's review of the Home Office performance in 2013-1446, they identified a concern of the increasing volume of asylum claims awaiting processing. We met our public commitments by ensuring that since April 2014 new straightforward asylum claims have received a decision within six months and that all straightforward claims received prior to April 2014 were decided by the end of 2014-15. The number of outstanding decisions, as of 1 April 2015, is the lowest it has been since December 2013. There will always be some non-straightforward cases that are too complex to decide within six months for reasons outside of our control. We aim to decide these cases within 12 months. We also met our commitment to review and communicate decisions on the outstanding legacy cases by the end of 2014, other than in exceptional circumstances where an external impediment, such as outstanding criminal investigation or ongoing litigation, prevented us completing our review. The number of these remaining exceptional cases is small and continues to reduce.
## Corporate Contract Management
The National Audit Office (NAO) published its findings relating to the progress in improving standards of contract management within both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice47 on 4 September 2014.
The Report was subsequently reviewed by the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) at a hearing on the 8 September 2014 and the PAC published recommendations for improving contract management across Government in the 23rd Public Accounts Committee Report 2014 - 2015 - Transforming Contract Management.
The Home Office welcomed the recommendations from the NAO and PAC reports and accepted all recommendations relevant to the Home Office's management of contracts.
## Progress To Date Includes:
-
Through the Immigration Act 2014, the Department is removing incentives for people to stay illegally in the UK, including by restricting access to public services, work and benefits. This includes systematic data sharing with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA);
-
Adopting a comprehensive approach to improve contract management, via the implementation of a Contract Management Improvement Plan, which will be audited and monitored;
-
Ensuring Senior commercial delivery leadership is in place;
-
Ensuring collaboration and external assurance on workstream initiatives;
-
Standardisation of contract management;
-
Ensuring engagement with, and understanding of, business needs;
-
Ensuring an efficient and seamless transition between procurements and contract management; and
-
Implementing initiatives to improving commercial capability.
We manage supplier performance through appropriate contractual and other performance mechanisms. This ensures that we provide customer service and also that effective outcomes are achieved. A Supplier Management Policy was launched in October 2014 that sets out the approach to managing all Strategic and Operational suppliers in line with existing good practice and the Crown Commercial Representative governance. As part of this, Executive Oversight Boards are in place for all Strategic suppliers. Our recent assessment of contract management and review of contract management procedures against the NAO's "good practice contract management framework" indicated areas for improvement in contract management. Improvements are being addressed by a variety of activities including the development of a central contract repository and the provision of contract management guidance and training. Role responsibilities and accountabilities, including key commercial decision points are included in the Contract Management Manual. The terms of reference of the Commercial Oversight Group have been expanded to include contract management issues. Following the completion of 14 audits by Moore Stephens, the Contract Management Improvement Plan (CMIP) was developed by the Commercial Directorate to improve contract management across the Department. This includes ensuring that recommendations forming part of the original review are addressed, as well as findings from additional cross-Government and Home Office reviews. We are continuing to monitor the implementation of recommendations in the CMIP.
## Freedom Of Information (Foi) Performance
Departmental performance in responding to FOI requests within statutory deadlines has continued to rise throughout 2014-15, resulting in the Information Commissioner (ICO) ending its monitoring of the Department in May 2014. Published statistics show that the Department achieved performance of 84% for a total of 741 requests in Q1 2014-15; rising to 87% for 736 requests in Q2 and to 90% for 692 requests in Q3. Internal (unpublished) statistics show that performance for Q4 was 88% for 896 requests. This has been achieved by raising the profile of FOI work through senior engagement and by concentrating all performance oversight work in a central team. The Department still has six very late outstanding cases from 2014, all of which are pending final clearance before dispatch.
## Physical Security
Following terrorist attacks in Canada and France, Government departments have been reviewing their physical security and the Home Office has been considering what further action may be required for our estate. Work continued throughout January and February to both finesse and test existing arrangements and determine whether any substantive changes are required to security policy and measures within some buildings.
## Paper File Discovery
During work in support of the 2013 Investigation into Historic Child Sexual abuse, 36,000 Home Office Registered files (out of a total of 1.5 million) were declared as presumed destroyed, missing or not found on the Home Office's paper record system (RMSys). This system was purchased by the Home Office in 1994 and has a number of age-related technical limitations which made it difficult to maintain an accurate and searchable record of past file movements. Extensive work in the intervening period has resulted in the status of just over 24,000 of these being identified. The number of files with a confirmed status is expected to continue to increase as the ongoing work to apply good housekeeping to physical files continues and new processes introduced in the wake of the Wanless Whittam Review are embedded. The Internal Audit Report on historical file search and discovery identified wider information search and discovery issues that potentially prevent relevant information being identified for business or investigative purposes. Work is in hand to address the recommendations arising from this audit report including replacing the file tracking system. Until this occurs, the Home Office will continue to carry risk around its reputation and its ability to meet legislative obligations.
## Passports
At the start of this financial year, Her Majesty's Passport Office (HMPO) was an executive agency of the Home Office. Inaccuracies within the passport forecasting model meant that HMPO was under-resourced and without the necessary levels of flexible contingency to foresee and manage the early high demand experienced. The volume of applications received by HM Passport Office reached exceptional levels. At its peak, the number of passport applications awaiting assessment was 546,000; at 30 September 2014 the number of passport applications awaiting assessment had fallen to 66,000. This issue was compounded by difficulties in obtaining skilled contingent labour at short notice to manage intake through the period. As a result, HMPO failed to meet key customer targets. Publicity surrounding the operational position compounded the issue by further increasing demand as customers submitted applications earlier than expected and customer-service enquiries escalated, further stretching the operational and support functions. The management of this issue required HMPO to escalate a number of mitigations and operational interventions for Ministerial approval:
## Mitigations And Operational Interventions For Ministerial Approval:
-
UK passport holders living overseas were offered the option to extend their passport for 12 months;
-
Parents or guardians of children living overseas who wish to travel to the UK were able to apply for an emergency travel document free of charge in place of a new or renewed passport for their children;
-
Passport applications from customers travelling within seven days and which had exceeded published turnaround times were expedited;
-
Staff were seconded in from other areas of HM Passport Office and the wider Home Office and given training on how to process passport applications. This provided HM Passport Office with increased capacity to handle the increasing volumes of applications being received;
-
Management incentivised staff by offering overtime. By increasing the amount of time in which to process applications, staff were able to increase the volume of passports issues;
-
Temporary workers were employed to provide additional support for existing staff, while ensuring that HM Passport Office's other functions continued to operate; and
-
Additional staff were deployed to the MP Hotline in order to respond to MPs' queries and escalate customers' applications where necessary.
These interventions, coupled with the determination and flexibility of staff and additional resource provided by other parts of the Home Office, enabled the service to be delivered, albeit in many cases outside the delivery target. During this period, the Home Secretary commissioned an operational review to ensure that HMPO operated with better processes, better customer service and better outcomes; and a review of HMPO's Agency status, which considered whether alternative accountability and management arrangements would have meant the situation could have been avoided. A subsequent independent review of the passport production forecast model was undertaken to establish where operational improvements could be made. Internal Audit's opinion on the part year reporting period was that 'low' assurance could be given over governance, risk management and internal control arrangements. Following the reviews, the Home Secretary announced that HM Passport Office would cease to operate as an executive agency of the Home Office and would report directly to Ministers with effect from 1 October 2014.
The Passport Office now has a more robust framework in place to mitigate the risk of similar issues occurring in the future.
## Arm'S Length Bodies
The Security Industry Authority (SIA) is a Non-Departmental Public Body accountable to Home Office (HO) Ministers. Their Annual Report and Accounts for 2012-13 and 2013-14 were laid before Parliament in January 2015. They had been delayed due to the receipt of whistleblowing allegations in May 2013 covering matters related to HR and procurement processes. The investigation into these allegations was completed in May 2014 and reported to their Audit Committee on 29 May 2014. The report raised no significant issues and all recommendations have been accepted and are being actioned. The impact of the Hillsborough investigation is a key risk for the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) as the Hillsborough Independent investigation and Managed investigation (Operation Resolve) are likely to take another two years. Planning for completion of the criminal and misconduct investigation needs to be continually revised as the inquest proceeds. Managing the disclosure requirements of the coroner against the need to protect the criminal investigation is a continuing risk for the overall inquiry and disclosure work to assist the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has added to the workload of the investigation. This is a challenging time for the IPCC and there is a risk that the pace of change exceeds the capacity within the organisation as we continue to manage unpredictable levels of demand and scale and nature of individual referrals including large scale investigations or large numbers of single issue cross referrals such as the historical child sex abuse allegations in South Yorkshire.
## Accountability System Statement For Policing And Crime Reduction
In March 2015 we published the revised Accountability System Statement for Policing and Crime Reduction. The statement describes the current funding systems, legislation and guidance which form the accountability system for funding voted by Parliament which is utilised at the local level for policing and crime reduction. The statement was revised in early 2015 to: reflect the financial arrangements for 2015-16; update the format to give a clearer purpose to the document, making it more accessible to the general public; update the section on whistleblowing to take into account the Cabinet Office guidance on severance pay; clarify the function of external auditors; update on the new powers the College of Policing has been given from the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014; an update on the role of the HMIC PEEL Programme; and highlight that the Strategic Policing Requirement has been updated to include Child Sexual Abuse. It also sets out the Accounting Officer's responsibility for both issuing police grants and the health of the overall police accountability system. The Department's Accountability System Statement can be accessed through the following link: https://www.gov. uk/government/publications/accountability-system-statement-for-policing-and-crime-reduction
## Internal Audit Reports
The Internal Audit (IA) unit has undertaken a range of work across Home Office business areas. Summaries of finalised reports are received by the Department's Audit and Risk Assurance Committee. The Chief Internal Auditor has indicated that the previous low overall assurance rating is still appropriate. This is on the basis of the programme of work performed, which has included reviews of key areas such as guidance, assurance arrangements, risk management, information assurance, and programme and project management. The specific reasons for assurance ratings and recommendations made in separate audits are many and varied. However, IA has continued to encounter significant weaknesses in arrangements in important areas which limit the potential for aims to be achieved. The Chief Internal Auditor's view is that the position is improving, but the following areas need continued focus:
## Areas That Need Continued Focus:
-
Operational procedures and guidance for staff need to be consistently in place and/or updated so that staff are clear about what they must do and how;
-
A more consistent approach to the second line of defence (controls and assurance checks operated by management) across Home Office business areas needs to be taken. There is currently variable coverage;
-
Implementation of agreed actions in response to IA recommendations; and
-
Legacy IT systems that are not fully geared up to support staff and which need secondary systems and workarounds.
## Quality Assurance
In response to the Macpherson Review and recent publication of the AQua Book, the Department is strengthening policy and supporting guidance covering the production and use of evidence and analysis. We are ensuring that appropriate quality assurance processes are in place across the Department for evidence and analytical outputs, including the development and use of models. Critical models are being identified alongside the introduction of formal governance, sign-off, and assurance procedures to ensure evidence is used effectively in the policy and operational process, and that risks related to evidence are properly logged, managed and escalated as necessary.
## Financial Management
The Home Office came under significant and sustained financial pressure during the financial year. Effective controls are in place to monitor HM Treasury's key control totals. The in-year financial position has been highlighted, and discussed, at monthly Executive Management Board meetings. The financial position has been clearly demonstrated through the production of enhanced monthly finance reporting packs. The 'Finance for the Future' change programme concluded during the first half of the financial year. The creation of a strengthened, consolidated finance team followed the conclusion of the project, with a consequential review and updating of processes, controls and policies. There have been a number of significant financial pressures during the year. In early January, the Treasury confirmed that the judgement in a case related to commutation factors used to determine pension lump sum payments for firemen had extended to police officers. The Treasury has identified a potential liability of around £767 million. The Department has recognised a liability of £460 million within the 2014-15 accounts. See note 16 to the accounts for further details. During a sustained period of financial restraint, the Department continues to ensure delivery of business plan objectives in a cost effective manner. During the year ahead, we will continue to focus on the delivery of efficiency and value for money need to ensure the Department lives within future declining budgets.
## Localism
A large proportion of Home Office funding is directed through grants to local delivery organisations. Assurance is gained regarding probity in the use of public funds through validation of grant payments. Evidence is collated throughout the financial year to provide assurance to the Accounting Officer by the grant holding unit. The financial policy on grants ensures that legislation is in place and is supported by evidence to justify the grant funding from each grant holding unit. We encourage value for money in the local use of grants by ensuring that the grant funding links to the delivery of Home Office aims and objectives, with the use of appropriate legislation. Each request must demonstrate value for money, including evidence on how value for money will be achieved and measured. Grants payments are made in accordance with the Home Office regularity and propriety policy as well as HM Treasury guidance in 'Managing Public Money'. Grant funding allocated to Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC) contributes to the delivery of The Home Office Vision Statement and Coalition Priorities, as outlined in The Home Office Business Plan 2012-15. Police and Crime Commissioners are accountable for the grant funding, which would be granted to enhance their policing capabilities and operational policing activities to comply with the Police Act 1996. Police and Crime Commissioners are subject to external audit and auditors are required to express an opinion on the arrangements made by each PCC to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of the grant funding. Through the checks on arrangements to secure efficiency, it provides some assurance on Value for Money (VfM).
## Conclusion
The Department continues to undergo significant organisational change, including the move to fully incorporate Her Majesty's Passport Office within the core Department from the mid-year point. We continue to review processes, policies and procedures within a rapidly changing environment. In particular, progress has been made in responding promptly to Freedom of Information requests, and we have reviewed departmental recording keeping in the light of the loss of a number of historic files. The Chief internal Auditor has confirmed that the low overall assurance rating that he gave last year is still appropriate. However, I am satisfied that improvements are being made in the areas highlighted by him in his report and also that the governance arrangements that are in place are sufficient to continue managing these risks effectively. I am confident that based on the review outlined above, that the Home Office has a sound system of governance, risk management and internal control that supports its aims and objectives. Mark Sedwill Accounting Officer 5 June 2015
## Annex To Governance Statement Board And Committee Attendance During 2014 - 15
Meeting attendance per board member of meetings eligible to attend
Name of Board member
Supervisory
Board
Executive
Management
Board
Rt Hon Theresa May MP Home Secretary
4/4 1/2
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Lords Minister and Minister for Criminal Information (until 5 August 2014)
0/2
Lord Bates Lords Minister and Minister for Criminal Information (From 6 August 2014)
4/4
Karen Bradley MP Minister for Modern Slavery and organised Crime
0/2
Norman Baker MP Minister of State for Crime Prevention (until 3 November 2014)
0/1
Rt Hon Damian Green MP Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Jointly with Ministry of Justice) (until 14 July 2014)
3/4
James Brokenshire MP Minister for Immigration and Security
0/3
Mike Penning MP Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Jointly with Ministry of Justice) (from 15 July 2014)
1/2
Lynne Featherstone MP Minister of State for Crime Prevention (from 4 November 2014) Mark Sedwill Permanent Secretary
4/4
31/32
1/1
3/4
25/29
Mike Anderson DG International and Immigration Policy Group (until 27 Feb 2015)
Audit and Risk
Committee
Nominations
and
Governance
Committee
Meeting attendance per board member of meetings eligible to attend
Name of Board member
Supervisory
Executive
Board
Management
2/3
27/32
Charles Farr DG Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism
3/4
26/32
Mary Calam DG Crime and Policing Group
3/3
25/30
Mandie Campbell DG Immigration Enforcement Mike Parsons Chief Operating Officer
4/4
27/32
1/1
Peter Fish DG Legal
2/2
27/31
3/3
26/30
Sarah Rapson DG UK Visas and Immigration Kevin White DG Human Resources
26/30
1/1
Charles Montgomery DG Border Force
2/2
27/30
2/2
14/14
Tyson Hepple Acting DG UK Passport Office (From 10 Nov 2014) Peter Storr Acting DG International and Immigration Policy Group from 6 March 2015
4/4
10/14
7/7
1/1
Sue Langley Non-Executive Director and Chair Audit & Risk Assurance Committee Peter Conway Independent member (Until 11 June 2014) Anne Tutt Independent member
6/7
Isobel Sharp Audit Chair of HMPO (until 16 February 2015)
2/3
9/9
2/3
Alan Brown Non-Executive Director (From 11 August 2014)
## Not All Members Were Invited To Every Meeting Held.
Apologies had been received from all members who were unable to make any of the meetings to which they were invited.
| Audit and Risk | Nominations |
|-------------------|----------------|
| Committee | and |
| Board | Governance |
| Committee | |
| 3/3 | |
| 2/3 | |
| 6/6 | |
## Statement Of Accounting Officer'S Responsibilities
Under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (the GRAA), HM Treasury has directed the Home Office to prepare, for each financial year, consolidated resource accounts detailing the resources acquired, held or disposed of, and the use of resources, during the year by the Department (inclusive of its executive agencies) and its sponsored Non-Departmental Public Bodies designated by order made under the GRAA by Statutory Instrument 2014 No.531 (together known as the 'Departmental group' consisting of the Department and sponsored bodies listed at note 22 to the accounts). The accounts are prepared on an accruals basis and must give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the Department and the departmental group and of the net resource outturn, resources applied to objectives, recognised gains and losses and cash flows of the departmental group for the financial year. In preparing the accounts, the Accounting Officer is required to comply with the requirements of the Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM) and in particular to:
-
Observe the Accounts Direction issued by Treasury, including relevant accounting and disclosure requirements, and apply suitable accounting policies on a consistent basis;
-
Ensure that the Department has in place appropriate and reliable systems and procedures to carry out the consolidation process;
-
Make judgements and estimates on a reasonable basis, including those judgements involved in consolidating the accounting information provided by Non-Departmental Public Bodies;
-
State whether applicable accounting standards, as set out in the Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM) have been followed, and disclose and explain any material departures in the accounts; and
-
Prepare the accounts on a going concern basis.
HM Treasury has appointed the Permanent Secretary of the Department as Accounting Officer of the Home Office. The Accounting Officer of the Department has also appointed the Chief Executives of its sponsored Non- Departmental Public Bodies as Accounting Officers of those bodies. The Accounting Officer of the Department is responsible for ensuring that appropriate systems and controls are in place to ensure that any grants that the Department makes to its sponsored bodies are applied for the purposes intended and that such expenditure and the other income and expenditure of the sponsored bodies are properly accounted for, for the purposes of consolidation within the resource accounts. Under their terms of appointment, the Accounting Officers of the sponsored bodies are accountable for the use, including the regularity and propriety, of the grants received and the other income and expenditure of the sponsored bodies. The responsibilities of an Accounting Officer, including responsibility for the propriety and regularity of the public finances for which the Accounting Officer is answerable, for keeping proper records and for safeguarding the assets of the Department or non-departmental public body for which the Accounting Officer is responsible, are set out in Managing Public Money48 published by HM Treasury.
Accounting Officer 5 June 2015
## The Certificate And Report Of The Comptroller And Auditor General To The House Of Commons
I certify that I have audited the financial statements of the Home Office and of its Departmental Group for the year ended 31 March 2015 under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. The Department consists of the core Department and its agencies. The Departmental Group consists of the Department and the bodies designated for inclusion under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Estimates and Accounts) Order 2014. The financial statements comprise: the Department's and Departmental Group's Statements of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, Financial Position, Cash Flows, Changes in Taxpayers' Equity; and the related notes. I have also audited the Statement of Parliamentary Supply and the related notes. These financial statements have been prepared under the accounting policies set out within them. I have also audited the information in the Remuneration Report that is described in that report as having been audited.
## Respective Responsibilities Of The Accounting Officer And Auditor
As explained more fully in the Statement of Accounting Officer's Responsibilities, the Accounting Officer is responsible for the preparation of the financial statements and for being satisfied that they give a true and fair view. My responsibility is to audit, certify and report on the financial statements in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. I conducted my audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland). Those standards require me and my staff to comply with the Auditing Practices Board's Ethical Standards for Auditors.
## Scope Of The Audit Of The Financial Statements
An audit involves obtaining evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error. This includes an assessment of: whether the accounting policies are appropriate to the Department's and the Departmental Group's circumstances and have been consistently applied and adequately disclosed; the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by the Accounting Officer; and the overall presentation of the financial statements. In addition I read all the financial and non-financial information in the Annual Report to identify material inconsistencies with the audited financial statements and to identify any information that is apparently materially incorrect based on, or materially inconsistent with, the knowledge acquired by me in the course of performing the audit. If I become aware of any apparent material misstatements or inconsistencies I consider the implications for my certificate. I am required to obtain evidence sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the Statement of Parliamentary Supply properly presents the outturn against voted Parliamentary control totals and that those totals have not been exceeded. The voted Parliamentary control totals are Departmental Expenditure Limits (Resource and Capital), Annually Managed Expenditure (Resource and Capital), Non-Budget (Resource) and Net Cash Requirement. I am also required to obtain evidence sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the expenditure and income recorded in the financial statements have been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions recorded in the financial statements conform to the authorities which govern them.
## Opinion On Regularity In My Opinion, In All Material Respects:
-
the Statement of Parliamentary Supply properly presents the outturn against voted Parliamentary control totals for the year ended 31 March 2015 and shows that those totals have not been exceeded; and
-
the expenditure and income recorded in the financial statements have been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions recorded in the financial statements conform to the authorities which govern them.
## Opinion On Financial Statements In My Opinion:
-
the financial statements give a true and fair view of the state of the Department's and the Departmental Group's affairs as at 31 March 2015 and of the Department's net operating cost and Departmental Group's net operating cost for the year then ended; and
-
the financial statements have been properly prepared in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 and HM Treasury directions issued thereunder.
## Opinion On Other Matters In My Opinion:
-
the part of the Remuneration Report to be audited has been properly prepared in accordance with HM Treasury directions made under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000; and
-
the information given in the Strategic Report and the Directors' Report for the financial year for which the financial statements are prepared is consistent with the financial statements.
## Matters On Which I Report By Exception I Have Nothing To Report In Respect Of The Following Matters Which I Report To You If, In My Opinion:
-
adequate accounting records have not been kept or returns adequate for my audit have not been received from branches not visited by my staff; or
-
the financial statements and the part of the Remuneration Report to be audited are not in agreement with the accounting records and returns; or
-
I have not received all of the information and explanations I require for my audit; or
-
the Governance Statement does not reflect compliance with HM Treasury's guidance.
## Report
-
I have no observations to make on these financial statements.
Sir Amyas C E Morse
Date: 25 June 2015
Comptroller and Auditor General National Audit Office 157-197 Buckingham Palace Road Victoria London SW1W 9SP
## Statement Of Parliamentary Supply
In addition to the primary statements prepared under IFRS, the Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM) requires the Home Office to prepare a Statement of Parliamentary Supply and supporting notes to show resource outturn against the Supply Estimate presented to Parliament, in respect to each budgetary control limit.
## Summary Of Resource And Capital Outturn 2014-15
£000
2014-15
2013-14(*)
Estimate
Outturn
Voted
Outturn
outturn
compared
with
Estimate:
saving/
Note
Voted
Non-Voted
Total
Voted
Non-Voted
Total
Total
(excess)
Departmental Expenditure Limit
- Resource
SOPS2
11,136,331
–
11,136,331
10,979,794
–
10,979,794
156,537
10,567,520
- Capital
SOPS2
390,575
–
390,575
372,751
–
372,751
17,824
362,685
Annually Managed Expenditure
- Resource
SOPS2
2,117,222
–
2,117,222
1,842,049
–
1,842,049
275,173
1,382,040
- Capital
SOPS2
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Total Budget
13,644,128
–
13,644,128
13,194,594
–
13,194,594
449,534
12,312,245
Non-Budget
- Resource
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Total
13,644,128
–
13,644,128
13,194,594
–
13,194,594
449,534
12,312,245
Total Resource
13,253,553
–
13,253,553
12,821,843
–
12,821,843
431,710
11,949,560
Total Capital
390,575
–
390,575
372,751
–
372,751
17,824
362,685
Total
13,644,128
–
13,644,128
13,194,594
–
13,194,594
449,534
12,312,245
Net Cash Requirement 2014-15
2014-15
2014-15
2013-14(*)
Outturn
compared
with
Estimate:
saving/
Note
Estimate
Outturn
(excess)
Outturn
Net Cash Requirement
SOPS4
12,952,369
12,616,283
336,086
11,978,795
Administration Costs 2014-15
2014-15
2014-15
2013-14(*)
Estimate
Outturn
Outturn
SOPS3.2
581,167
504,744
478,408
Explanations to variances between Estimates and Outturn are given in the Strategic Report. (*) The 2013-14 comparatives have not been restated to take account of Machinery of Government changes as there are not material (See Note 26 for details).
The notes on pages 91 to 98 form part of these accounts.
Notes to the Departmental Resource Accounts (Statement of Parliamentary Supply)
## Sops1. Statement Of Accounting Policies
The Statement of Parliamentary Supply and supporting notes have been prepared in accordance with the 2014‑15 Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM) issued by HM Treasury. The Statement of Parliamentary Supply accounting policies contained in the FReM are consistent with the requirements set out in the 2014-15 Consolidated Budgeting Guidance and Supply Estimates Guidance Manual.
## Sops1.1 Accounting Convention
The Statement of Parliamentary Supply and related notes are presented consistently with Treasury budget control and Supply Estimates. The aggregates across government are measured using National Accounts, prepared in accordance with the internationally agreed framework 'European System of Accounts' (ESA95). ESA95 is in turn consistent with the System of National Accounts (SNA93), which is prepared under the auspices of the United Nations. The budgeting system, and the consequential presentation of Supply Estimates and the Statement of Parliamentary Supply and related notes have different objectives to IFRS-based accounts. The system supports the achievement of macro-economic stability by ensuring that public expenditure is controlled, with relevant Parliamentary authority, in support of the Government's fiscal framework. The system provides incentives to departments to manage spending well so as to provide high quality public services that offer value for money
to the taxpayer. The Government's objectives for fiscal policy are set out in the Charter for Budgetary Responsibility. These are to:
-
ensure sustainable public finances that support confidence in the economy, promote intergenerational fairness, and ensure the effectiveness of wider government policy; and
-
support and improve the effectiveness of monetary policy in stabilising economic fluctuations.
## Sops1.2 Comparison With Ifrs-Based Accounts
Many transactions are treated in the same way in National Accounts and IFRS-based accounts, but there are a number of differences. Departments must include the following notes as appropriate, providing additional disclosure of other transactions accounted for differently between the Statement of Parliamentary Supply and IFRS-based accounts.
## Sops1.A) Pfi And Other Service Concession Arrangements
The National Accounts basis for recognising service concession arrangements is broadly similar to UK-GAAP, applying a risk-based test to determine the financial reporting. In addition, where contracts were signed before 1 April 2009, the budgetary treatment is determined under UK-GAAP. IFRS-based recognition of service concession arrangements (IFRIC 12) is determined using control tests, which can result in a different on/off balance sheet treatment.
## Sops1.B) Capital Grants
Grant expenditure used for capital purposes are treated as capital (CDEL) items in the Statement of Parliamentary Supply. Under IFRS, as applied by the FReM, there is no distinction between capital grants and other grants, and they score as an item of expenditure in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure.
## Sops1.C) Prior Period Adjustments (Ppas)
PPAs resulting from an error in previous recording, or from an accounting policy change initiated by the Department, need to be voted by Parliament in the current year, whereas in IFRS-based accounts (IAS 8) they are treated as adjustments to previous years. (PPAs resulting from a change in accounting policy brought in by a new or modified accounting standard are not included in Estimates, so there is no misalignment.)
## Sops1.D) Income Payable To The Consolidated Fund
HM Treasury has agreed a limit to income retainable by the Department, with any excess income scoring outside of budgets, and consequently outside of the Statement of Parliamentary Supply. IFRS-based accounts will record all of the income, regardless of the budgetary limit. In addition to this, there is other income payable to the Consolidated Fund, which is excluded from the Department's budget, but is recorded as income in the IFRS accounts. Income payable to the Consolidated Fund is detailed in Note SOPS5.1.
## Sops1.E) Provisions - Administration And Programme Expenditure
Provisions recognised in IFRS-based accounts are not recognised as DEL expenditure for national accounts purposes until the actual payment of cash (or accrual liability) is recognised. To meet the requirements of both resource accounting and national accounts, additional data entries are made in the Statement of Parliamentary Supply across AME and DEL control totals, which do not affect the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. As the Administration control total is a sub-category of DEL, Administration and Programme expenditure reported in the Statement of Parliamentary Supply differs from that reported in the IFRS-based accounts. A reconciliation is provided in SOPS note 3.2.
## Sops2. Net Outturn
SOPS2.1 Analysis of net resource outturn by section
| | | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|-------------------------|--------------------|-----------|-----------|
| | Outturn | Estimate | Outturn |
| Net total | | | |
| | Administration | Programme | |
| compared | | | |
| Net total | | | |
| to Estimate, | | | |
| adjusted for | | | |
| compared | | | |
| virements | | | |
| to Estimate | | | |
| Total | Net Total | | |
| | Gross | Income | Net |
| | £000 | £000 | £000 |
| | | | |
| Spending in | | | |
| Departmental | | | |
| Expenditure Limit | | | |
| | | | |
| Voted: | | | |
| A - Crime and Policing | | | |
| Group | 21,747 | (5,393) | 16,354 |
| B - Office for Security | | | |
| and Counter-Terrorism | 47,980 | 1,129 | 49,109 |
| C - Immigration | | | |
| Enforcement | 8,581 | - | 8,581 |
| D - UK Visas & | | | |
| Immigration | 29,588 | - | 29,588 |
| E - International and | | | |
| Immigration Policy | 21,378 | - | 21,378 |
| F - Border Force | 2,389 | (165) | 2,224 |
| G - HM Passport Office | 45,004 | (43,419) | 1,585 |
| H - Enablers | 375,827 | (32,665) | 343,162 |
| I - | Arms Length Bodies | | |
| (Net) | 32,763 | - | 32,763 |
| J - European solidarity | | | |
| mechanism (Net) | - | - | - |
| K - National Fraud | | | |
| Authority | - | - | - |
| 11,830 | | | |
| | 585,257 | (80,513) | 504,744 |
| Annually Managed | | | |
| Expenditure | | | |
| | | | |
| Voted: | | | |
| K - AME charges | - | - | - |
| L - Police | | | |
| superannuation | - | - | - |
| M - AME Charges Arms | | | |
| Length Bodies (Net) | - | - | - |
| | - | - | - |
| Total | 585,257 | (80,513) | 504,744 |
## Sops2.2 Analysis Of Net Capital Outturn By Section
| | | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|-----------------------------------------------|---------|-----------|-----------|
| | Outturn | Estimate | Outturn |
| | Gross | Income | Net |
| | £000 | £000 | £000 |
| Spending in Departmental Expenditure Limit | | | |
| | | | |
| Voted: | | | |
| A - Crime and Policing Group | 145,118 | - | 145,118 |
| B - Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 78,375 | - | 78,375 |
| 1,373 | 64,292 | | |
| C - Immigration Enforcement | 2,833 | (148) | 2,685 |
| D - UK Visas & Immigration | 1,689 | (1) | 1,688 |
| E - International and Immigration Policy | 4,905 | (199) | 4,706 |
| F - Border Force | 43,653 | (91) | 43,562 |
| G - HM Passport Office | 24,715 | - | 24,715 |
| H - Enablers | 88,682 | (29,114) | 59,568 |
| I - Arms Length Bodies (Net) | 12,334 | - | 12,334 |
| J - European Solidarity Mechanism (Net) | - | - | - |
| | 402,304 | (29,553) | 372,751 |
| Annually Managed Expenditure | | | |
| | | | |
| Voted: | | | |
| K - AME charges | - | - | - |
| L - Police superannuation | - | - | - |
| - | - | | |
| M - AME Charges Arms Length Bodies (Net) | - | - | - |
| - | - | | |
| - | - | - | - |
| Total | 402,304 | (29,553) | 372,751 |
Net total
compared
Net total
to Estimate,
adjusted for
compared to
Estimate
virements
Net
## Sops3. Reconciliation Of Outturn To Net Operating Cost And Against Administration Budget Sops3.1 Reconciliation Of Net Resource Outturn To Net Operating Cost
| | | | | Restated |
|------------------------------------|-----------------|------------|------------|-----------------------------------|
| | | | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
| | | | £000 | £000 |
| | | Note | Outturn | Outturn |
| | | | | |
| Budget | SOPS2 | 12,821,843 | 11,949,560 | Net resource outturn in Statement |
| of Parliamentary Supply | | | | |
| Non-Budget | SOPS2 | - | - | |
| | | | 12,821,843 | 11,949,560 |
| Add: | Capital Grants | | | |
| | 215,920 | 189,949 | | |
| | PFI adjustments | | 67,300 | 22,715 |
| | | | 13,105,063 | 12,162,224 |
| | | | | |
| Less: | | | | |
| Income payable to the | | | | |
| Consolidated Fund | | 86,400 | 124,293 | |
| Capital Grant Income | | | | |
| | 3,624 | - | | |
| | | | | |
| Machinery of Government | | | | |
| Change (*) | - | 1,779 | | |
| | | | 90,024 | 126,072 |
| 13,015,039 | 12,036,152 | | | |
| Net operating cost in Consolidated | | | | |
| Statement of Comprehensive Net | | | | |
| Expenditure | | | | |
| | | | | |
## Sops3.2 Outturn Against Final Administration Budget And Administration Net Operating Cost
| | | | Restated |
|---------------------------------------------------------|---------|----------|------------|
| | | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
| | | £000 | £000 |
| | Note | Outturn | Outturn |
| | | | |
| Estimate - administration costs limit | | 581,167 | 512,503 |
| Outturn - Gross administration costs | SOPS2 | 585,257 | 539,713 |
| Outturn - Gross Income relating to administration costs | SOPS2 | (80,513) | (61,305) |
| Outturn - Net administration costs | | | |
| | 504,744 | 478,408 | |
| Reconciliation to operating costs: | | | |
| | | | |
| Add: provisions movements (transfer from Programme) | | 6,907 | (40,617) |
| Less: Capital grant income | | | |
| | (45) | - | |
| Add: PFI adjustments | | | |
| | 26,427 | 6,021 | |
| Add: Machinery of Government Change (*) | - | 801 | |
| Less: Admin consolidated fund extra receipts | | | |
| | (48) | (380) | |
| Administration net operating costs | | | |
| | 537,985 | 444,233 | |
(*) The prior year numbers have been restated due to a number of Machinery of Government changes. See note 26 for details.
## Sops4. Reconciliation Of Net Resource Outturn To Net Cash Requirement
Net total
outturn
compared
with
Estimate:
saving/
Estimate
Outturn
(excess)
Note
£000
£000
£000
Resource Outturn
SOPS2.1
13,253,553
12,821,843
431,710
Capital Outturn
SOPS2.2
390,575
372,751
17,824
Accruals to cash adjustments
Adjustments to remove non-cash items:
(691,759)
(578,311)
(113,448)
Depreciation and amortisation
(261,467)
(237,636)
(23,831)
New provisions and adjustments to previous provisions
(726,244)
(491,254)
(234,990)
Departmental Unallocated Provision
–
–
–
Supported capital expenditure (revenue)
–
–
–
Prior Period Adjustments
–
–
–
Other non-cash items
(523)
(20,174)
19,651
Adjustments for NDPBs:
Remove voted resource and capital
(132,600)
(119,303)
(13,297)
Add cash grant-in-aid
103,645
110,357
(6,712)
Adjustments to reflect movements in working balances:
Increase/(decrease) in inventories
–
1,670
(1,670)
Increase/(decrease) in receivables
180,000
64,976
115,024
(Increase)/decrease in payables
56,462
28,329
28,133
(Increase)/decrease in pension liability
–
(21)
21
Use of provisions
88,968
84,745
4,223
12,952,369
12,616,283
336,086
Removal of non-voted budget items:
Consolidated Fund Standing Services
–
–
–
Other adjustments
–
–
–
Net cash requirement
12,952,369
12,616,283
336,086
## Sops5. Income Payable To The Consolidated Fund Sops5.1 Analysis Of Income Payable To The Consolidated Fund
In addition to income retained by the Department, the following income relates to the Department and is payable to the Consolidated Fund (cash receipts being shown in italics).
| | | | | Outturn 2014-15 | Outturn 2013-14 |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|----------|---------|-------------------|-------------------|
| | | | £000 | | £000 |
| | Income | Receipts | Income | Receipts | |
| | | | | | |
| Operating income outside the ambit of | | | | | |
| the Estimate | 86,400 | 85,845 | 83,220 | 83,042 | |
| Excess cash surrendable to the | | | | | |
| Consolidated Fund | - | - | 41,899 | 41,899 | |
| Total income payable to the Consolidated Fund | 86,400 | 85,845 | 125,119 | 124,941 | |
## Sops5.2 Consolidated Fund Income
Consolidated Fund income shown in note SOPS note 5.1 above does not include any amounts collected by the Home Office where it was acting as agent of the Consolidated Fund rather than as principal. The Home Office collects Immigration Penalties and Civil Penalties. The Department is not permitted to retain this income without HM Treasury approval. In 2014-15 HM Treasury allowed the Department to retain £3 million of this income (£3 million in 2013-14), the remaining income is surrendered to the Consolidated Fund. In accordance with HM Treasury guidelines, the non-retainable income generated is not recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. However, the net receivable due in respect of penalties raised, along with the receipt payable to the Consolidated Fund, is recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position. The amounts collected as agent for the Consolidated Fund (which are otherwise excluded from these financial statements) were:
Restated
SOPS5.2.1 Penalties raised
2014-15
2013-14
£000
£000
Immigration Penalties Raised
(3,666)
(2,631)
Civil Penalties Raised
(32,342)
(19,573)
Total Penalties Raised
(36,008)
(22,204)
less: Element retained by the Home Office
3,000
3,000
(33,008)
(19,204)
SOPS5.2.2 Write-offs
2014-15
2013-14
£000
£000
Immigration Penalties
-
–
Civil Penalties
14,471
1,602
14,471
1,602
| | SOPS5.2.3 Receivables | | |
|--------------------------------------------|-------------------------|----------|---------|
| | 2014-15 | | 2013-14 |
| | £000 | | £000 |
| Immigration Penalties | 766 | 460 | |
| Civil Penalties | 47,202 | 26,310 | |
| | 47,968 | 26,770 | |
| Accrued Income | - | 113 | |
| less: Provision for Doubtful Receivables | (26,393) | (11,904) | |
| | 21,575 | 14,979 | |
| | | | |
| SOPS5.2.4 Payable to the Consolidated Fund | | | |
| | 2014-15 | | 2013-14 |
| | £000 | | £000 |
| Total Payable to the Consolidated Fund | 21,575 | 14,979 | |
## Consolidated Statement Of Comprehensive Net Expenditure
This account summarises the expenditure and income generated and consumed on an accruals basis. It also includes other comprehensive income and expenditure, which include changes to the values of non-
current assets and other financial instruments that cannot yet be recognised as income or expenditure. for the year ended 31 March 2015
Restated
2014-15
2013-14
£000
£000
Core
Core
Department
Departmental
Department
Departmental
Core
Core
& Agencies
Group
& Agencies
Group
Department
Note
Department
Administration Costs:
Staff costs
3
236,948
245,321
265,174
239,546
261,778
279,339
Other costs
4
326,250
340,507
357,585
204,514
224,138
235,124
Income
6
(58,664)
(80,606)
(84,774)
(41,469)
(80,528)
(70,230)
Programme Costs:
Staff costs
3
939,274
989,295
1,062,626
869,979
950,579
1,012,438
Other costs
5
13,174,288
13,297,034
13,340,464
12,213,261
12,424,594
12,468,986
Income
6
(1,625,104)
(1,883,481)
(1,926,036)
(1,428,945)
(1,841,464)
(1,889,505)
Grant in Aid to NDPBs
110,357
110,357
–
105,134
105,134
–
Net Operating Costs for the year ended 31 March 2015
13,103,349
13,018,427
13,015,039
12,162,020
12,044,231
12,036,152
Total expenditure
14,787,117
14,982,514
15,025,849
13,632,434
13,966,223
13,995,887
Total income
(1,683,768)
(1,964,087)
(2,010,810)
(1,470,414)
(1,921,992)
(1,959,735)
Net Operating Costs for the year ended 31 March 2015
13,103,349
13,018,427
13,015,039
12,162,020
12,044,231
12,036,152
All activities are continuing operations. The 2013-14 results have been restated to take account Machinery of Government changes (see Note 26 for details). On 1 October 2014, Her Majesty's Passport Office (an Executive Agency of the Home Office) became part of the Core Home Office. No restatement of the 2013-14 figures was made for this internal restructuring (see Note 25 for details).
Other Comprehensive Net Expenditure
2014-15
2013-14
£000
£000
Core
Core
Core
Department
Departmental
Core
Department
Departmental
Note
Department
& Agencies
Group
Department
& Agencies
Group
Net (gain)/loss on:
- revaluation of property plant & equipment
8
(77,128)
(77,128)
(76,925)
(54,256)
(55,176)
(55,518)
- Intangibles
9
(2,018)
(2,018)
(1,757)
1,604
1,989
(429)
Pensions - Actuarial (gains)/losses
42
42
484
–
–
–
Total comprehensive expenditure for the year ended 31 March 2015
13,024,245
12,939,323
12,936,841
12,109,368
11,991,044
11,980,205
The notes on pages 105 to 164 form part of these accounts.
## Consolidated Statement Of Financial Position
This statement presents the financial position of the Home Office. It comprises three main components: assets owned or controlled; liabilities owed to other bodies; and equity, the remaining value of the entity.
as at 31 March 2015
Restated
Restated
31 March 2013
31 March 2014
31 March 2015
£000
£000
£000
Core
Core
Core
Depart-
Depart-
Core
Depart-
Depart-
Core
Depart-
Depart-
Core
mental
ment &
Departmental
ment &
Departmental
ment &
Depart-
Group
Agencies
ment
Group
Agencies
ment
Group
Agencies
ment
Note
Non-current assets:
Property, plant and equipment
8
1,057,926
1,057,926
1,087,232
1,022,704
1,089,425
1,121,419
646,982
1,156,518
1,185,461
Intangible assets
9
458,579
458,579
471,870
401,354
487,538
499,084
123,312
506,097
518,892
Trade receivables and other non-current assets
14
–
–
1,648
42
42
1,497
–
1,049
3,200
Total non-current assets
1,516,505
1,516,505
1,560,750
1,424,100
1,577,005
1,622,000
770,294
1,663,664
1,707,553
Current assets:
Assets classified as held for sale
7
6,991
6,991
6,991
22,961
22,961
22,961
–
–
–
Inventories
12,713
12,713
12,713
6,650
11,043
11,043
–
12,343
12,343
Trade and other receivables
14
385,884
385,884
391,381
297,460
321,243
320,701
249,405
348,361
342,589
Cash and cash equivalents
13
140,971
140,971
165,777
206,173
206,173
225,317
32,962
46,183
70,949
Total current assets
546,559
546,559
576,862
533,244
561,420
580,022
282,367
406,887
425,881
Total assets
2,063,064
2,063,064
2,137,612
1,957,344
2,138,425
2,202,022
1,052,661
2,070,551
2,133,434
Current liabilities:
Provisions
16
504,808
504,808
505,370
135,580
136,829
138,859
11,295
41,592
46,483
Trade and other payables
15
1,403,624
1,403,624
1,429,821
1,379,883
1,472,678
1,489,485
956,869
1,369,921
1,387,784
Total current liabilities
1,908,432
1,908,432
1,935,191
1,515,463
1,609,507
1,628,344
968,164
1,411,513
1,434,267
Non-current assets plus/less net current assets/ liabilities
154,632
154,632
202,421
441,881
528,918
573,678
84,497
659,038
699,167
Non-current liabilities:
Other payables
15
289,200
289,200
292,455
290,362
293,173
296,394
230,301
296,777
299,473
Provisions
16
175,651
175,651
176,911
131,646
137,120
138,341
79,601
141,691
141,251
Pensions Liability
353
353
2,395
332
332
1,916
-
-
5,392
Total non-current liabilities
465,204
465,204
471,761
422,340
430,625
436,651
309,902
438,468
446,116
Assets less liabilities
(310,572)
(310,572)
(269,340)
19,541
98,293
137,027
(225,405)
220,570
253,051
Taxpayers' equity and other reserves:
General fund
(564,748)
(564,748)
(524,066)
(170,781)
(100,978)
(63,716)
(305,414)
45,323
82,900
Revaluation reserve
254,529
254,529
257,121
190,654
199,603
202,659
80,009
175,247
175,543
Pensions Reserve
(353)
(353)
(2,395)
(332)
(332)
(1,916)
-
-
(5,392)
Total equity
(310,572)
(310,572)
(269,340)
19,541
98,293
137,027
(225,405)
220,570
253,051
The 2013-14 results have been restated to take account of Machinery of Government changes (see Note 26 for details). On 1 October 2014, Her Majesty's Passport Office (an Executive Agency of the Home Office) became part of the Core Home Office. No restatement of the 2013-14 figures was made for this restructuring (see Note 25 for details). The notes on pages 105 to 164 form part of these accounts.
Mark Sedwill Accounting Officer 5 June 2015
## Consolidated Statement Of Cash Flows
The Statement of Cash Flows shows the changes in cash and cash equivalents of the Home Office during the reporting period. The statement shows how the Home Office generates and uses cash and cash equivalents by classifying cash flows as operating, investing and financing activities. The amount of net cash flows arising from operating activities is a key indicator of service costs and the extent to which these operations are funded by way of income from the recipients of services provided by the Department. Investing activities represent the extent to which cash inflows and outflows have been made for resources which are intended to contribute to the Departments' future public service delivery. Cash flows arising from financing activities include Parliamentary Supply and other cash flows, including borrowing. for the year ended 31 March 2015
Restated
2014-15
2013-14
Core
Core
Departmental
Department
Departmental
Department
Group
& Agencies
Group
& Agencies
Note
£000
£000
£000
£000
Cash flows from operating activities
Net operating cost
(13,018,427)
(13,015,039)
(12,044,231)
(12,036,152)
Adjustments for non-cash transactions
835,782
848,424
477,017
476,005
(Increase)/decrease in trade and other receivables
14
(64,599)
(70,831)
28,125
23,591
less movements in receivables relating to items not passing through the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure
377
377
(2,402)
(2,992)
(Increase)/decrease in inventories
(1,670)
(1,670)
1,300
1,300
Increase/(decrease) in trade payables
15
(73,027)
(63,603)
99,153
98,622
less movements in payables relating to items not passing through the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure
58,799
58,797
(174,775)
(176,282)
Use of provisions
16
(84,745)
(86,570)
(49,603)
(49,774)
Increase/(Reduction) in pension liability
21
479
(17)
(156)
Net cash outflow from operating activities
(12,347,489)
(12,329,636)
(11,665,433)
(11,665,838)
Cash flows from investing activities
Purchase of property, plant and equipment
(71,368)
(77,066)
(96,845)
(105,756)
Purchase of intangible assets
(111,076)
(117,712)
(57,157)
(62,802)
Proceeds of disposal of property, plant and equipment
24,863
25,004
193
4,204
Proceeds of disposal of intangibles
912
912
45
4,699
Loans to other bodies
–
-
(198,700)
(198,700)
(Repayments) from other bodies
–
-
198,700
198,700
Net cash outflow from investing activities
(156,669)
(168,862)
(153,764)
(159,655)
Cash flows from financing activities
From the Consolidated Fund (Supply) - current year
12,571,585
12,571,585
12,136,085
12,136,085
From the Consolidated Fund (Supply) - prior year
–
-
–
–
Advances from the Contingencies Fund
275,000
275,000
198,700
198,700
Repayments to the Contingencies Fund
(275,000)
(275,000)
(198,700)
(198,700)
Capital element of payments in respect of finance leases and on balance sheet (SoFP) PFI contracts
(35,042)
(35,040)
(49,813)
(49,123)
Net financing
12,536,543
12,536,545
12,086,272
12,086,962
Net increase/(decrease) in cash and cash equivalents in the period before adjustment for receipts and payments to the Consolidated Fund
32,385
38,047
267,075
261,469
Payments of amounts due to the Consolidated Fund
(97,587)
(97,587)
(107,085)
(107,101)
Net increase/(decrease) in cash and cash equivalents in the period after adjustment for receipts and payments to the Consolidated Fund
(65,202)
(59,540)
159,990
154,368
Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the period
206,173
225,317
46,183
70,949
Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the period
140,971
165,777
206,173
225,317
The 2013-14 results have been restated to take account of Machinery of Government changes (see Note 26 for details). On 1 October 2014, Her Majesty's Passport Office (an Executive Agency of the Home Office) became part of the Core Home Office. No restatement of the 2013-14 figures was made for this restructuring (see Note 25 for details). The notes on pages 105 to 164 form part of these accounts.
## Consolidated Statement Of Changes In Taxpayers' Equity
This statement shows the movement in the year on the different reserves held by the Home Office, analysed into 'general fund reserves' (i.e. those reserves that reflect a contribution from the Consolidated Fund). Financing and the balance from the provision of services are recorded here. The Revaluation Reserve reflects the change in asset values that have not been recognised as income or expenditure. Other earmarked reserves are shown separately where there are statutory restrictions of their use.
## For The Year Ended 31 March 2015
Total
Revaluation
General
Reserves
Pension
Reserve
Reserve
Fund
£000
£000
£000
£000
Note
Balance at 31 March 2013
82,900
175,544
(5,392)
253,052
Opening balance adjustment
(7,834)
(1)
–
(7,835)
Restated balance at 1 April 2013
75,066
175,543
(5,392)
245,217
Net Parliamentary Funding - drawn down
12,136,085
–
–
12,136,085
Net Parliamentary Funding - deemed
13,454
–
–
13,454
Supply payable/(receivable) adjustment
(169,473)
–
–
(169,473)
Amounts payable to the Consolidated Fund
(125,119)
–
–
(125,119)
Comprehensive Net Expenditure for the year
(12,036,152)
–
–
(12,036,152)
Non-Cash Adjustments:
Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of property, plant and equipment
8
–
55,518
–
55,518
Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of intangible assets
9
–
429
–
429
Movements in Reserves:
Non-cash charges - auditor's remuneration
4,5
701
–
–
701
Notional charges and income
4
944
–
–
944
External transfers
12,117
(14)
3,320
15,423
Transfers between reserves
28,661
(28,817)
156
–
Balance at 31 March 2014
(63,716)
202,659
(1,916)
137,027
| | | | | Note |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|-----------|---------|--------------|
| Balance at 31 March 2014 | (63,716) | 202,659 | (1,916) | 137,027 |
| Opening balance adjustment | 16 | - | - | 16 |
| Restated balance at 1 April 2014 | (63,700) | 202,659 | (1,916) | 137,043 |
| Net Parliamentary Funding - drawn down | 12,571,585 | - | - | 12,571,585 |
| Net Parliamentary Funding - deemed | 169,473 | - | - | 169,473 |
| Supply payable/(receivable) adjustment | (124,775) | - | - | (124,775) |
| Amounts payable to the Consolidated Fund | (86,400) | - | - | (86,400) |
| Comprehensive Net Expenditure for the year | (13,015,039) | - | - | (13,015,039) |
| Non-Cash Adjustments: | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of property, plant and equipment | 8 | - | 76,925 | - |
| Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of intangible assets | 9 | - | 1,757 | - |
| Movements in Reserves: | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Non–cash charges - auditor's remuneration | 4,5 | 505 | - | - |
| Notional charges and income | 4 | - | - | - |
| External transfers | 26 | 2 | - | 28 |
| Actuarial gain/loss in year | - | - | (484) | (484) |
| Release of reserves to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure | 42 | - | - | 42 |
| Transfers between reserves | 24,217 | (24,222) | 5 | - |
| Balance at 31 March 2015 | | | | |
| | (524,066) | 257,121 | (2,395) | (269,340) |
| Of which: | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Core Department | | (564,748) | 254,529 | (353) |
| Agencies | | | | |
| | - | - | - | - |
| NDPBs | | | | |
| | 40,682 | 2,592 | (2,042) | 41,232 |
| | | (524,066) | 257,121 | (2,395) |
Total
Revaluation
General
Reserves
Pension
Reserve
Reserve
Fund
£000
£000
£000
£000
## Statement Of Changes In Taxpayers' Equity (Core Department And Agencies)
for the year ended 31 March 2015
| | | | | Note |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|----------|---------|--------------|
| Balance at 31 March 2013 | 45,323 | 175,247 | - | 220,570 |
| Opening balance adjustment | (1,748) | (1) | - | (1,749) |
| Restated balance at 1 April 2013 | 43,575 | 175,246 | - | 218,821 |
| Net Parliamentary Funding - drawn down | 12,136,085 | - | - | 12,136,085 |
| Net Parliamentary Funding - deemed | 13,454 | - | - | 13,454 |
| Supply payable/(receivable) adjustment | (169,473) | - | - | (169,473) |
| Amounts payable to the Consolidated Fund | (124,268) | - | - | (124,268) |
| Comprehensive Net Expenditure for the year | (12,044,231) | - | - | (12,044,231) |
| Non-Cash Adjustments: | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of property, plant and equipment | 8 | - | 55,176 | - |
| Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of intangible assets | 9 | - | (1,989) | - |
| Movements in Reserves: | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Non-cash charges - auditor's remuneration | 4,5 | 701 | - | - |
| External transfers | 14,379 | (13) | (349) | 14,017 |
| Transfers between reserves | 28,800 | (28,817) | 17 | - |
| Balance at 31 March 2014 | (100,978) | 199,603 | (332) | 98,293 |
| | Note | | | |
| Balance at 31 March 2014 | (100,978) | 199,603 | (332) | 98,293 |
| Opening balance adjustment | - | - | - | - |
| Restated balance at 1 April 2014 | (100,978) | 199,603 | (332) | 98,293 |
| Net Parliamentary Funding - drawn down | 12,571,585 | - | - | 12,571,585 |
| Net Parliamentary Funding - deemed | 169,473 | - | - | 169,473 |
| Supply payable/(receivable) adjustment | (124,775) | - | - | (124,775) |
| Amounts payable to the Consolidated Fund | (86,400) | - | - | (86,400) |
| Comprehensive Net Expenditure for the year | (13,018,427) | - | - | (13,018,427) |
| Non-Cash Adjustments: | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of property, plant and equipment | 8 | - | 77,128 | - |
| Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of intangible assets | 9 | - | 2,018 | - |
| Movements in Reserves: | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Non-cash charges - auditor's remuneration | 4,5 | 505 | - | - |
| Notional charges and income | 4 | - | - | - |
| External transfers | 26 | 2 | - | 28 |
| Actuarial gain/loss in year | - | - | (42) | (42) |
| Release of reserves to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure | 42 | - | - | 42 |
| Transfers between reserves | 24,201 | (24,222) | 21 | - |
| Balance at 31 March 2015 | | | | |
| | (564,748) | 254,529 | (353) | (310,572) |
The notes on pages 105 to 164 form part of these accounts.
Restated
Total
Revaluation
General
Reserves
Pension
Reserve
Reserve
Fund
£000
£000
£000
£000
General
Revaluation
Total
Fund
Reserve
Pension
Reserve
Reserves
£000
£000
£000
£000
Notes to the departmental accounts for the period ending 31 March 2015
## 1. Statement Of Accounting Policies
Basis of preparation The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the 2014-15 Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM) issued by HM Treasury. The accounting policies contained in the FReM apply International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as adapted or interpreted for the public sector context. Where the FReM permits a choice of accounting policy, the accounting policy which is judged to be most appropriate to the particular circumstances of the Department for the purpose of giving a true and fair view has been selected. The particular policies adopted by the Department are described below. They have been applied consistently in dealing with items that are considered material to the financial statements. In addition to the primary statements prepared under IFRS, the FReM also requires the Department to prepare a *Statement of Parliamentary Supply* and supporting notes show outturn against Estimate in terms of the net resource requirement and the net cash requirement. The financial statements are presented in Sterling and all values are rounded to the nearest thousand pounds (£000). In common with other government departments, the future financing of the Department's liabilities is to be met by future grants of Supply and the application of future income, both to be approved annually by Parliament. It has been considered appropriate to adopt a going concern basis for the preparation of these financial statements.
The accounts have been prepared under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.
## 1.1 Accounting Convention
These accounts have been prepared on an accruals basis under the historical cost convention modified to account for the revaluation of property, plant and equipment, intangible assets and inventories.
## 1.2 Restatement Of 2013-14 Results
The results for 2013-14 have been restated to:
a) exclude the financial data of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), which has been reclassified as a
Public Corporation by the Office for National Statistics; and
b) include the financial data relating to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which transferred from the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Home Office on 1 April 2014.
## 1.3 Basis Of Consolidation
These accounts include the non-agency parts of the Department (the core Department) and its executive agency, Her Majesty's Passport Office (HMPO) up until 30 September 2014. On 1 October 2014, HM Passport Office functions transferred to the Home Office. In addition, the Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) of the Home Office are also consolidated in these accounts. The NDPBs consolidated within the departmental boundary are: Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC), Security Industry Authority (SIA) and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA). The College of Policing (CoP) is also consolidated as a *quasi*-NDPB.
The executive agency and non-departmental public bodies also produce and publish their own Annual Reports and Accounts. Transactions between entities included in the consolidated accounts are eliminated. Machinery of Government (MoG) changes which involve the transfer of functions or responsibilities between two or more government departments are accounted for using merger accounting rules in accordance with the FReM. See note 1.2 above. The Department had one Machinery of Government change: the move of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Home Office. In addition, the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), which was previously consolidated into these accounts was reclassified as a Public Corporation by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and has therefore been excluded. Although DBS, as a public corporation, is no longer consolidated within the departmental boundary, the Department continues to sponsor and oversee the activities of the DBS. The impact of the Machinery of Government changes to the accounts is detailed in Note 26. In addition to this Her Majesty's Passport Office became part of the Core Home Office on 1 October 2014, and the residual elements of the National Fraud Authority transferred to the Core Home Office on 1 April 2014 (see Note 25 for details).
## 1.4 Judgments And Key Sources Of Estimation Uncertainty
The preparation of financial statements requires management to make judgements and assumptions that affect the amounts reported for assets and liabilities at the year ending 31 March, and for amounts reported for income and expenses during the year. In the process of applying the Department's accounting policies, management has made the following judgements, which have the most significant effect on the amounts recognised in the financial statements: Provisions A provision is recognised when the Department has a legal or constructive obligation as a result of a past event, it is probable that an outflow of economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. If the effect is material, expected future cash flows are discounted using the real rate set by HM Treasury. Among these provisions are the police pensions provision (see Note 16.4), together with those relating to the potential reparation costs related the riots that took place in August 2011, which were based on estimates provided by loss adjusters (see Note 16.3). Police Pension Scheme provision A provision of £767 million was calculated as an estimate of the total cost of redress expected to be made in respect of commutation lump sums paid from police pension scheme in England and Wales between 2001 and 2006. The Home Office's element of the total liability is £460 million. a) Methodology The cost estimate was produced by calculating the amount of redress payment owed in respect of retirements in each financial year from 2001-02 to 2006-07. Where redress payments only apply for a proportion of that year, the assumption was made that the underlying commutation lump sum amounts are paid uniformly over each year (e.g. the lump sums paid between 1 December 2001 and 31 March 2002 was calculated as 1/3rd of the total lump sums paid over 2001-02). As per the Pensions Ombudsman's determination, the redress payments will include interest, calculated using the base rate of interest payable up to the end of 2014, and tax. The tax element is excluded from the Home Office's provision.
## B) Data And Assumptions The Key Assumptions And Data Used For This Cost Estimate Were:
-
The multipliers (used to work out how much additional lump sum each officer should have been paid under commutation factors which would have applied if reviews were undertaken in 2001 and 2004);
-
Partially projected amounts of commutation lump sums paid out between 1 December 2001 and
30 November 2006;
-
The proportion of these which were paid to female retirees; and
-
The pattern of retirement ages underpinning these lump sums.
Commutation lump sums There was no full data for the commutation lump sum paid out over the period between December 2001 and
30 November 2006, so appropriate figures were generated using the available information. Actual data for commutation lump sum payments paid out over 2001-02 and 2002-03 was used in the estimate. For the remaining period (1 April 2003 to 30 November 2006) the commutation lump sums in each financial year were estimated assuming the total amount of lump sums moved in line with the number of retirements (full-time equivalents) in the year, using Home Office statistics (ADR data). Proportion of lump sums which were paid to female retirees The cost of redress is lower for female officers compared to male officers. The calculation makes an allowance for this using an assumed proportion of female retirees throughout the period. Two sources of data can be used to calculate this proportion. The first is the ADR data, which implies that 6.9% of retirements between 1 December 2001 and 30 November 2006 were in respect of female officers. The estimate for the total cost of redress assuming that 6.9% of retirements were in respect of female officers is £767 million. Of this, £85 million arises out of interest and £307 million is in respect of tax. The Home Office provision is made up of £460 million, £375 million being the lump sum payout and £85 million interest. Alternatively, separate data was supplied by the Metropolitan Police force and a single administrator with data covering 15 different forces. This covers retirement over the period affected by redress, but implies a female proportion of 11.5%. On this basis the estimated cost of redress would be £739 million. Of this, £82 million arises out of interest and £296 million in respect of tax. The amount provided in the accounts is based on the higher of these valuations, as this better represented retirement data from all police forces across the period in question. Police Pensions top-up grant accrual The Department makes a grant to police forces to match the estimated deficit in their police pension schemes for the year (see note 1.17). The grant is based on estimates provided in-year by the police forces and adjusted for actual outturns from prior years. The Department recognises an accrual at the year-end for the element of the grant that has not been paid by the year-end. There are inherent uncertainties involved with the calculation of the pension grant, for example the number of retirees and amounts taken in lump sums, which means that the accrual is the best estimate of the liability at the year-end. The value of the accrual as at 31 March 2015 was £314 million. Service concession arrangements The Department is party to Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs). The classification of such arrangements as service concession arrangements requires the Department to determine, based on an evaluation of the terms and conditions of the arrangements, whether it controls the infrastructure. Development costs Initial capitalisation of costs is based on management's judgement that technological and economical feasibility is confirmed.
## 1.5 Administration And Programme Expenditure
The Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure is analysed between administration and programme costs. Administration costs reflect the costs of running the Department. These include both the administration costs and associated operating income. Programme costs reflect non-administration costs, including payments of grants and other disbursements by the Department, as well as certain staff costs where they relate directly to service provision. The classification of expenditure and income as administration or as programme follows the definition of administration costs set out by HM Treasury.
## 1.6 Property, Plant And Equipment
Property, plant and equipment is recognised initially at cost and thereafter carried at fair value less depreciation and impairment charged subsequent to the date of revaluation. Cost comprises the amount of cash paid to acquire the asset and includes any costs directly attributable to making the asset capable of operating as intended. The capitalisation threshold for expenditure on property, plant and equipment is £5,000. Fair value of properties is based on professional valuations every five years and in the intervening years by the use of published indices appropriate to the type of property. Valuations are undertaken in accordance with the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors Appraisal and Evaluation Manual. These valuations are carried out by the Valuations Office Agency (VOA). The last valuation was performed by Sarah M Brydon DipSurv MRICS of the VOA, who is a registered valuer recognised by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. The valuation was carried out as of 31 March 2015. Other operational assets are revalued to open market value where obtainable, or on the basis of depreciated replacement cost where market value is not obtainable. Published indices appropriate to the category of asset are normally used to estimate value. Any revaluation surplus is credited to the revaluation reserve except to the extent that it reverses a decrease in the carrying value of the same asset previously recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, in which case the increase is recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. A revaluation deficit is recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, except to the extent of any existing surplus in respect of that asset in the revaluation reserve. Depreciation is calculated to write down the costs of the assets to their estimated residual value on a straight-line basis over their expected useful lives as follows:
-
Buildings
- up to 60 years or life of lease
-
Improvements to leasehold buildings
- duration of lease or anticipated useful life
-
Plant and equipment
- 2 to 15 years
-
Computers
- 2 to 15 years
-
Transport equipment
- 3 to 20 years
-
Furniture and fittings
- 3 to 10 years
Assets in the course of construction are not depreciated until the point at which they are ready to be brought into use. No depreciation is provided on freehold land and non-current assets held for sale. The carrying values of property, plant and equipment are reviewed for impairment if events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying value may not be recoverable, and are written down immediately to their recoverable amount. Useful lives and residual values are reviewed annually and where adjustments are required these are made prospectively.
## 1.7 Intangible Assets
Intangible assets are measured on initial recognition at cost. Following initial recognition, where an active market exists, intangible assets are carried at fair value at the period ending 31 March. Where no active market exists the Department uses published indices to assess the depreciated replacement cost. Internally generated intangible assets, excluding capitalised development costs, are not capitalised and expenditure is recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure in the year in which the expenditure is incurred. The useful lives of intangible assets are assessed to be either finite or indefinite. All intangible assets are currently assessed to have a finite life and are assessed for impairment whenever there is an indication that the intangible asset may be impaired. The amortisation period and the amortisation method are reviewed at least at each financial year end. Software licences Externally acquired computer software licences are amortised over the shorter of the term of the licence and the useful economic life of three to fifteen years. Internally developed software This includes software that arises from internal or third party development for internal or external access. The direct costs associated with the development stage of internally developed software are included in the cost of the asset. These assets are amortised over the useful economic life of three to ten years. Note 9 to the accounts refers to these assets as Information Technology (IT). Assets under construction Assets in the course of construction are not amortised until the point at which they are ready to be brought into use. Expenditure which does not meet the criteria for capitalisation is treated as an operating cost in the year in which it is incurred.
## 1.8 Third Party Assets
The Department holds funds on behalf of third parties. Such funds include citizenship ceremony fees, proceeds of crime and bail bonds. These funds are not recognised in the financial statements as the Department has no beneficial interest in them. Details of the assets held on behalf third parties are given in Note 21 to the accounts.
## 1.9 Leases
Assets held under finance leases, which transfer to the Department substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to ownership of the leased item, are capitalised at the inception of the lease, with a corresponding liability being recognised for the lower of the fair value of the leased asset and the present value of the minimum lease payments. Lease payments are apportioned between the reduction of the lease liability and finance charges in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure so as to achieve a constant rate of interest on the remaining balance of the liability. Assets held under finance leases are depreciated over the shorter of the estimated useful life of the asset and the lease term. Leases where the lessor retains a significant portion of the risks and benefits of ownership of the asset are classified as operating leases and the rentals payable are charged to the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure on a straight line basis over the lease term.
## 1.10 Service Concessions
The Department accounts for PFI transactions on a control approach based on the FReM, which uses IFRIC 12 *Service Concession Arrangements* to inform its treatment. The Department is considered to control the infrastructure in a public-to-private service concession arrangement if:
-
the Department controls or regulates the services that the operator must provide using the infrastructure, to whom it must provide them, and at what price; and
-
the Department controls any significant residual interest in the property at the end of the concession term through ownership, beneficial entitlement or otherwise.
Where it is determined that such arrangements are not in scope of IFRIC 12, the Department assesses such arrangements under IFRIC 4 *Determining whether an Arrangement contains a Lease*. Where it is identified that the arrangement conveys a right to use an asset in return for a payment or series of payments, the lease element is accounted for as either an operating lease or finance lease in accordance with the risk and reward based approach set out at section 1.9 Leases. Where it is determined that arrangements are in scope of IFRIC 12, the Department recognises the infrastructure as a non-current asset. Where the contract is separable between the service element, the interest charge and the infrastructure asset, the asset is measured as under IAS 17, with the service element and the interest charge recognised as incurred over the term of the concession arrangement. Where there is a unitary payment stream that includes infrastructure and service elements that cannot be separated, the various elements will be separated using estimation techniques. In determining the interest rate implicit in the contract, the Department applies the risk-free market rate at the time the contract was signed. The rate is not changed unless the infrastructure element or the whole contract is renegotiated. The risk-free rate is determined by reference to the real rate set by HM Treasury, currently 3.5%.
The nominal rate is then calculated by adjusting this real term rate by the UK inflation rate. The Department recognises a liability for the capital value of the contract. That liability does not include the interest charge and service elements, which are expensed annually to the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. On initial recognition of existing PPP arrangements or PFI contracts under IFRS, the Department measures the non-current asset in the same way as other non-current assets of that generic type. A liability is recognised for the capital value of the contract at its fair value at the period end, which will normally be the outstanding liability in respect of the property (that is, excluding the interest and service elements), discounted by the interest rate implicit in the contract. Assets are revalued in accordance with the revaluation policy for property, plant and equipment (section 1.6 above) and intangible assets (section 1.7 above). Liabilities are measured using the appropriate discount rate. Revenue received under any revenue sharing provision in the service concession arrangement is recognised when all the conditions laid down in IAS 18 Revenue have been satisfied.
## 1.11 Financial Instruments Financial Assets
Financial assets are recognised when the Department becomes party to the contracts that give rise to them and are classified as: financial assets at fair value through profit or loss, loans and receivables, held-to-maturity investments, or as available-for-sale financial assets as appropriate. The Department determines the classification of its financial assets at initial recognition and, where allowed and appropriate, re-evaluates this designation at each financial year-end. When financial assets are recognised initially, they are measured at fair value. Fair value is determined as the transaction price plus, in the case of financial assets not at fair value through profit or loss, directly attributable transaction costs. The subsequent measurement of financial assets depends on their classification. The following classifications are currently applicable: Financial assets at fair value through the statement of comprehensive net expenditure Financial assets classified as held for trading and other assets designated as such on inception are included in this category. Financial assets are classified as held for trading if they are acquired for sale in the short term. Assets are carried in the Statement of Financial Position at fair value with gains or losses recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. Loans and receivables Trade and other receivables are recognised and carried at the lower of their original invoiced value and recoverable amount. Where the time value of money is material, receivables are subsequently measured at amortised cost. Provision is made when there is objective evidence that the Department will not be able to recover balances in full. Balances are written off when the probability of recovery is assessed as being remote. Financial assets are derecognised when the contract that gives rise to it is settled, sold, cancelled or expires.
## Financial Liabilities
Financial liabilities are classified as either financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss or other financial liabilities. Trade and other payables are recognised at cost, which is subsequently deemed to be materially the same as the fair value. Where the time value of money is material, payables are subsequently measured at amortised cost. Financial liabilities are derecognised when the contract that gives rise to it is settled, sold, cancelled or expires.
## 1.12 Cash And Cash Equivalents
Cash in the Statement of Financial Position comprises cash at bank and in hand. For the purpose of the cash flow statement, cash and cash equivalents consist of cash, less any outstanding bank overdrafts.
## 1.13 Provisions
A provision is recognised when the Department has a legal or constructive obligation as a result of a past event, it is probable that an outflow of economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation.
## 1.14 Contingent Liabilities
In addition to contingent liabilities disclosed in accordance with IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets, the Department discloses for parliamentary reporting and accountability purposes certain statutory and non-statutory contingent liabilities where the likelihood of a transfer of economic benefit is remote, but which have been reported to Parliament in accordance with the requirements of *Managing Public Money*. These comprise:
-
items over £250,000 (or lower, where required by specific statute) that do not arise in the normal course of business and which are reported to Parliament by departmental Minute prior to the Department entering into the arrangement; and
-
all items (whether or not they arise in the normal course of business) over £250,000 (or lower, where required by specific statute or where material in the context of resource accounts) which are required by the FReM to be noted in the resource accounts.
Where the time value of money is material, contingent liabilities which are required to be disclosed under IAS 37 are stated at discounted amounts and the amount reported to Parliament separately noted. Contingent liabilities that are not required to be disclosed by IAS 37 are stated at the amounts reported to Parliament.
## 1.15 Operating Income
Operating income is income which relates directly to the operating activities of the Department. It is stated net of VAT. Rendering of services Operating income principally comprises fees and charges for services provided on a full cost basis to external customers. Income for Her Majesty's Passport Office is recognised when services and goods are issued. Income from free passports issued for all British Nationals born on or before 2 September 1929 that was introduced on 18 October 2004 is financed by Parliamentary Supply drawn down by the Home Office. Income receivable for fees charged in respect of applications for visas and immigration documents is not recognised until the application process has been completed and a decision is made. Licence fee income for the Security Industry Authority (SIA) is recognised at the point when an application is accepted. At this point, the fee paid becomes non-refundable and the SIA is committed to paying the managed service provider for processing the application. Application fee income for SIA is recognised at the point when a decision is made on the status of that application.
Annual registration is charged to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure on a straight line basis over the period covered by the registration. EU expenditure is recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure on a pro-rata basis as the projects progress, the income receivable from the EU is recognised to match this expenditure.
## 1.16 Pensions
Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme: Past and present employees are ordinarily covered by the provisions of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). From 30 July 2007, civil servants may be in one of four defined benefit schemes; either a final salary scheme (classic, premium or classic plus); or a whole career scheme (nuvos). These statutory arrangements are unfunded with the cost of benefits met by monies voted by Parliament each year. The Department recognises the expected cost of these elements on a systematic and rational basis over the period during which it benefits from employees' services by payments to the PCSPS of amounts calculated on an accruing basis. Liability for payment of future benefits is a charge on the PCSPS. Partnership and Stakeholder Schemes: Members joining from October 2002 may opt for either the appropriate defined benefit arrangement or a 'money purchase' stakeholder pension with an employer contribution (partnership pension account). The employer makes a basic contribution of between 3% and 12.5% (depending on the age of the member) into a stakeholder pension product chosen by the employee from a panel of three providers. The employee does not have to contribute, but where they do make contributions, the employer will match these up to a limit of 3% of pensionable salary (in addition to the employer's basic contribution). Employers also contribute a further 0.8% of pensionable salary to cover the cost of centrally-provided risk benefit cover (death in service and ill-health retirement). Broadly By Analogy: The core Department and IPCC also operate Broadly By Analogy (BBA) pension schemes, a pension arrangement entitling the recipient to benefits similar to those provided by the PCSPS scheme. The former Chairman of the NPIA and former Chairs of legacy Commissions, and some former members of the Police Complaints Authority within IPCC, are provided pensions under this arrangement. The BBA pensions are unfunded, with benefits being paid as they fall due. Liabilities for the scheme rest with the core Department and the IPCC, and provision for these liabilities is reflected in the Statement of Financial Position. The annual cost of the associated pension contribution is recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, and amounts relating to changes in the actuarial valuation of scheme liabilities are adjusted via the Statement of Changes in Taxpayers' Equity. The scheme liabilities have been calculated by the Government Actuary's Department. Additional information in relation to Home Office pension schemes is included at Note 3.
## 1.17 Home Office Grants
Grants (excluding Grant in Aid) are accounted for on an accruals basis and are paid as a reimbursement against expenditure that the grant recipient has already made. Grant in Aid is a funding mechanism to finance all or part of the costs of the body receiving the Grant in Aid. Home Office Police Core Settlement Police grants paid by the Department to Police and Crime Commissioners are based on funding levels agreed in the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2014-15. Police Pensions top-up grant The amount reported as the Police Pensions top-up grant is equal to the difference between outgoing pension expenditure and incoming pension contributions in a single year. An accrual is recognised in the Department's financial statement for the estimated amount of grant relating to the year, which has not been paid by year-end.
College of Policing funding The amount of funding provided to the College of Policing through Grant in Aid in the 2014-15 financial year was calculated by taking an agreed percentage of the total Home Office funds available to provide for policing including grants to PCCs. This amount was taken (top-sliced) from the police grant and instead paid to the College.
## 1.18 Value Added Tax
Most of the activities of the Department are outside the scope of VAT and, in general, output tax does not apply and input tax on purchases is not recoverable. Irrecoverable VAT is charged to the relevant expenditure category or included in the capitalised purchase cost of fixed assets. Where output tax is charged or input tax is recoverable, the amounts are stated net of VAT.
## 1.19 Segmental Reporting
IFRS 8 - *Operating Segments* has been applied in full without interpretation or adaption in line with HM Treasury guidance. Financial information for operating segments for a minimum of 75% of comprehensive net expenditure has been disclosed in a note to the accounts. Segmental information is included in Note 2 to these accounts.
## 1.20 Deferred Income
Income is recognised at the point at which any conditions attached to the grant have been met or, if there were no such conditions, on receipt. The grants, or elements of them, are shown as deferred income if at the year-end monies have been received, but where the conditions relating to the grant have not yet been met. A large element of the Department's deferred income relates to visa income, where the Department receives payment in advance with the visa application, but where the income is not recognised until the application process is completed. Lease incentives are deferred on a straight line basis over the life of the lease.
1.21
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and other accounting changes that have been
issued but are not yet effective
IFRS 13 - Fair Value Measurement was issued on 1 January 2013 and has been adopted by the EU. This will be effective from 2015-16. IFRS 13 has been prepared to provide consistent guidance on fair value measurement for all relevant balances and transactions covered by IFRS (except where IFRS 13 explicitly states otherwise). The Standard defines fair value, provides guidance on fair value measurement techniques, and sets out the disclosure requirements. The Standard requires fair value be measured using the most reliable data and inputs available to determine the exit price for an asset or liability. This exit price is taken to be the price that two market participants (a buyer and seller) would settle on. To ensure transparency over the differing quality of inputs used to determine fair value, the Standard has established a hierarchy for input quality.
-
Level 1 inputs (highest quality) are published prices available in an active market;
-
Level 2 inputs are observable data available in a non-active market; and
-
Level 3 inputs (lowest quality) are all other inputs, which are mostly unobservable. Entities are required to use the most appropriate inputs available to them in determining fair value. The inference is that the higher the quality, the more appropriate the input.
IFRS 13 requires additional disclosures where level 3 inputs are used to assess fair value, to give readers an understanding of the sensitivity of the valuation to changes in those inputs. IAS 36 - 'Impairment of assets' on recoverable amount disclosures (amendment) was issued on 1 January 2014 and has been adopted by the EU, with a view to include in the final version of the 2015-16 FReM (subject to review). This amendment, which seeks to address the implications of references to IFRS 13 'Fair Value Measurement', modifies some of the disclosure requirements regarding measurement of the recoverable amount of impaired assets. It clarifies the scope of certain disclosures and removes burdensome and unintended disclosure requirements without reducing the relevance and understandability of the financial information.
## 2. Statement Of Operating Costs By Operating Segment
for the year ended 31 March 2015
2014-15
Administration
Programme
Gross
Expenditure
Expenditure
Expenditure
Income
Net
Reportable Segment
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
Crime and Policing Group
58,678
10,717,175
10,775,853
(83,086)
10,692,767
Office for Security and Counter- Terrorism
47,980
906,137
954,117
(182,649)
771,468
Border Force
2,389
522,693
525,082
(7,775)
517,307
UK Visas & Immigration
29,588
807,658
837,246
(1,019,791)
(182,545)
Immigration Enforcement
8,581
457,411
465,992
(29,843)
436,149
HM Passport Office
45,004
357,989
402,993
(507,606)
(104,613)
International and Immigration Policy Group
21,378
20,020
41,398
(1,059)
40,339
Enablers
409,161
614,007
1,023,168
(179,001)
844,167
Net Expenditure
622,759
14,403,090
15,025,849
(2,010,810)
13,015,039
Reconciliation between Operating Segments and SOPS Note 2 Capital Grants
–
(215,920)
(215,920)
–
(215,920)
Capital Grant income
–
–
–
3,624
3,624
PFI adjustment
(26,427)
(40,873)
(67,300)
–
(67,300)
Consolidated Fund Extra Receipts
–
–
–
86,400
86,400
NDPB income (reported as net expenditure in SOPS Note 2)
(4,168)
(51,737)
(55,905)
55,905
–
Provisions utilised adjustment
(6,907)
6,907
–
–
–
EU Income (reported as net expenditure in SOPS Note 2)
–
(49,931)
(49,931)
49,931
–
Net Resource Outturn
585,257
14,051,536
14,636,793
(1,814,950)
12,821,843
## Re By Operating Segment Ing Segment 2.1 Departmental Net Assets By Operating Segment (As At 31 March 2015)
| Total |
| Total |
|
|-------------------------------|-------------|-------------|-----------|
| Assets | Liabilities | Assets | |
| | | | |
| Reportable Segment | | | |
| £000 | £000 | £000 | |
| Crime and Policing Group | 286,649 | (1,182,588) | (895,939) |
| Office for Security and | | | |
| Counter-Terrorism | 67,207 | (186,559) | (119,352) |
| Border Force | 236,337 | (54,995) | 181,342 |
| UK Visas & Immigration | 408,127 | (340,820) | 67,307 |
| Immigration Enforcement | 268,298 | (39,445) | 228,853 |
| HM Passport Office | 186,720 | (75,124) | 111,596 |
| International and Immigration | | | |
| Policy Group | 35,648 | (8,993) | 26,655 |
| Enablers | 648,626 | (518,428) | 130,198 |
| Total balance | 2,137,612 | (2,406,952) | (269,340) |
for the year ended 31 March 2014
Restated
Administration
Programme
Gross
2013-14
Expenditure
Expenditure
Expenditure
Income
Net
Reportable Segment
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
Crime and Policing Group
72,705
9,878,426
9,951,131
(89,511)
9,861,620
Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism
52,210
876,652
928,862
(174,071)
754,791
Border Force
3,970
508,742
512,712
(12,916)
499,796
UK Visas & Immigration
14,730
796,961
811,691
(1,105,391)
(293,700)
Immigration Enforcement
9,080
434,408
443,488
(19,653)
423,835
HM Passport Office
41,217
280,742
321,959
(451,578)
(129,619)
National Fraud Authority
639
11,191
11,830
–
11,830
International and Immigration Policy Group
23,918
14,394
38,312
(190)
38,122
Enablers
295,994
679,908
975,902
(106,425)
869,477
Net Expenditure
514,463
13,481,424
13,995,887
(1,959,735)
12,036,152
## Reconciliation Between Operating Segments And Sops Note 2
| Capital Grants | - | (189,949) | (189,949) | - | (189,949) |
|----------------------------------|----------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
| PFI adjustment | (6,021) | (16,694) | (22,715) | - | (22,715) |
| Consolidated Fund Extra Receipts | - | - | - | 124,293 | 124,293 |
| NDPB income (reported as net | | | | | |
| expenditure in SOPS Note 2) | (14,593) | (167,457) | (182,050) | 182,050 | - |
| Provisions utilised adjustment | 40,617 | (40,617) | - | - | - |
| Machinery of Government | | | | | |
| changes | 5,247 | 121,996 | 127,243 | (125,464) | 1,779 |
| EU Income (reported as net | | | | | |
| expenditure in SOPS Note 2) | - | (32,131) | (32,131) | 32,131 | - |
| Net Resource Outturn | 539,713 | 13,156,572 | 13,696,285 | (1,746,725) | 11,949,560 |
| | |
|-------------------------------|-------------|
| Restated | |
| Total | |
| Assets | Liabilities |
| | |
| Reportable Segment | |
| £000 | £000 |
| Crime and Policing Group | 257,340 |
| Office for Security and | |
| Counter-Terrorism | |
| 55,115 | (179,792) |
| Border Force | 242,597 |
| UK Visas & Immigration | 210,607 |
| Immigration Enforcement | 249,657 |
| HM Passport Office | 182,469 |
| National Fraud Authority | 166 |
| International and Immigration | |
| Policy Group | |
| 33,885 | (8,849) |
| Enablers | 970,186 |
| Total balance | 2,202,022 |
This segmental analysis is consistent with how financial performance is reported to the Home Office Supervisory Board. The underlying factors in identifying the reportable segments are driven by the budget allocations, departmental priorities and financial risks. This provides the board with decision making information based upon sound financial reporting. It enables the determination of resource spend by entity, departmental priority and operational activity.
## Home Office Business Segments
The Crime and Policing Group (CPG), and the services the group oversee, play vital roles in achieving the Home Office's core purpose of protecting the public. CPG are responsible for the implementation of crime and policing policy and sponsor the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Security Industry Authority, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and the College of Policing. In addition, CPG sponsor the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS); however do not report DBS transactions and balances within this business segment because DBS is a Public Corporation and is outside of the departmental accounting boundary.
The Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism (OSCT) gives strategic direction to the UK's work to counter the threat from international terrorism. Its primary objective is to protect the public from terrorism by working with others to develop and deliver the UK's counter-terrorism strategy. Border Force is a professional law enforcement command within the Home Office. It has approximately 8,000 officers, responsible for securing the UK border and controlling migration at 138 ports and airports across the UK and overseas. UK Visas and Immigration is responsible for considering applications from visitors to come to or remain in the UK. It is a high-volume service that aims to become a globally trusted operator delivering excellent customer service and secure decisions. Immigration enforcement is responsible for preventing abuse, pursuing immigration offenders and increasing compliance with immigration law. It works with partners to regulate migration in line with the law and government policy and supports economic growth. The International and Immigration Policy Group (IIPG) was established to provide the Department with a focused cross-cutting capability to help it meet the government's agenda. This is done through a mixture of strategy and policy work, casework, management of external programmes, and coordinating and liaising with colleagues across the Department and externally. IIPG sponsor the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner. Her Majesty's Passport Office, provides accurate and secure records of key events and has responsibility for producing passports. Her Majesty's Passport Office delivers the following services:
–
–
it provides passport services for British nationals residing in the UK and, in association with the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to those residing overseas; and
–
–
it administers civil registration in England and Wales.
The National Fraud Authority (NFA) ceased operations on 31 March 2014, with assets transferred to the City of London Police on 1 April 2014. NFA was established following the government's fraud review and was responsible for increasing the UK economy's protection against the harm caused by fraud. Its functions were transferred to the National Crime Agency, City of London Police and Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism. Enablers includes Corporate Services, Communications Directorate, Human Resources Directorate and Strategy, Delivery and Private Office Group.
## 3. Staff Numbers And Related Costs
Staff costs comprise:
Restated
2014-15
2013-14
£000
£000
Departmental
Departmental
Group
Group
Permanently
Special
Total
employed staff
Others
Ministers
advisers
Total
Wages and salaries
1,080,734
945,736
134,502
262
234
1,058,764
Social security costs
73,842
73,679
114
23
26
71,303
Other pension costs
175,113
175,069
–
1
43
163,971
Sub Total*
1,329,689
1,194,484
134,616
286
303
1,294,038
Less recoveries in respect of outward secondments
(1,889)
(1,889)
–
–
–
(2,259)
Total net costs*
1,327,800
1,192,595
134,616
286
303
1,291,779
Of which: Core Department
1,176,222
1,069,142
106,491
286
303
1,109,525
Core Department and Agencies
1,234,616
1,126,880
107,147
286
303
1,212,357
Departmental Group
1,327,800
1,192,595
134,616
286
303
1,291,779
*Of which: Departmental Group - Charged to administration costs
265,174
279,339
Charged to programme costs
1,062,626
1,012,440
1,327,800
1,291,779
Core Department & Agencies - Charged to administration costs
245,321
261,778
Charged to programme costs
989,295
950,579
1,234,616
1,212,357
Core Department - Charged to administration costs
236,948
239,546
Charged to programme costs
939,274
869,979
1,176,222
1,109,525
* The total amount of capitalised staff costs not included in the figures above is £1.2 million (£5.7 million in 2013-14).
## Staff Costs By Business Segment
| | | | | | | Restated |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------|----------------|---------|-----------|----------|------------|
| | | | | | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
| | | | | | £000 | £000 |
| Departmental | Departmental | | | | | |
| | | | | | Group | Group |
| Permanently | Special | | | | | |
| Business Segment | Total | employed staff | Others | Ministers | advisers | Total |
| Crime and Policing Group | 142,726 | 98,845 | 43,881 | - | - | 121,605 |
| Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 38,206 | 36,033 | 2,173 | - | - | 38,756 |
| Border Force | 368,325 | 366,373 | 1,952 | - | - | 367,088 |
| UK Visas & Immigration | 248,999 | 190,731 | 58,268 | - | - | 235,939 |
| Immigration Enforcement | 203,533 | 191,278 | 12,255 | - | - | 185,635 |
| International and Immigration Policy | 23,074 | 22,405 | 669 | - | - | 24,812 |
| HM Passport Office | 114,184 | 110,924 | 3,260 | - | - | 100,647 |
| National Fraud Authority | - | - | - | - | - | 2,185 |
| Total | 1,139,047 | 1,016,589 | 122,458 | - | - | 1,076,667 |
| Enablers | 188,753 | 176,006 | 12,158 | 286 | 303 | 215,112 |
| Total Staff Costs | 1,327,800 | 1,192,595 | 134,616 | 286 | 303 | 1,291,779 |
## Average Number Of Persons Employed
The average number of whole-time equivalent persons employed during the year was as follows. These figures include those working in the Department as well as in the agencies and othe bodies included within the consolidated departmental resource accounts.
| | | | | | | Restated |
|--------------------------------------------|---------|----------------|--------|-----------|----------|------------|
| | | | | | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
| Permanently | Special | | | | | |
| Business Segment | Total | employed staff | Others | Ministers | advisers | Total |
| Crime and Policing Group | 2,510 | 2,106 | 404 | - | - | 2,087 |
| Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 753 | 661 | 92 | - | - | 930 |
| Border Force | 8,332 | 8,025 | 307 | - | - | 8,080 |
| UK Visas & Immigration | 6,787 | 5,051 | 1,736 | - | - | 6,315 |
| Immigration Enforcement | 5,351 | 4,824 | 527 | - | - | 4,811 |
| International and Immigration Policy Group | 494 | 473 | 21 | - | - | 381 |
| HM Passport Office | 3,664 | 3,474 | 190 | - | - | 3,352 |
| National Fraud Authority | - | - | - | - | - | 39 |
| Enablers | 4,906 | 4,046 | 851 | 6 | 3 | 4,555 |
| Total | 32,797 | 28,660 | 4,128 | 6 | 3 | 30,550 |
| Of which: | | | | | | |
| Core Department | 29,005 | 25,332 | 3,664 | 6 | 3 | 25,651 |
| Core Department and Agencies | 30,974 | 27,115 | 3,850 | 6 | 3 | 29,042 |
| Departmental Group | 32,797 | 28,660 | 4,128 | 6 | 3 | 30,550 |
Included within the staff numbers above are 15 members of staff who were engaged in capital projects (49 in 2013‑14).
## 3.1 Reporting Of Civil Service And Other Compensation Schemes - Exit Packages Civil Service Compensation Scheme
| | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group |
|------------------------|-------------------|------------------------------|----------------------|
| Total | Total | Total | |
| number | number | number | |
| of exit | of exit | of exit | |
| Number of | Number of | | |
| Number of | | | |
| Number | | | |
| of other | | | |
| Number | | | |
| of other | | | |
| Number | | | |
| of other | | | |
| packages | packages | packages | |
| compulsory | compulsory | | |
| compulsory | | | |
| redund | redund | redund | |
| departures | departures | departures | |
| by cost | by cost | by cost | |
| ancies | ancies | ancies | |
| agreed | agreed | agreed | |
| band | band | band | |
| Exit Package cost band | | | |
| Less than £10,000 | - (–) | 50 (–) | 50 (–) |
| £10,000 - £25,000 | - (–) | 79 (3) | 79 (3) |
| £25,000 - £50,000 | 1 (2) | 99 (6) | 100 (8) |
| £50,000 - £100,000 | 1 (1) | 71 (15) | 72 (16) |
| £100,000 - £150,000 | - (–) | 14 (4) | 14 (4) |
| £150,000 - £200,000 | - (–) | - (2) | - (2) |
| £200,000 - £250,000 | - (–) | - (–) | - (–) |
| £250,000 - £300,000 | - (–) | - (–) | - (–) |
| £300,000 - £350,000 | - (–) | - (–) | - (–) |
| Total number of exit | | | |
| packages by type | 2 (3) | 313 (30) | 315 (33) |
| 109 | 11,828 | 11,937 | 109 |
| 13,756 | | | |
| Total resource cost | | | |
| (£000) | (150) | (2,129) | (2,279) |
| (3,030) | | | |
Comparative figures for the prior year are shown in brackets. These comparative figures have been restated to take account of the Machinery of Government changes (see Note 26 for details). Redundancy and other departure costs have been paid in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, a statutory scheme made under the Superannuation Act 1972 and as amended by the Superannuation Act 2010. Exit costs are accounted for in full in the year of departure. Where the Department has agreed early retirements, the additional costs are met by the Department and not by the Civil Service pension scheme. Ill-health retirement costs are met by the pension scheme and are not included in the table.
## (A) Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme
The Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) is an unfunded multi-employer defined benefit scheme but the Home Office is unable to identify its share of the underlying assets and liabilities. The scheme actuary valued the scheme as at 31 March 2012. You can find details in the resource accounts of the Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation (www.civilservice.gov.uk/pensions). For 2014-15, employers' contributions of £172.2 million were payable to the PCSPS (£163.1 million in 2013-14 (Restated)) at one of four rates in the range 16.7% to 24.3% of pensionable pay, based on salary bands. The Scheme Actuary reviews employer contributions usually every four years following a full scheme valuation. The contribution rates are set to meet the cost of the benefits accruing during 2014-15 to be paid when the member retires and not the benefits paid during this period to existing pensioners.
## (B) Partnership And Stakeholder Schemes
Employees can opt to open a partnership pension account, a stakeholder pension with an employer contribution. Employers' contributions of £930.2k (£667.7k in 2013-14 (Restated)) were paid to one or more of the panel of three appointed stakeholder pension providers. Employer contributions are age-related and range from 3% to 12.5% of pensionable pay. Employers also match employee contributions up to 3% of pensionable pay. In addition, employer contributions of £21.4k (£12.1k in 2013-14 (Restated)), 0.8% of pensionable pay, were payable to the PCSPS to cover the cost of the future provision of lump sum benefits on death in service or ill-health retirement of these employees. Contributions due to the partnership pension providers at 31 March 2015 were £13.9 million (£13.2 million in 2013‑14 (Restated)). Contributions prepaid were £nil (£nil in 2013-14). 23 persons (23 in 2013-14 (Restated)) retired early on ill-health grounds; the total additional accrued pension liabilities in the year amounted to £51.9k (£62.1k in 2013-14 (Restated)).
## (C) By Analogy Pension Scheme
The Home Office also operates a 'Broadly by Analogy' (BBA) Pension Scheme. This scheme is analogous with the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). The BBA pensions are unfunded, with benefits being paid as they fall due. Liabilities for the scheme rest with the Home Office and provision for these liabilities is reflected in the statement of financial position. The By Analogy Pension arrangement is operated under broadly the same rules as the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). Liabilities relating to payments made before normal retirement under the terms of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme are excluded. The pension arrangements are unfunded, with benefits being paid as they fall due and guaranteed by the employer. There is no fund and, therefore, no surplus or deficit. The size of this scheme is small and there are only a few former members of the Police Complaints Authority and the former Chairman of the National Policing Improvement Agency within the Home Office who are provided pensions under this arrangement. The exact value of the scheme is therefore not disclosed here.
## 4. Other Administration Costs
Restated
2013-14
2014-15
£000
£000
Core
Core
Department &
Departmental
Department &
Departmental
Core
Core
Agencies
Group
Agencies
Group
Department
Note
Department
Rentals under operating leases
2,459
2,459
3,126
1,159
1,159
2,305
PFI and other service concession arrangements service charges
72,080
72,080
72,080
51,274
51,274
51,854
Other IT and accommodation related service charges
29,240
35,244
35,244
36,017
39,913
39,913
Non-cash items
Depreciation
8
21,519
21,519
21,672
16,543
18,968
19,086
Amortisation
9
1,329
1,329
1,762
1,458
1,992
2,608
Impairment
10
419
419
419
2,248
2,248
2,248
(Profit)/loss on disposal of property, plant and equipment
(5,113)
(5,113)
(5,130)
680
744
721
PFI Interest charges
24,183
24,183
24,183
23,675
23,675
23,673
Notional charges
–
–
–
–
–
944
Auditor's remuneration and expenses
400
505
505
495
701
701
Provision movements
16
6,907
6,907
6,907
9,096
9,153
9,138
Bad debt movement
(118)
(118)
(118)
(320)
(58)
(58)
Other
Publication stationery & printing
1,295
1,343
1,578
1,287
1,437
1,585
Facilities management and staff services
34,502
37,259
45,388
30,268
35,674
36,590
Travel, subsistence and hospitality
13,956
14,787
15,991
13,961
16,297
17,621
Professional fees
8,359
12,202
13,644
8,994
10,853
11,040
e-Borders Settlement
24
100,138
100,138
100,138
–
–
–
Auditor's remuneration and expenses
–
–
181
–
–
154
Media and IT
3,037
3,080
6,296
4,222
4,303
9,610
Early retirement costs
6,616
6,616
6,616
3,089
3,089
3,089
Other administration expenditure
5,042
5,668
7,103
368
2,716
2,302
Total
326,250
340,507
357,585
204,514
224,138
235,124
On 1 October 2014, Her Majesty's Passport Office (an Executive Agency of the Home Office) became part of the Core Home Office. No restatement of the 2013-14 figures was made for this restructuring (see Note 25 for details). The 2013-14 results have been restated to take account of Machinery of Government changes (see Note 26 for details). No remuneration has been paid to the National Audit Office for non-audit work (2013-14, £nil).
## 5. Programme Costs
| | | | | |
|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------|------------|------------|
| Department & | | | | |
| Core | | | | |
| | | Note | Department | |
| Rentals under operating leases (*) | 48,343 | 48,343 | 50,263 | 2,763 |
| PFI and other service concession arrangements | | | | |
| service charges | 240,639 | 240,639 | 245,730 | 272,762 |
| Other IT and accommodation related service | | | | |
| charges | 356,154 | 380,197 | 380,197 | 263,028 |
| Non-cash items | | | | |
| Depreciation | 8 | 102,562 | 107,619 | 111,355 |
| Amortisation | 9 | 161,198 | 166,820 | 167,700 |
| Impairment | 10 | 13,260 | 14,165 | 21,710 |
| (Profit)/loss on disposal of property, | | | | |
| plant and equipment | | | | |
| 5,516 | 5,516 | 5,459 | 497 | 890 |
| PFI Interest charges | 729 | 729 | 729 | 812 |
| Finance lease interest charge | 7,216 | 7,216 | 7,217 | 6,541 |
| Provision movements | 16 | 484,027 | 484,347 | 484,743 |
| Bad debt movement | (259) | (259) | (259) | 2,596 |
| Grants | | | | |
| | Grants - current | | | |
| Main Police Grants | | | | |
| Home Office Police Core Settlement (1) | 4,583,345 | 4,583,345 | 4,583,345 | 4,725,434 |
| Department for Communities and Local | | | | |
| Government (DCLG) Formula funding (2) | 2,923,548 | 2,923,548 | 2,923,548 | 3,067,152 |
| Legacy Council tax grants (3) | 500,466 | 500,466 | 500,466 | - |
| Other (4) | 1,076,787 | 1,076,787 | 1,080,058 | 1,015,263 |
| | Grants - capital (5) | 215,919 | 215,919 | 215,919 |
| | Grants - EU (6) | 49,931 | 49,931 | 49,931 |
| | Police Pensions top-up Grant (7) | 1,423,715 | 1,423,715 | 1,423,715 |
| Other | | | | |
| | Publication stationery and printing | 4,719 | 6,797 | 7,547 |
| | Passport printing and stationery | 54,120 | 117,244 | 117,244 |
| | Facilities management and staff services | 145,369 | 158,739 | 173,642 |
| | Travel, subsistence and hospitality | 32,331 | 33,143 | 39,203 |
| | Professional fees | 83,342 | 87,522 | 90,241 |
| | Auditor's remuneration and expenses | - | - | 88 |
| | Media and IT | 19,089 | 19,293 | 23,148 |
| | Early Retirement | 5,577 | 5,577 | 5,577 |
| Asylum costs | 234,880 | 234,880 | 234,880 | 200,209 |
| Detention costs | 136,926 | 136,926 | 136,926 | 143,549 |
| UK Visas & Immigration commercial partner | | | | |
| costs | 84,259 | 84,259 | 84,259 | 83,456 |
| Asset recovery costs | 84,949 | 84,949 | 84,949 | 80,148 |
| FCO Management Charge | 37,846 | 37,846 | 37,846 | 36,302 |
| | Other programme costs | 57,785 | 60,816 | 53,088 |
| Total | 13,174,288 | 13,297,034 | 13,340,464 | 12,213,261 |
Restated
2014-15
2013-14
£000
£000
Core
Core
Department &
Departmental
Departmental
Core
Agencies
Group
Agencies
Group
Department
Home Office grants reported above include the following: Funding for police purposes, comprising of: Home Office Police Core Settlement (1) Funding to local policing bodies under Section 46 of the Police Act 1996.
## Department For Communities And Local Government (Dclg) Formula Funding (2)
Grant funding previously paid to local policing bodies by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government under section 78A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 through the Local Government Finance Report (England). It is now paid by the Home Secretary under Section 46 of the Police Act 1996. This is as a result of the Government's decision that local policing bodies should be funded from outside the business rates retention scheme.
## Legacy Council Tax Grants (3)
This funding comprises Council Tax Freeze Grant from the 2011-12 and 2013-14 schemes, payable to local policing bodies in England who chose to freeze or lower precept in those years and the Local Council Tax Support Grant, which was paid to local policing bodies in England in 2013-14 following the localisation of council tax support schemes. It was previously paid by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government under Section 31(4) of the Local Government Act 2003. It is now paid by the Home Secretary under Section 46 of the Police Act 1996. This is a result of the Government's ambition to simplify police funding arrangments.
## Other (4)
Various other grants paid by the Home Office to local policing bodies, charities and local councils. In addition, other types of grants include:
## Capital Grants (5)
Financial support paid to third parties for the purchase or improvement of assets (including buildings, equipment and land), which are expected to be used for a period of at least one year.
European (EU) Grants (6) i)
The European Return Fund supports the efforts of EU Member States to improve the management of return in all its dimensions through the use of the
concept of integrated management.
ii)
The European Integration Fund supports the efforts of EU Member States in enabling third-country nationals of different economic, social, cultural,
religious, linguistic and ethnic backgrounds to fulfil the conditions of residence and to facilitate their integration into European Societies.
iii)
The European Refugee Fund supports and encourages efforts made by the EU Member States in receiving, and in bearing the consequences of receiving
refugees and displaced persons, taking account of Community legislation on those matters, by co-financing the actions provided for in the corresponding decision.
## Police Pensions Top-Up Grant (7)
The amount reported as the Police Pensions top-up grant is equal to the difference between outgoing pension expenditure and incoming pension contributions in a single year. An accrual is recognised in the Department's financial statements for the estimated amount of grant relating to the year, which has not been paid by year-end.
##
On 1 October 2014, Her Majesty's Passport Office (an Executive Agency of the Home Office) became part of the Core Home Office (see Note 25 for details). No restatement of the 2013-14 figures was made for this internal restructure. The 2013-14 results have been restated to take account of Machinery of Government changes (see Note 26 for details). No remuneration has been paid to the National Audit Office for non-audit work (2013-14, £nil). (*) A review of operating leases carried out during the year identified new information relating to existing operating leases and the numbers have been adjusted as such. The 2013-14 amounts have not been restated.
## 6.1 Income
Restated
2014-15
2013-14
£000
£000
Core
Core
Core
Department
Departmental
Core
Department
Departmental
Department
& Agencies
Group
Department
& Agencies
Group
Retained Income
Passport fees
175,437
395,424
395,424
–
357,734
357,734
Visa and Immigration income
1,014,768
1,014,768
1,014,768
1,052,613
1,052,613
1,052,613
Asset recovery income
169,632
169,632
169,632
162,973
162,973
162,973
Hendon data centre income
74,174
74,174
74,174
79,277
79,277
79,277
Airwave
20,426
20,426
20,426
16,466
16,466
16,466
Certificate Services
7,023
14,134
14,134
–
14,182
14,182
Other administration income
37,139
38,601
42,772
39,294
39,296
28,982
Other programme income
94,012
100,597
143,149
34,396
43,052
90,258
EU income
49,931
49,931
49,931
32,131
32,131
32,131
Total Retained Income
1,642,542
1,877,687
1,924,410
1,417,150
1,797,724
1,834,616
Payable to Consolidated Fund
Passport fees
38,221
83,395
83,395
–
70,946
70,946
Excess visa and immigration income
–
–
–
41,699
41,699
41,699
Other excess receipts
–
–
–
200
200
200
Other administration income
48
48
48
355
355
371
Other programme income
2,957
2,957
2,957
11,010
11,068
11,903
Total payable to Consolidated Fund
41,226
86,400
86,400
53,264
124,268
125,119
Total
1,683,768
1,964,087
2,010,810
1,470,414
1,921,992
1,959,735
Of which
Administration income
58,664
80,606
84,774
41,469
80,528
70,230
Programme income
1,625,104
1,883,481
1,926,036
1,428,945
1,841,464
1,889,505
1,683,768
1,964,087
2,010,810
1,470,414
1,921,992
1,959,735
A regional analysis of overseas income generated by UK Visas and Immigration is given below:
| 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|
|------------|------------|------------|
| £000 | | |
| | | |
| £000 | | |
| | | |
| Core | Core | |
| Core | Department | |
| | Department | & Agencies |
| Africa | 71,251 | 71,251 |
| Americas | 43,975 | 43,975 |
| Euro-Med | 70,023 | 70,023 |
| Pacific | 125,123 | 125,123 |
| South Asia | 112,212 | 112,212 |
| The Gulf | 101,039 | 101,039 |
| 523,623 | 523,623 | 523,623 |
Home Office income includes:
–
–
income for Her Majesty's Passport Office from their continuing activities, representing the sale value of all services provided during the year;
–
–
income receivable for fees charged in respect of applications for visas and immigration documents.
Some income streams are charged below the cost of delivery where the Department has to maintain its international competitiveness. To compensate for this, some fees are set above the cost of delivery. In particular, the income for certain in-country applications is set at a level that allows for a contribution towards immigration related activities, in addition to covering the cost of processing applications. The overall aim is to ensure that income contributes to the end-to-end costs of the immigration system. Operating income includes both retained income and income due to the Consolidated Fund, which HM Treasury has agreed should be treated as operating income. The Department receives European Union (EU) funding for a number of internal and external projects. This funding is used to provide assistance in the resettlement and integration of refugees and third country nationals, and the return of foreign nationals to their home country.
## 6.2 Analysis Of Income From Services Provided To External And Public Sector Customers
| | | | 2014-15 |
|--------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|
| Fee | Fee | | |
| Surplus / | recovery | recovery | |
| Income | Full Cost | (deficit) | actual |
| Segment | | | |
| | Note | £000 | £000 |
| Crime and Policing Group | Animal Licences (scientific procedures) | 1 | 4,244 |
| Crime and Policing Group | College of Policing - People Development | 2 | 12,391 |
| Crime and Policing Group | SIA - Licensing Income | 3 | 28,023 |
| Crime and Policing Group | SIA - ACS Income | 3 | 2,195 |
| Crime and Policing Group | Drugs Licensing | 4 | 1,449 |
| Crime and Policing Group | GLA - Licensing Income | 5 | 835 |
| Border Force | Border Force | 6 | 4,692 |
| UK Visas & Immigration | International Group - Visas | 7 | 585,500 |
| UK Visas & Immigration | Immigration Group - In country | 8 | 429,300 |
| UK Visas & Immigration | OISC - Registration Fees | 9 | 1,063 |
| HM Passport Office | Passports | 10 | 478,819 |
| HM Passport Office | Certificate Services | 11 | 14,482 |
| Enablers | Information Services | 12 | 97,318 |
| Enablers | Centre for Applied Science and Technology | 13 | 2,227 |
| | | | 1,662,538 |
This analysis of income satisfies the Fees and Charges requirements of HM Treasury rather than IFRS 8 Operating Segments. Categories of income and costs below £1 million have been excluded from this analysis.
## Notes:
1)
Animal Licences relate to income generated from the licences required by organisations for the use of living
animals in scientific procedures, which falls under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) in England, Scotland and Wales.
2)
People Development includes exams and assessments, learning and development services and leadership
development services.
3)
The SIA Licensing Income is the application fee for an individual SIA Licence. Individuals working in specific
sectors of the private security industry are required by law to hold an SIA Licence.
The SIA Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) income is the registration and application fees for companies
joining the voluntary scheme for providers of security services. Companies who satisfactorily meet the agreed standards may be registered as approved and advertise themselves as such.
4)
Drugs Licensing relate to income generated from the licences required by organisations who handle
controlled drugs and precursor chemicals; doctors prescribing certain drugs for the treatment of addiction, and individuals requiring personal import or export licences to travel with prescribed medication containing controlled drugs.
5)
The GLA Licenses are issued to businesses that provide workers to the fresh produce supply chain and
horticulture industry, to make sure they meet the employment standards required by law. Fees are a combination of an initial application fee charged for new licence applicants and an annual inspection fee.
6)
Border Force charges Airline Carriers for the costs of detaining passengers arriving in the UK without the
required UK entry documentation and also for charges for the cost of providing fast track services . The cost recovery target is 100%.
7)
UKVI International Group is responsible for issuing Visas. The Group's cost recovery target is 148%.
8)
UKVI Immigration Group deals with UK based applications for permanent settlement and Nationality
applications. The Group's cost recovery target is 239%, with the additional income from fees contributing to the overhead costs within the Department.
9)
OISC charge is immigration advisers the registration fees on application to join or remain within the OISC
scheme.
10) Passport activities include all services relating to the issuing of passports where the financial objective
of this activity is to break even in year. A fee is charged for all passports except for those issued to war veterans, that is, those born on or before 2 September 1929.
11) Includes all services relating to the issuing of certificates for birth, death and marriage. In addition central HO
funding is provided for support functions to maintain the registers of all vital events. The financial objective is to break even after central HO funding for non fee bearing activities.
12) Information Services includes the Airwave radio service, fingerprint identification, the Police National
Computer (Hendon Data Centre), police science and forensics as well as project support and IT systems.
13) CAST generates income from OGDs and overseas bodies - notably the Centre for the Protection of National
Infrastructure, the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Justice. This income comes in two main forms: cost sharing to deliver projects and services of mutual benefit to CAST and its partner organisations; and contracted services where CAST carries out work on behalf of another organisation.
Restated
2013-14
Fee
Fee
recovery
recovery
Surplus /
target
actual
Income
Full Cost
(deficit)
Segment
Note
£000
£000
£000
%
%
Crime and Policing Group
Animal Licences (scientific procedures)
1
3,978
4,866
(888)
82
100
Crime and Policing Group
College of Policing - People Development
2
15,912
41,571
(25,659)
38
100
Crime and Policing Group
SIA - Licensing Income
3
23,515
23,838
(323)
99
100
Crime and Policing Group
SIA - ACS Income
3
2,116
2,080
36
102
100
Crime and Policing Group
Drugs Licensing
4
1,147
899
248
128
100
Border Force
Border Force
6
3,893
3,962
(69)
98
100
UK Visas & Immigration
International Group - Visas
7
528,245
449,195
79,050
118
100
UK Visas & Immigration
Immigration Group - In country
8
524,300
208,428
315,872
252
189
UK Visas & Immigration
OISC - Registration Fees
9
1,090
4,041
(2,951)
27
100
HM Passport Office
Passports
10
435,982
371,277
64,705
117
100
HM Passport Office
Certificate Services
11
15,532
22,756
(7,224)
68
100
Enablers
Information Services
12
104,388
519,733
(415,345)
20
100
Enablers
Centre for Applied Science and Technology
13
1,100
1,099
1
100
100
1,661,198
1,653,745
7,453
## 7. Assets Held For Sale
| | | 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|------------------------|------------|------------|-----------|
| Core | Depart- | Core | Depart- |
| Core | Department | | mental |
| | Department | & Agencies | Group |
| | £000 | £000 | £000 |
| Land | 5,974 | 5,974 | 5,974 |
| 3,120 | 3,120 | 3,120 | |
| Buildings | 1,011 | 1,011 | 1,011 |
| 18,700 | 18,700 | 18,700 | |
| Plant and equipment | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| 563 | 563 | 563 | |
| Furniture and fittings | - | - | - |
| 578 | 578 | 578 | |
| 6,991 | 6,991 | 6,991 | |
| | 22,961 | 22,961 | 22,961 |
Assets are continually reviewed to ensure they support the service delivery objectives of the Department. The assets identified as held for sale are surplus to departmental requirements in meeting these objectives. The sale of these assets is actively pursued by the Department with an expectation that the assets will be sold within
12 months of the date of classification. The assets are not depreciated during this time. At 31 March 2015, two properties were held for sale having been identified as surplus to departmental requirements. These properties were expected to be sold in 2015-16.
## 8. Property, Plant And Equipment
2014-15
Departmental
Group
Payments on
Furniture
Account &
Transport
Plant &
&
Assets under
Land
Buildings
Equipment
Information
Technology
Machinery
Fittings
Construction
Total
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
Cost or valuation
At 1 April 2014
46,465
851,627
54,484
371,596
491,838
59,802
125,315
2,001,127
Additions
1
4,546
2,032
4,389
3,564
3,882
58,652
77,066
Disposals
(670)
(10,857)
(1,658)
(71,909)
(885)
(3,294)
(122)
(89,395)
Impairment
–
(9,571)
(85)
(416)
(699)
(411)
(8,384)
(19,566)
External transfers
–
–
(432)
–
–
–
–
(432)
Transfers to assets held for sale
(4,500)
–
–
–
–
–
–
(4,500)
Reclassifications
402
23,576
1,975
19,056
11,367
3,457
(87,232)
(27,399)
Revaluations
1,463
94,458
315
1,659
8,576
16
1,129
107,616
At 31 March 2015
43,161
953,779
56,631
324,375
513,761
63,452
89,358
2,044,517
Depreciation
At 1 April 2014
–
(271,571)
(36,493)
(249,087)
(277,441)
(45,116)
–
(879,708)
Charged in year
–
(29,274)
(5,403)
(47,741)
(43,792)
(6,817)
–
(133,027)
Disposals
–
10,758
1,552
68,351
878
2,993
–
84,532
Impairment
–
(638)
28
35
–
–
–
(575)
External transfers
–
–
403
–
–
–
–
403
Transfers to assets held for sale
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Reclassifications
–
(661)
562
587
361
731
–
1,580
Revaluations
–
(25,343)
171
(1,041)
(4,275)
(2)
–
(30,490)
At 31 March 2015
–
(316,729)
(39,180)
(228,896)
(324,269)
(48,211)
–
(957,285)
Carrying amount at 31 March 2015
43,161
637,050
17,451
95,479
189,492
15,241
89,358
1,087,232
Carrying amount at 1 April 2014
46,465
580,056
17,991
122,509
214,397
14,686
125,315
1,121,419
Asset financing:
Owned
43,161
339,590
17,451
71,169
176,277
13,562
86,493
747,703
Finance leased
–
32,638
–
–
–
–
–
32,638
On balance sheet PFI/other concession arrangements
–
264,822
–
24,310
13,215
1,679
2,865
306,891
Carrying amount at 31 March 2015
43,161
637,050
17,451
95,479
189,492
15,241
89,358
1,087,232
Analysis of property, plant and equipment at 31 March 2015 Of the total:
Core Department
42,288
621,512
16,996
89,683
189,319
9,948
88,180
1,057,926
Agencies
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Non-Departmental Public Bodies
873
15,538
455
5,796
173
5,293
1,178
29,306
Carrying amount at 31 March 2015
43,161
637,050
17,451
95,479
189,492
15,241
89,358
1,087,232
Restated
2013-14
Departmental
Group
Payments on
Furniture
Account &
Transport
Plant &
&
Assets under
Land
Buildings
Equipment
Information
Technology
Machinery
Fittings
Construction
Total
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
Cost or valuation
At 1 April 2013
46,105
946,899
47,901
358,185
482,125
59,204
177,030
2,117,449
Additions
1,235
10,365
6,986
4,773
4,752
4,223
93,782
126,116
Disposals
–
(16,794)
(2,046)
(27,000)
(7,062)
(3,341)
(1,085)
(57,328)
Impairment
–
(14,721)
–
(955)
–
–
(10,505)
(26,181)
External transfers
(1)
–
(725)
(2)
1,839
–
(8,577)
(7,466)
Transfers to assets held for sale
(3,120)
(33,045)
–
(11)
(1,887)
(664)
–
(38,727)
Reclassifications
–
15,136
1,694
39,026
2,342
175
(125,331)
(66,958)
Revaluations
2,246
(56,213)
674
(2,420)
9,729
205
1
(45,778)
At 31 March 2014
46,465
851,627
54,484
371,596
491,838
59,802
125,315
2,001,127
Depreciation
At 1 April 2013
–
(397,153)
(32,814)
(226,423)
(233,961)
(41,637)
–
(931,988)
Charged in year
–
(24,351)
(4,783)
(45,025)
(42,996)
(6,327)
–
(123,482)
Disposals
–
15,781
1,722
25,657
5,436
2,889
–
51,485
Impairment
–
14,168
–
634
–
–
–
14,802
External transfers
–
(1,425)
327
(2,772)
(1,050)
(3)
–
(4,923)
Transfers to assets held for sale
–
14,345
–
11
1,324
86
–
15,766
Reclassifications
–
3
(945)
(2,768)
(1,254)
1
–
(4,963)
Revaluations
–
107,061
–
1,599
(4,940)
(125)
–
103,595
At 31 March 2014
–
(271,571)
(36,493)
(249,087)
(277,441)
(45,116)
–
(879,708)
Carrying amount at 31 March 2014
46,465
580,056
17,991
122,509
214,397
14,686
125,315
1,121,419
Carrying amount at 1 April 2013
46,105
549,746
15,087
131,762
248,164
17,567
177,030
1,185,461
Asset financing:
Owned
46,465
296,968
17,991
90,095
203,375
11,153
125,315
791,362
Finance leased
–
42,425
–
–
–
–
–
42,425
On balance sheet PFI/other concession arrangements
–
240,663
–
32,414
11,022
3,533
–
287,632
Carrying amount at 31 March 2014
46,465
580,056
17,991
122,509
214,397
14,686
125,315
1,121,419
Analysis of property, plant and equipment at 31 March 2014
Of the total: Core Department
44,306
541,777
17,422
89,973
208,521
9,048
111,657
1,022,704
Agencies
1,361
20,442
-
29,615
5,020
1,430
8,853
66,721
Non-Departmental Public Bodies
798
17,837
569
2,921
856
4,208
4,805
31,994
Carrying amount at 31 March 2014
46,465
580,056
17,991
122,509
214,397
14,686
125,315
1,121,419
Buildings comprise freehold, long leasehold (leases with 50+ years to run from the period ending 31 March 2015) and short leasehold buildings. Other property, plant and equipment were revalued on the basis of the latest available indices. Assets under construction comprise capital additions for projects that have not yet gone live. Once assets are ready for use they are reclassified to the appropriate asset category and are subject to depreciation. The present value of the minimum lease payments is used to value finance leases.
## 9. Intangible Assets
2014-15
Departmental
Group
Payments on
Account &
Assets under
Construction
Total
Software
Licenses
Websites
Information
Technology
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
Cost or valuation
At 1 April 2014
793,924
88,982
897
54,288
938,091
Additions
18,529
1,824
4
97,355
117,712
Disposals
(53,725)
(7,454)
–
(267)
(61,446)
Impairments
(3,201)
(61)
–
–
(3,262)
Reclassifications
70,762
7,196
(1)
(52,491)
25,466
Transfers
5
203
(379)
(64)
(235)
Revaluations
3,368
110
4
–
3,482
At 31 March 2015
829,662
90,800
525
98,821
1,019,808
Amortisation
At 1 April 2014
(400,426)
(38,094)
(487)
–
(439,007)
Charged in year
(157,916)
(11,501)
(45)
–
(169,462)
Disposals
53,094
7,440
–
–
60,534
Impairments
1,212
61
–
–
1,273
Reclassifications
786
(264)
(169)
–
353
Transfers
(2)
(2)
302
–
298
Revaluations
(1,769)
(155)
(3)
–
(1,927)
At 31 March 2015
(505,021)
(42,515)
(402)
–
(547,938)
Carrying amount at 31 March 2015
324,641
48,285
123
98,821
471,870
Carrying amount at 1 April 2014
393,498
50,888
410
54,288
499,084
Asset financing:
Owned
280,947
43,822
123
98,821
423,713
Finance leased
–
–
–
–
–
On balance sheet PFI/other concession arrangements
43,694
4,463
–
–
48,157
Carrying amount at 31 March 2015
324,641
48,285
123
98,821
471,870
Analysis of intangible assets at 31 March 2015
Of the total:
Core Department
324,523
40,794
123
93,139
458,579
Agencies
–
–
–
–
–
Non-Departmental Public Bodies
118
7,491
–
5,682
13,291
Carrying amount at 31 March 2015
324,641
48,285
123
98,821
471,870
Restated
2013-14
Departmental
Group
Payments on
Account &
Assets under
Construction
Total
Software
Licenses
Websites
Information
Technology
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
Cost or valuation
At 1 April 2013
674,920
80,127
3,804
65,238
824,089
Additions
77,202
3,752
–
(18,152)
62,802
Disposals
(16,999)
(9,535)
–
(1,285)
(27,819)
Impairments
(1,709)
(252)
–
(293)
(2,254)
Reclassifications
63,720
15,036
(2,902)
75
75,929
Transfers
121
104
–
8,705
8,930
Revaluations
(3,331)
(250)
(5)
–
(3,586)
At 31 March 2014
793,924
88,982
897
54,288
938,091
Amortisation
At 1 April 2013
(268,248)
(36,620)
(329)
–
(305,197)
Charged in year
(144,558)
(10,201)
(164)
–
(154,923)
Disposals
13,889
9,231
–
–
23,120
Impairments
208
29
–
–
237
Reclassifications
(3,208)
(803)
2
–
(4,009)
Transfers
(60)
111
–
–
51
Revaluations
1,551
159
4
–
1,714
At 31 March 2014
(400,426)
(38,094)
(487)
–
(439,007)
Carrying amount at 31 March 2014
393,498
50,888
410
54,288
499,084
Carrying amount at 1 April 2013
406,672
43,507
3,475
65,238
518,892
Asset financing:
Owned
336,290
45,886
410
54,288
436,874
Finance leased
–
–
–
–
–
On balance sheet PFI/other concession arrangements
57,208
5,002
–
–
62,210
Carrying amount at 31 March 2014
393,498
50,888
410
54,288
499,084
Analysis of intangible assets at 31 March 2014
Of the total:
Core Department
323,091
27,887
333
50,043
401,354
Agencies
67,473
15,514
77
3,120
86,184
Non-Departmental Public Bodies
2,934
7,487
–
1,125
11,546
Carrying amount at 31 March 2014
393,498
50,888
410
54,288
499,084
## 10. Impairments
The Home Office has incurred the following impairments to non current assets during the financial year:
Restated
2014-15
2013-14
Note
£000
£000
Charged to the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure
4,5
22,129
13,359
Charged to the Revaluation Reserve
(3)
37
22,126
13,396
An analysis of these impairments by asset class are as follows:
Restated
2014-15
2013-14
£000
£000
Property, Plant and Equipment - Buildings
8
10,208
553
Property, Plant and Equipment - Vehicles
8
57
–
Property, Plant and Equipment - IT
8
378
321
Property, Plant and Equipment - Plant and Machinery
8
699
–
Property, Plant and Equipment - Furniture and Fittings
8
411
–
Property, Plant and Equipment - Assets under construction
8
8,384
10,505
Intangible assets - IT
9
1,989
1,501
Intangible assets - Software
9
–
223
Intangible assets - Assets under Construction
9
–
293
22,126
13,396
Impairment of £7.5 million relate to assets transferred over to the College of Policing from the National Policing Improvement Agency, which were subsequently impaired. An additional £6 million relates to the downward revaluation of a Home Office property.
## 11. Capital And Other Commitments 11.1. Capital Commitments
| 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|----------------------------------------|-------------|
| Core | |
| Core | |
| Departmental | |
| Department | |
| Core | |
| Departmental | |
| Department | |
| Core | |
| Group | |
| & Agencies | |
| Department | |
| Group | |
| & Agencies | |
| Department | |
| £000 | |
| £000 | |
| £000 | |
| £000 | |
| £000 | |
| £000 | |
| Contracted capital commitments of over | |
| £100,000 as at 31 March not otherwise | |
| included in these financial statements | |
| Property, Plant & Equipment | 20,451 |
| Intangible assets | 7,982 |
| 28,433 | 28,433 |
The Home Office is undertaking a project to provide the replacement hardware for the Police National Computer (PNC) mainframes and assistance to design and move to a new architecture. There is currently a capital commitment with Fujitsu Services Limited amounting £12.5 million over 3 years. The SIA is building a brand new IT system to replace the existing licensing system. There are currenly capital commitments of £6.8 million in relation to the delivery of this intangible asset.
## 11.2. Commitments Under Leases 11.2.1 Operating Leases
Total future minimum lease payments under operating leases are given in the table below for each of the following periods. Obligations under operating leases for the following periods comprise:
Restated
2014-15
2013-14
Core
Core
Departmental
Department
Core
Departmental
Department
Core
Group
& Agencies
Department
Group
& Agencies
Department
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
Land Not later than one year
882
882
1,139
1,214
1,214
1,232
Later than one year and not later than five years
3,527
3,527
4,902
4,857
4,857
4,857
Later than five years
92,978
92,978
93,749
96,798
96,798
96,798
97,387
97,387
99,790
102,869
102,869
102,887
Buildings Not later than one year
43,319
43,319
48,891
34,276
46,574
49,894
Later than one year and not later than five years
136,820
136,820
146,074
114,533
146,561
155,469
Later than five years
211,987
211,987
211,987
224,841
240,955
241,551
392,126
392,126
406,952
373,650
434,090
446,914
Other Not later than one year
324
324
421
595
595
687
Later than one year and not later than five years
279
279
518
779
779
972
Later than five years
–
–
–
–
–
–
603
603
939
1,374
1,374
1,659
Total Commitment
490,116
490,116
507,681
477,893
538,333
551,460
A review of the operating leases carried out during the year identified new information relating to operating leases. The prior year figures have been restated accordingly. The 2013-14 figures have also been restated to take the account of the Machinery of Government changes (see Note 26 for details).
## 11.2.2 Finance Leases
Total future minimum lease payments under finance leases are given in the table below for each of the following periods. Obligations under finance leases for the following periods comprise:
| 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|----------------------------------------|-----------|
| Core | |
| Core | |
| Departmental | |
| Department | |
| Core | |
| Departmental | |
| Department | |
| Core | |
| Group | |
| & Agencies | |
| Department | |
| Group | |
| & Agencies | |
| Department | |
| £000 | |
| £000 | |
| £000 | |
| £000 | |
| £000 | |
| £000 | |
| Buildings | |
| Not later than one year | 9,487 |
| Later than one year and not later than | |
| five years | |
| 39,160 | 39,160 |
| Later than five years | 97,707 |
| 146,354 | 146,354 |
| Less interest element | 73,768 |
| Present value of obligations | 72,586 |
| Total Commitment | 72,586 |
Present value of obligations under finance leases for the following periods comprise:
| 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|----------------------------------------|------------|
| Core | Core |
| Core | Department |
| Department | & Agencies |
| & Agencies | Group |
| £000 | |
| £000 | £000 |
| £000 | £000 |
| Buildings | |
| Not later than one year | 9,487 |
| Later than one year and not later than | |
| five years | |
| 30,551 | 30,551 |
| Later than five years | 32,548 |
| Total present value of obligations | 72,586 |
## 11.3. Commitments Under Pfi And Other Service Concession Arrangements 11.3.1 "Off Balance Sheet" (Sofp) Airwave
In 2000, the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), which later became part of the NPIA and is now part of the National Crime Agency, entered into a 19 year Public Finance Initiative (PFI) arrangement to design, build and operate a digital radio system providing national secure voice and data coverage for UK Policing (Airwave). Responsibility for this has now transferred to the Home Office. The cost consists of a core service charge and a menu service charge. The core service charge was estimated to cost £1.2 billion over the entire 19 year life of the initiative with payments being made on a monthly basis. The menu service charge was estimated to cost £290 million over the 19 year life of the initiative and is paid by the Police Forces. The menu service charge has therefore been excluded from the "off balance sheet" table. This is determined to be an "off balance sheet" deal under IFRIC12 Service Concession Arrangements as the Department does not control access to the service or use all but an insignificant amount of the output. Airwave is increasingly being used by the Fire and Ambulance Services as well as other public sector organisations. The two former HM Passport Office PFIs, Computer Sciences Corporation and De La Rue, have been reclassified in 2014-15 as "on balance sheet" PFIs. Their total obligations have therefore been excluded from the "off balance sheet" table.
Restated
2014-15
2013-14
Core
Core
Core
Department
Departmental
Core
Department
Departmental
Department
& Agencies
Group
Department
& Agencies
Group
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
Total obligations under "off balance sheet" PFI and other service concession agreements for the following periods comprises: Not later than one year
206,292
206,292
206,292
184,936
184,936
184,936
Later than one year and not later than five years
785,321
785,321
785,321
714,318
714,318
714,318
Later than five years
31,445
31,445
31,445
201,024
201,024
201,024
1,023,058
1,023,058
1,023,058
1,100,278
1,100,278
1,100,278
## 11.3.2 "On Balance Sheet" (Sofp) Home Office It Systems
In October 2009, the Home Office signed extensions to its IT contracts with Fujitsu and ATOS Origin to January 2016. The services provided under these contracts remained unchanged (i.e. to provide the IT infrastructure and support for the Home Office). There was an overlap between the services provided by both these suppliers, but renegotiations at Home Office level have ensured that both ATOS and Fujitsu are now delivering a common IT infrastructure, development and support service which is used by the Home Office. Under IFRIC 12, this arrangement is deemed as an "on balance sheet" (SOFP) service concession, the assets being treated as the assets of the Home Office.
## Computer Sciences Corporation
Under the terms of the 10 year contract signed in 2009, Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) work with HM Passport Office in supporting and upgrading the IT systems. This includes the recent upgrade of the passport application and enrolment system, which incorporates new capabilities to process applications for passports, enabling customers to apply online; and the upgrade of the existing Omnibase application, which is a secure database used across government that stores historic passport records. The total cost of this contract is £416.92 million, of which £103.57 million relates to capital.
## De La Rue
Under the Passport Design and Production (PDP) contract, HM Passport Office has outsourced an element of its passport printing to De La Rue (DLR). Under the terms of the contract, which was signed in 2009, DLR builds infrastructure on behalf of HM Passport Office and uses this infrastructure in the production of passports. DLR is also responsible for ongoing support and maintenance of the infrastructure. The commitment with DLR includes assets which are not exclusively used in the service delivery to the Home Office. These assets have been included in the "on balance sheet" commitment as the proportion of the net book values of the non-exclusive assets is not material. The total cost of this contract is £403.54 million, of which £38.96 million relates to capital.
## Home Office Central London Accommodation
On 26 March 2002, a 29 year public private partnership contract was signed for the construction and maintenance of a new central London headquarters building at 2 Marsham Street. The new building houses the majority of staff in the Home Office based in Central London. Under IFRIC 12, 2 Marsham Street is recorded as an "on balance sheet" (SOFP) asset of the Home Office. The operational and variable payment streams to the contractor for building services are charged to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. The contract contains an option for the Home Office to purchase the building.
## Airwave
The "on balance sheet" (SOFP) portion of the Airwave commitment represents assets for the London Underground and the resilience network which have been paid for. Airwave Solutions Ltd will transfer some assets deemed transferable to the Home Office at the end of its contract period upon receipt of payment for the assets at fair market value. The "on balance sheet" value represents the current assessment of these assets' fair value and they are treated as if they were a finance lease.
## Ibm
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has a contract with IBM for the provision of IT services and infrastructure assets, which is being used by the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA). This contract was reframed on 1 February 2010. The contract involves the IT contractor (IBM) supplying an end-toend outsourced IT service to Defra and its Network Bodies, including the provision of the physical IT equipment. During the life of the contract, Defra has the right to use assets owned by IBM and IBM are obliged to provide a consistent level of performance as set out in the contract. This includes underlying IT product developments commissioned by the Department. The assets are treated as assets of the GLA and the substance of the contract is a finance lease, comprising two elements - imputed finance charges and service charges.
## Independent Police Complaints Commission (Ipcc) It And Telephony Service
On 25 August 2009, a 10 year fixed price contract was signed for the provision of IT and Telephony services to the IPCC from Steria Limited. The contract was effective from 20 December 2009, with a break point at seven years. The assets acquired under the contract are under the control of the IPCC. Under IFRIC 12 the contract is a service concession arrangement with the IPCC as the grantor and Steria Limited as the operator.
Restated
2014-15
2013-14
Core
Core
Departmental
Department
Core
Departmental
Department
Core
Group
& Agencies
Department
Group
& Agencies
Department
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
Total obligations under "on balance sheet" PFI and other service concession agreements for the following periods comprises: Not later than one year
188,967
188,967
190,060
120,343
200,034
200,793
Later than one year and not later than five years
418,452
418,452
419,497
239,929
495,893
497,373
Later than five years
589,315
589,315
589,315
604,997
616,947
617,014
1,196,734
1,196,734
1,198,872
965,269
1,312,874
1,315,180
Less interest element
355,807
355,807
355,885
352,276
352,276
352,378
Present Value of Obligations
840,927
840,927
842,987
612,993
960,598
962,802
Restated
2014-15
2013-14
Core
Core
Core
Department
Departmental
Core
Department
Departmental
Department
& Agencies
Group
Department
& Agencies
Group
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
Present value of obligations under "on balance sheet" PFI and other service concession agreements for the following periods comprises: Not later than one year
188,967
188,967
190,017
120,343
200,034
200,744
Later than one year and not later than five years
384,304
384,304
385,314
210,396
466,360
467,854
Later than five years
267,656
267,656
267,656
282,254
294,204
294,204
Total Present Value of Obligations
840,927
840,927
842,987
612,993
960,598
962,802
## 11.3.3 Charge To The Statement Of Comprehensive Net Expenditure And Future Commitments
The total amount charged in the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure in respect of "off balance sheet" (SoFP) PFI and other service concession arrangement transactions and the service element of "on balance sheet" (SoFP) PFI and other service concession arrangement transactions was £317,810k (2013-14 £358,221k (Restated)) and the payments to which the Department is committed is as follows:
Restated
2014-15
2013-14
Core
Core
Departmental
Department
Core
Departmental
Department
Core
Group
& Agencies
Department
Group
& Agencies
Department
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
Not later than one year
290,894
290,894
294,467
197,800
267,251
270,957
Later than one year and not later than five years
1,073,100
1,073,100
1,084,149
769,072
1,025,036
1,037,952
Later than five years
227,883
227,883
227,883
401,866
413,816
415,740
1,591,877
1,591,877
1,606,499
1,368,738
1,706,103
1,724,649
## 11.4 Other Financial Commitments The Home Office Has Entered Into Non-Cancellable Contracts (Which Are Not Leases Or Pfi Contracts):
The Home Office has entered into a number of contracts with various providers to manage and maintain several immigration removal centres and short term holding facilities. The total value of these contracts is £234.9 million. The most significant of these commitments is an eight-year contract with MITIE Care and Custody Ltd to manage and maintain the Colnbrook and Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centres near Heathrow. This contract commenced on 1 September 2014 with an option to extend a further three years. The current commitment for the contract is £172.6 million. The Home Office launched the COMPASS project in July 2009 to procure new accommodation and transport services contracts for asylum applicants. In 2012, the Home Office entered into six 5 year contracts with Clearel, G4S and Serco for the provision of accommodation, transport and associated services. The remaining commitments to the three providers are: Clearel £80.1 million, G4S £102.9 million and Serco £117 million.
In October 2014 the Home Office entered into a 7 year contract with Shared Services Connected Limited (SSCL) to provide the transactional processing services alongside the hosting of a cross government Enterprise Resource Planning system. The first year of the contract is at a fixed price, after which it will move to a volumetric pricing structure. At the end of the 7 years the Home Office has an option to extend the contract for a further 3 years. The estimated remaining value of the 7 year commitment is £60.7 million. The Department entered into two 5 year contracts with VF Worldwide Holdings and Teleperformance Limited for the management of Visa applications globally. The contracts commenced on 1 April 2014, with an option to extend twice for a further two years each time. The fixed element of the commitment to the two suppliers are: VF Worldwide Holdings £52.9 million and Teleperformance Limited £38.3 million. The Home Office entered into a contract with Serco on 4 October 2005 for the provision of technical support for the Fixed Radiation Detection Systems and Radionuclide Identification Systems. The remaining commitment is £18.4 million and the contract will complete on 31 March 2017. The Home Office is undertaking a project to provide the replacement hardware for the Police National Computer (PNC) mainframes and assistance to design and move to a new architecture. The current commitment with Fujitsu Services Limited (excluding capital projects) is £25.8 million.
The Home Office has entered into non-cancellable contracts for the provision of contracted out services for telephone appointment booking services and passport back room services. The remaining commitment is
£17 million. The Home Office entered into a contract with Sodexo for cash subsistence payments to asylum seekers, which started on 28 May 2013 and ends 27 May 2016. The remaining commitment is £3.1 million, which is made up of £2.64 million fixed management fee and variable charges estimated to be £0.4 million for the remainder of the contract. The Department also has contracts with Tascor for provision of escorting services and Wagtail UK Ltd for provision of search dog teams at ports. These contracts are valued at £16.8 million and £11 million respectively. The Home Office has a contract with IBM for the Border Systems Programme (BSP) which is responsible for IT systems at the UK borders. This contract has £7.9 million remaining and runs from 8 June 2012 to 30 April 2016. The Home Office has a remaining commitment of £6.1 million for Airwave Licences. The payments to which the Department is committed, analysed by the period during which the commitment expires are as follows:
| 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|----------------------------------------|-----------|
| Core | |
| Core | |
| Department | |
| Department | |
| Core | |
| & Agencies | Group |
| & Agencies | Group |
| Department | |
| £000 | £000 |
| £000 | £000 |
| £000 | |
| Not later than one year | 301,827 |
| Later than one year and not later than | |
| five years | |
| 476,571 | 476,571 |
| Later than five years | 71,201 |
| Total | 849,599 |
## 12. Financial Instruments
As the cash requirements of the Department are met through the Estimates process, financial instruments play a more limited role in creating and managing risk than would apply to a non-public sector body of a similar size. The Department has very limited powers to borrow, invest surpluses, or purchase foreign currency. Financial assets and liabilities are generated by day-to-day operational activities and are not held to change the risk facing the Department in undertaking its activities. The majority of financial instruments relate to contracts for goods and services in line with the Department's expected purchase and usage requirements and the Department is, therefore, exposed to little credit, liquidity or market risk.
## 13. Cash And Cash Equivalents
Restated
2013-14
2014-15
Core
Core
Department
Departmental
Department
Departmental
Core
Core
& Agencies
Group
& Agencies
Group
Department
Department
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
Balance at 1 April
206,173
206,173
225,317
32,962
46,183
70,949
Balance transferred on 1 April 2013 from UKBA
–
–
–
13,219
–
–
Net change in cash and cash equivalent balances
(65,202)
(65,202)
(59,540)
159,992
159,990
154,368
Balance at 31 March
140,971
140,971
165,777
206,173
206,173
225,317
The following balances at 31 March were held at:
Government Banking Service (GBS)
140,931
140,931
147,923
206,132
206,132
210,736
Commercial banks and cash in hand
40
40
17,854
41
41
14,581
Balance at 31 March
140,971
140,971
165,777
206,173
206,173
225,317
The high year-end Core Department balances at the end of 2013-14 and 2014-15 largely reflect significant late receipts from another Government Department.
## 14. Trade Receivables, Financial And Other Assets
31 March 2015
Core
Core
Department
Departmental
Core
Department
& Agencies
Group
Department
£000
£000
£000
£000
Amounts falling due within one year: Trade receivables
136,660
136,660
143,003
100,718
112,036
111,067
62,537
79,564
69,638
VAT receivables net of payables
–
–
(585)
28,514
28,514
28,077
32,976
32,976
32,209
Staff receivables
3,408
3,408
3,523
1,442
1,624
1,695
7,694
11,913
11,981
29,705
29,705
21,436
9,229
9,229
4,154
–
9,566
9,525
Receivables - government departments
Other receivables
1,220
1,220
1,534
1,620
1,620
2,448
8,936
10,699
11,297
Prepayments and accrued income
214,891
214,891
221,775
155,937
168,220
172,565
137,262
203,643
207,244
–
–
695
–
–
695
–
–
695
Current part of PFI and other service concession arrangements prepayment
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Amounts due from the Consolidated Fund in respect of supply
385,884
385,884
391,381
297,460
321,243
320,701
249,405
348,361
342,589
31 March 2015
31 March 2014
Core
Department
Departmental
Core
Core
& Agencies
Group
Department
Department
£000
£000
£000
£000
Amounts falling due after more than one year:
Other receivables
–
–
193
42
42
42
–
1,049
1,049
Prepayments and accrued income
–
–
1,455
–
–
1,455
–
–
2,151
–
–
1,648
42
42
1,497
–
1,049
3,200
| Restated | Restated |
|---------------|---------------|
| 31 March 2014 | 31 March 2013 |
| Core | |
| Core | |
| Department | |
| Departmental | |
| Core | |
| Department | |
| Departmental | |
| & Agencies | |
| Group | |
| Department | |
| & Agencies | |
| Group | |
| £000 | |
| £000 | |
| £000 | |
| £000 | |
| £000 | |
| Restated | |
| 31 March 2013 | |
| Core | |
| Core | |
| Department | Departmental |
| & Agencies | Group |
| £000 | £000 |
| £000 | £000 |
## 14.1 Intra-Government Balances
| Restated |
| Restated |
|
|------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------|
| 31 March 2015 | 31 March 2014 | 31 March 2013 | |
| Core | | | |
| Core | | | |
| Core | | | |
| Core | | | |
| Department | | | |
| Departmental | | | |
| Core | | | |
| Department | | | |
| Departmental | | | |
| Core | | | |
| Department | | | |
| Departmental | | | |
| Department | | | |
| & Agencies | | | |
| Group | | | |
| Department | | | |
| & Agencies | | | |
| Group | | | |
| Department | | | |
| & Agencies | | | |
| Group | | | |
| £000 | | | |
| £000 | | | |
| £000 | | | |
| £000 | | | |
| £000 | | | |
| £000 | | | |
| £000 | | | |
| £000 | | | |
| £000 | | | |
| Amounts falling due | | | |
| within one year: | | | |
| | | | |
| 78,344 | 78,344 | 74,340 | 27,892 |
| Balances with other | | | |
| central government | | | |
| bodies | | | |
| Balances with local | | | |
| authorities | | | |
| 59,849 | 59,849 | 61,569 | 25,508 |
| Balances with NHS | | | |
| Bodies | | | |
| 64 | 64 | 64 | - |
| 596 | 596 | 599 | - |
| Balances with public | | | |
| corporations and | | | |
| trading funds | | | |
| Subtotal: | intra- | | |
| government balances | | | |
| 138,853 | 138,853 | 136,572 | 53,400 |
| Balances with bodies | | | |
| external to government | | | |
| 247,031 | 247,031 | 254,809 | 244,060 |
| Total receivables at | | | |
| 31 March | | | |
| 385,884 | 385,884 | 391,381 | 297,460 |
| | Restated | | |
| 31 March 2014 | | 31 March 2013 | |
| 31 March 2015 | | | |
| | | | |
| Core | | | |
| Core | | | |
| Core | | | |
| Department | Departmental | | |
| Department | Departmental | Core | |
| Department | Departmental | Core | |
| Core | | | |
| & Agencies | Group | | |
| & Agencies | Group | Department | |
| & Agencies | Group | Department | |
| Department | | | |
| £000 | £000 | | |
| £000 | £000 | £000 | |
| £000 | £000 | £000 | |
| £000 | | | |
| | | | |
| Amounts falling due | | | |
| after more than one | | | |
| year: | | | |
| - | - | - | 42 |
| Balances with other | | | |
| central government | | | |
| bodies | | | |
| Balances with bodies | | | |
| external to government | | | |
| - | - | 1,648 | - |
| Total receivables at | | | |
| 31 March | | | |
| - | - | 1,648 | 42 |
Included within receivables is £24.7 million (2013-14: £17.6 million) that will be due to the Consolidated Fund once debts are collected.
## 15. Trade Payables And Other Current Liabilities
| Restated | Restated |
|---------------------------------|---------------|
| | |
| | 31 March 2015 |
| Core | |
| Core | |
| Core | |
| Departmental | |
| Departmental | |
| Departmental | |
| Department | |
| Department | Core |
| Department | Core |
| Core | |
| Group | |
| Group | |
| Group | |
| & Agencies | |
| & Agencies | Department |
| & Agencies | Department |
| Department | |
| | |
| | |
| £000 | |
| £000 | £000 |
| £000 | £000 |
| £000 | £000 |
| Amounts falling due within | |
| one year: | |
| Other taxation and social | |
| security | 12,716 |
| Trade payables | 46,982 |
| Other payables | 10 |
| Staff payables | - |
| Accruals and deferred income | 1,126,308 |
| Unpaid pension contributions | - |
| Payables - government | |
| departments | 61 |
| Current part of finance leases | 9,487 |
| Current part of imputed finance | |
| lease element of on balance | |
| sheet (SoFP) PFI contracts | |
| and other service concession | |
| arrangements | 26,991 |
| 40,136 | |
| Amounts issued from the | |
| Consolidated Fund for supply | |
| but not spent at year end | 124,775 |
| Consolidated Fund extra | |
| receipts due to be paid to the | |
| Consolidated Fund | |
| - received | 31,558 |
| - receivable | 24,736 |
| | 1,403,624 |
| Restated | Restated |
| | |
| | 31 March 2015 |
| Core | Core |
| Departmental | |
| Departmental | |
| Core | Department |
| Department | |
| Group | Group |
| Department | & Agencies |
| & Agencies | Department |
| & Agencies | |
| | |
| | |
| £000 | |
| £000 | £000 |
| £000 | £000 |
| Amounts falling due after | |
| more than one year: | |
| Other payables, accruals and | |
| deferred income | 2,138 |
| Imputed finance lease | |
| element of on balance sheet | |
| (SoFP) PFI contracts and | |
| other service concession | |
| arrangements | 223,962 |
| Finance leases | 63,100 |
| | 289,200 |
## 15.1 Intra-Government Balances
| Restated | Restated |
|---------------------------------|------------------|
| | |
| | 31 March 2015 |
| Core | |
| Core | |
| Core | |
| Departmental | |
| Departmental | |
| Departmental | |
| Department | |
| Department | Core |
| Department | Core |
| Core | |
| Group | |
| Group | |
| Group | |
| & Agencies | |
| & Agencies | Department |
| & Agencies | Department |
| Department | |
| | |
| | |
| £000 | |
| £000 | £000 |
| £000 | £000 |
| £000 | £000 |
| Amounts falling due within | |
| one year: | |
| Balances with other central | |
| government bodies | |
| 366,579 | 366,579 |
| Balances with local authorities | 491,755 |
| Balances with NHS Bodies | 60 |
| 220 | 220 |
| Balances with public | |
| corporations and trading | |
| funds | |
| Subtotal: | intra-government |
| balances | |
| 858,614 | 858,614 |
| Balances with bodies external | |
| to government | |
| 545,010 | 545,010 |
| Total payables at 31 March | 1,403,624 |
| Restated | Restated |
| | |
| | 31 March 2015 |
| Core | |
| Core | |
| Core | |
| Departmental | |
| Departmental | |
| Departmental | |
| Core | |
| Department | Core |
| Department | Core |
| Department | |
| Group | |
| Group | |
| Group | |
| Department | |
| & Agencies | Department |
| & Agencies | Department |
| & Agencies | |
| | |
| | |
| £000 | |
| £000 | £000 |
| £000 | £000 |
| £000 | £000 |
| Amounts falling due after | |
| more than one year: | |
| Balances with bodies external | |
| to government | |
| 289,200 | 289,200 |
| Total payables at 31 March | 289,200 |
## 16. Provisions For Liabilities And Charges
Restated
2014-15
2013-14
Core
Core
Core
Department
Departmental
Core
Department
Departmental
Department
& Agencies
Group
Department
& Agencies
Group
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
Balance at 1 April
267,226
273,949
277,200
90,896
183,283
186,199
Balance transferred at 1 October 2014 from HMPO
6,705
–
–
–
–
–
Balance transferred at 1 April 2013
from UKBA
–
–
–
80,633
–
–
Provided in the year
89,976
90,367
92,561
201,787
202,333
202,886
Police Pension Provision provided in the year
460,000
460,000
460,000
–
–
–
Provisions not required written back
(58,835)
(58,973)
(60,773)
(62,922)
(66,453)
(66,543)
Provisions utilised in the year
(84,406)
(84,745)
(86,570)
(47,584)
(49,603)
(49,734)
Transfer of provisions
–
–
–
3,107
3,107
3,107
Borrowing costs (unwinding of discounts)
(207)
(139)
(137)
1,309
1,282
1,285
Balance at 31 March
680,459
680,459
682,281
267,226
273,949
277,200
Comprising:
Current liabilities Not later than one year
504,808
504,808
505,370
135,580
136,829
138,859
Non-current liabilities Later than one year and not later
than five years
157,431
157,431
158,571
113,246
115,440
116,603
Later than five years
18,220
18,220
18,340
18,400
21,680
21,738
Balance at 31 March
680,459
680,459
682,281
267,226
273,949
277,200
| | | | Pensions |
|
|---------------------------------------------------|---------------|--------------|-------------|----------|
| Early Departure | Dilapidations | Legal Claims | and Other | Total |
| £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 |
| Balance at 1 April 2014 | 27,254 | 44,789 | 186,135 | 19,022 |
| Provided in the year | 65 | 2,337 | 40,114 | 50,045 |
| Police Pension Provision provided in the year | | | | |
| - | - | - | | |
| 460,000 | 460,000 | | | |
| Provisions not required written back | (2,203) | (5,930) | (40,153) | (12,487) |
| Provisions utilised in the year | (7,449) | (3,257) | (72,955) | (2,909) |
| Transfer of provisions | - | - | 149 | (149) |
| Borrowing costs (unwinding of discounts) | 70 | (207) | - | - |
| Balance at 31 March 2015 | 17,737 | 37,732 | 113,290 | 513,522 |
| Comprising | : | | | |
| Current liabilities | | | | |
| Not later than one year | 6,427 | 3,652 | 29,049 | 466,242 |
| Non-current liabilities | | | | |
| Later than one year and not later than five years | 11,108 | 15,942 | 84,241 | 47,280 |
| Later than five years | 202 | 18,138 | - | - |
| Balance at 31 March 2015 | 17,737 | 37,732 | 113,290 | 513,522 |
| Of the total: | | | | |
| Core Department | 17,450 | 36,387 | 113,100 | 513,522 |
| Core Department & Agencies | 17,450 | 36,387 | 113,100 | 513,522 |
| Departmental Group | 17,737 | 37,732 | 113,290 | 513,522 |
| Pensions | | Restated | | |
| Early Departure | Dilapidations | Legal Claims | and Other | Total |
| £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 |
| Balance at 1 April 2013 | 32,983 | 47,267 | 64,648 | 41,301 |
| Provided in the year | 1,011 | 6,285 | 192,993 | 2,597 |
| Provisions not required written back | (766) | (6,623) | (38,829) | (20,325) |
| Provisions utilised in the year | (10,453) | (2,053) | (32,677) | (4,551) |
| Transfer of provisions | 3,107 | - | - | - |
| Borrowing costs (unwinding of discounts) | 1,372 | (87) | - | - |
| Balance at 31 March 2014 | 27,254 | 44,789 | 186,135 | 19,022 |
| Comprising | : | | | |
| Current liabilities | | | | |
| Not later than one year | 9,546 | 6,368 | 111,005 | 11,940 |
| Non-current liabilities | | | | |
| Later than one year and not later than five years | 16,566 | 20,217 | 72,738 | 7,082 |
| Later than five years | 1,142 | 18,204 | 2,392 | - |
| Balance at 31 March 2014 | 27,254 | 44,789 | 186,135 | 19,022 |
| Of the total: | | | | |
| Core Department | 23,162 | 39,187 | 185,970 | 18,907 |
| Core Department & Agencies | 25,375 | 43,548 | 186,004 | 19,022 |
| Departmental Group | 27,254 | 44,789 | 186,135 | 19,022 |
## 16.1 Early Departure Costs
The Home Office meets the additional costs of benefits beyond the normal PCSPS benefits in respect of employees who retire early by paying the required amount to PCSPS to cover the period between early departure and normal retirement date. The Home Office provides for this in full when the early retirement programme becomes binding on the Home Office by establishing a provision or accrual for the estimated payments. Severance costs outstanding at year end under the new Civil Service Compensation Scheme are accrued for rather than provided for in a provision.
## 16.2 Dilapidations
The Home Office makes provisions to cover its obligations for the reinstatement of its leasehold buildings to their original state before its occupation.
## 16.3 Legal Claims
Provision has been made for various legal claims against the Home Office. The provision reflects all known claims where legal advice indicates that it is more than 50% probable that the claim will be successful and the amount of the claim can be reliably estimated. The amount provided is on a percentage expected probability basis. No reimbursement will be received in respect of any of these claims. Legal claims, which may succeed but are less likely to do so (or cannot be estimated), are disclosed as contingent liabilities in Note 18.
## Riot Damages Act
A £162 million legal provision was established last year for the costs arising from the 2011 riots under the Riot Damages Act. The provision comprised of consequential losses arising from the riots and litigation in relation to the definition of a riot. On 9 December 2014 it was ruled that the Department cannot appeal against the previous ruling regarding the definition of a riot and the provision was adjusted accordingly. The provision remaining at the end of the year was £82.5 million, which will be reviewed as claims for consequential losses are assessed.
## 16.4 Pensions And Other Provisions
The Department has further provisions which do not fall into the above categories but which satisfy the criteria for provision creation. The following is a list of significant provisions making this figure:
## Police Pensions Provision
Following a complaint from a retired firefighter, Mr W Milne, the Pensions Ombudsman found GAD guilty of maladministration in failing to review commutation factors from 1998 to 2006 applicable to the lump sum Mr Milne was entitled to receive when he retired in November 2005. The full determination is available at http://www.
pensions-ombudsman.org.uk. The case has knock-on consequences for a large number of retired police officers. The Home Office is liable for additional top up payments in relation to police pensions. The Department has established a pension provision to reflect the estimated cost of probable revised lump sum pension payments for eligible retired police officers. Pension scheme administrators are identifying police officers who retired between 2001 and 2006 and may be affected by this ruling. The Home Office provision is £460 million, made up of £375 million lump sum payout and £85 million interest. The cost estimate does not include any additional tax cost, which is a liability for HM Treasury. These tax costs are estimated to be £307 million.
## Forensic Science Service
The FSS provision increased by £46.1 million during the year, mainly reflecting an adverse movement in the pension liability. The £42 million pension liability provision is based on a December 2014 valuation carried out by Mercer. The full actuarial valuation is being undertaken by the Government Actuary's Department (GAD). The rest of the increase relates to further winding up costs being confirmed. As at 31 March 2015 the winding up provision stood at £4.6 million.
## Confiscation Orders
A provision of £5.1 million relates to payments made against three Confiscation orders to the Nigerian Authorities in relation to the assets of a Nigerian Official being restrained in the UK. Under a UN convention on corruption (UNCAC) the UK has to repatriate the funds paid against the Confiscation orders.
## 17. Financial Guarantees, Indemnities And Letter Of Comfort
The Department has entered into the following quantifiable guarantees, indemnities or provided letters of comfort. None of these is a contingent liability within the meaning of IAS 37 since the likelihood of a transfer of economic benefit in settlement is too remote. They therefore fall to be measured following the requirements of IAS 39. Managing Public Money requires that the full potential costs of such contracts be reported to parliament. These costs are reproduced in the table below.
Obligation
Liabilities
31 March
expired in
crystallised
Increase in
Restated
year
in year
year
1 April 2014
2015 £000
£000
£000
£000
£000
Indemnities
50,000
–
–
–
50,000
Indemnity provided to BAA in respect of damage or injury caused to third parties from Border Force in their use of vehicles operating airside while transporting immigration officers between airside locations.
100,000
–
–
–
100,000
Indemnity in respect of rolling out the Airwave contract in the London Underground (amount capped per incident). Minute dated 15 October 2009.
5,000
–
–
–
5,000
Claims arising from the Simplifying Passenger Travel Interest Group (SPT) not exceeding £5 million. Minute dated 8 July 2008.
115,000
–
–
–
115,000
Indemnities were given to various port and airport authorities during installation stage of Cyclamen. The maximum exposure is £115 million with no individual indemnity being above £10 million. Minute dated 29 May 2009.
270,000
–
–
–
270,000
The opening balance of the BAA indemnity was refined to reflect more up to date information. In addition to the above mentioned indemnities, there is a €10 million, £7.27 million indemnity relating to Cyclamen with Eurotunnel converted at the rate at 31 March 2015 from the European Central Bank website. This indemnity is 'live' until 31 March 2017 under the Hosting Agreement.
## 18. Contingent Liabilities Disclosed Under Ias 37 Disclosed Under Ias 37
The liabilities described below cover all known claims where legal advice indicated that the criteria for recognition of a provision have not been met. There are a number of legal claims outstanding against the Department including unlawful detention claims, unlawful dismissal and personal injury claims. Contingent liabilities of £3.27 million relate to ongoing Home Office litigation.
## Not Disclosed Under Ias 37
The Department has also entered into the following unquantifiable contingent liabilities by offering guarantees, indemnities or by giving letters of comfort. These are considered unquantifiable because either a potential liability cannot be estimated with a degree of certainty at the current time or because there is no stated maximum exposure. None of these is a contingent liability within the meaning of IAS 37 since the possibility of a transfer of economic benefit in settlement is too remote.
## Indemnities Home Office Central London Accommodation Strategy **(Hoclas)** (Minute Dated 23 January 2002)
The Home Office has indemnified the contractor for an unquantifiable amount against any financial loss arising from the Home Office providing defective information in respect of the contract.
## Border Force New Detection Technology (Ndt)
The following minutes have been used to notify Parliament of the contingent liability relating to the UKVI NDT, dated: 10 September 2003, 18 December 2003, 18 March 2004 and 2 July 2004 The minutes above refer to the following locations and NDT equipment which is loaned by the agency to recipients:
i)
Calais: Heartbeat equipment and building and Passive Millimetric Wave Imager ISO containers.
Heartbeat equipment and two buildings in juxtaposed control zone commenced Spring 2004.
ii) **Coquelles:** Heartbeat Detection Unit at the Euro tunnel operated in the juxtaposed control zone by the
UKIS. Passive Millimetric Wave Imager ISO containers. Shelter for and Heartbeat detection equipment which is under control of, and operated by, the UKVI in the juxtaposed control zone.
iii) **Dunkerque:** Heartbeat building commenced Summer 2005. Heartbeat equipment and building operated
by the UKIS in the juxtaposed control zone and commenced operation in Spring 2004.
iv) **Ostend:** Heartbeat shelters. v) **St. Malo:** CO2 probes to be operated by French operators. vi) **Vlissingen:** Heartbeat equipment and shelters. vii) **Zeebrugge:** Two further Heartbeat buildings and one Passive Millimetric Wave Imager ISO container.
The minutes also refer to the following: Indemnity in respect of the deployment and/or demonstration of NDT by the UKVI in Europe. Within the scope of this indemnity "Europe" is defined as the member states of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE); those North African and Middle Eastern countries with which the OSCE has special relationships (Algeria, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia); and those countries which participate in Euro-Mediterranean dialogue with the Council of Europe (Libya, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority).
## Harmondsworth And Campsfield Inquiry Team (Minute Laid 4 July 2007)
Indemnity provided to the Chairman and members of the team carrying out, in good faith and honesty, the inquiry into the disturbances at the Harmondsworth and Campsfield Immigration Removal Centres.
## Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance Service (Cifas) - Fraud Protection Service (Minute Dated 23 November 2011)
To indemnify bodies against erroneous data entered on the CIFAS database, resulting in claims lodged against those organisations.
## The Home Office Use Of Foreign & Commonwealth Office Premises
Commitment to conditional support provided to the FCO against all third party claims arising out of, or in connection with, the agency's occupation of the premises.
## Police Pay And Conditions Review
A standard board indemnity was given to the Lead Reviewer for the Police Pay and Conditions Review.
## 19. Losses And Special Payments 19.1 Losses Statement
Losses are transactions of a type which Parliament could not have known when Supply funding for the Department was voted. The term loss includes loss of public monies, stores, stocks, cash and other property entrusted to the Home Office. Examples include: cash losses, bookkeeping losses, exchange rate fluctuations, losses of pay, allowance and superannuation benefits, losses arising from overpayments, losses arising from failure to make adequate charges, and losses arising from accountable stores. Situations where recurring or individual circumstances result in multiple losses of equivalent nature are grouped together. This group is subsequently counted as one case. This results in greater visibility where circumstances result in significant total values of cases despite individual cases being low value.
Restated
2014-15
2013-14
Core
Core
Core
Department
Departmental
Core
Department
Departmental
Department
& Agencies
Group
Department
& Agencies
Group
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
of cases
£000
of cases
£000
of cases
£000
of cases
£000
of cases
£000
of cases
£000
Losses under £300,000
1,137
1,345
3,212
1,547
3,212
1,547
948
2,866
1,366
2,898
1,366
2,899
Losses over £300,000
2
3,935
2
3,935
2
3,935
3
1,562
3
1,562
3
1,562
Total
1,139
5,280
3,214
5,482
3,214
5,482
951
4,428
1,369
4,460
1,369
4,461
Cases over £300,000 comprise: Overpayments
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Fruitless Payments
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Loss of Pay/Cash Payments
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Constructive Losses
1
1,581
1
1,581
1
1,581
3
2,192
3
2,192
3
2,192
Claims Waived or Abandoned
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Exchange rate fluctuations
1
2,354
1
2,354
1
2,354
1
301
1
301
1
301
Total
2
3,935
2
3,935
2
3,935
4
2,493
4
2,493
4
2,493
A review carried out during the year identified new information relating to losses. The prior year figures have been restated accordingly. A constructive loss of £1.58 million was incurred by the Home Office as a result of the cancellations of scheduled flights intended to remove ineligible asylum seekers, which were subsequently cancelled due to asylum seekers being granted the right to appeal. An exchange rate loss of £2.3 million was realised due to fluctuation in exchange rates from Euro denominated receipts from the European Commission and Sterling denominated grant payments made to beneficiaries of the Returns Fund.
## 19.2 Special Payments
Special Payments are transactions that Parliament could not have anticipated when passing legislation or approving Supply Estimates for the Department. Examples include: extra contractual payments to contractors, ex gratia payments to contractors, other ex gratia payments, compensation payments, and extra statutory and extra regulatory payments. Situations where recurring or individual circumstances result in multiple special payments of equivalent nature are grouped together. This group is subsequently counted as one case. This results in greater visibility where circumstances result in significant total values of cases despite individual cases being low value.
Restated
2014-15
2013-14
Core
Core
Core
Department
Departmental
Core
Department
Departmental
Department
& Agencies
Group
Department
& Agencies
Group
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
of cases
£000
of cases
£000
of cases
£000
of cases
£000
of cases
£000
of cases
£000
Special payments under £300,000
5,503
30,527
5,503
30,527
5,503
30,527
2,124
28,605
4,124
28,731
4,125
28,736
Special payments over £300,000
5
151,764
5
151,764
6
152,154
1
11,108
1
11,108
1
11,108
Total
5,508
182,291
5,508
182,291
5,509
182,681
2,125
39,713
4,125
39,839
4,126
39,844
A review carried out during the year identified new information relating to special payments. The prior year figures have been restated accordingly. Payments totalling £25.2 million were made by the Home Office in relation to 4,282 legal claims. These include: 3,766 adverse legal cost payments totalling £17.2 million, 448 ex-gratia cases totalling £7 million, 38 compensation payments totalling £802k, and 26 extra statutory cases totalling £52k. An ex-gratia payment of £150 million was made to Raytheon Systems Limited as a full and final settlement for the termination of the e-Borders contract. (See note 24 for more details). In 2012 the Home Office lost a challenge in the Immigration Tribunal, resulting in the Appeals Judge awarding the claimants up to the full amount of the appeals fees. The appeal fee refunds in 2014-15 totalled £1 million. A payment totalling £427k comprising of legal costs and compensation over a three year period (2012-13 £42k, 2014-15 £385k) was made by the Home Office to a family for unlawful deportation. An interim payment for adverse legal costs totalling £300k was made by the Department in relation to an asylum case of an unaccompanied minor. The Department also made an interim payment for adverse legal costs in relation to an asylum case, totalling £500k over a two year period (2013-14 £73k 2014-15 £427k). The Home Office paid an exemplary fine of £20k after securing retrospective approval from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in relation to breaching the control process in negotiating the salary of the Director General of the National Crime Agency. A compensation payment of £390k was paid by the College of Policing in respect of an employee who suffered from post traumatic stress disorder.
## 20. Related-Party Transactions
The Home Office is the sponsor of the Non-Departmental Public Bodies listed in Note 22. These bodies are regarded as related parties, with which the Home Office has had various material transactions during the year. Until 30 September 2014 the Home Office was also the parent Department of Her Majesty's Passport Office (HMPO). On 30 September 2014 the HMPO ceased operating as an executive agency and was integrated in the core Department thereafter. The Office for National Statistics ruled that the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) was a public corporation. It is therefore considered a related party operating under the control of the Home Secretary.
In addition, the Department has had transactions with other government departments and other central government bodies. In particular there have been transactions with:
-
The Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation relating to the employees' pension scheme. The employer's contribution to this pension scheme can be found in Note 3 to these accounts; and
-
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office relating the overseas Visa income collection.
The Forensic Archive Ltd is considered a related party operating under the 'guardianship' of the Home Office with Home Office senior management sitting on the board. Ministers' interests are declared and maintained through the Register of Members' Interests at the House of Commons and the Register of Lords' Interest at the House of Lords. Board members and key senior management staff are subject to a standard annual interests review, stating whether they, their spouses or close family members have been in a position of influence or control in organisations with which the Home Office has transactions. Michael Charles Wells, the Chief Operating Officer in UKV&I, is married to Deirdre Wells, the CEO of UKInbound - a trade association promoting travel to the UK. No monetary transactions have been recorded between the Home Office and UKInbound, but the association has been involved in a Visa Steering Group with the Home Office. Notes 14 and 15 provide details of intra-government balances. The Remuneration Report provides information on key management compensation. Details of related party transactions during the time when HMPO remained an executive agency of the Department are disclosed in HMPO final accounts. Details of related party transactions of NDPBs are disclosed in their audited accounts.
## 21. Third-Party Assets
The Home Office receives applications from foreign nationals to obtain British nationality. The application money includes a ceremony fee of £80 (2013-14 £80), and the local authorities who carry out the ceremonies are entitled to the whole of the fee after the ceremony has been completed. To maintain control over these assets the Home Office holds the funds in its GBS account on behalf of the local authority until the ceremony has taken place. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Section 24 of the UK Borders Act 2007 assets can be appropriated by the Home Office and other law enforcement bodies. The Home Office has the authority to seize cash linked to offences against the Immigration Acts. Any cash seized is held in a separate bank account until a judicial case decision is made. Upon decision the monies, including any interest earned, is either returned to the owner or transferred to the Home Office as a seized asset. Monies are held in separate bank accounts depending on currency to eliminate any exchange rate transactions. Under the legal system in Scotland, the Home Office has to hold monies for people who are cautioned at court for immigration offences. A bail bond is collected and held in a separate bank account. The assets held by the Home Office at the reporting period date to which it was practical to ascribe monetary values comprised monetary assets, such as bank balances and monies on deposit, listed securities, motor vehicles and other valuables. They are set out, including interest, in the table immediately below.
| 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
|-------------------------------|-----------|
| £000 | £000 |
| Citizenship Ceremony Fee | 6,382 |
| Proceeds of Crime (GBP) | 1,951 |
| Bail Bond Accounts | 172 |
| Total GBP | 8,505 |
| 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
| €000 | €000 |
| Proceeds of Crime (Euro) | 938 |
| Total Euro | 938 |
| 2014-15 | 2013-14 |
| $000 | $000 |
| Proceeds of Crime (US Dollar) | 207 |
| Total US Dollar | 207 |
## 22. Entities Within The Departmental Boundary
The entities within the departmental boundary during 2014-15 were as follows:
## Entities Consolidated
The Home Office departmental boundary encompassed the central Government Department, one executive agency and four Non-Departmental Public Bodies. The accounts of these entities form part of the Home Office's consolidated financial statements.
## Executive Agency
Her Majesty's Passport Office (until 30 September 2014)
## Non-Departmental Public Bodies (Ndpbs)
Executive NDPBs: typically established in statute and carrying out executive, administrative, regulatory and/or commercial functions. Independent Police Complaints Commission Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner Security Industry Authority Gangmasters Licensing Authority The accounts of the above agency/NDPBs can be found at http://www.official-documents.gov.uk.
## Other Entities College Of Policing
The College of Policing is a company limited by guarantee. It is classified as an Arms Length Body by the Treasury, and is consolidated within the departmental boundary as a *'quasi'* NDPB.
## Entities Within The Core Department
Advisory, tribunal and other NDPBs do not publish accounts as they do not have any money delegated to them. Where there are costs, these are met from Home Office budgets. Advisory non-departmental public bodies: provide independent, expert advice to ministers on a wide range of issues. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Animals in Science Committee Migration Advisory Committee National DNA Database Ethics Group Police Advisory Board for England and Wales Police Negotiating Board (ceased operating in England and Wales on 1 September 2014) Technical Advisory Board Tribunal non-departmental public bodies: have jurisdiction in a specialised field of law.
Investigatory Powers Tribunal Office of Surveillance Commissioners Police Arbitration Tribunal (ceased operating in England and Wales on 1 September 2014) Police Discipline Appeals Tribunal
## Other
Anti-Slavery Commissioner Biometrics Commissioner Forensic Science Regulator HM Inspectorate of Constabulary Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration Independent Family Returns Panel Independent Monitor of the Disclosure and Barring Service Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation Intelligence Services Commissioner Interception of Communications Commissioner National Crime Agency Remuneration Review Body Police Remuneration Review Body Police ICT Company Surveillance Camera Commissioner Wimbledon and Putney Corservator.
## 23.Organisational Change Within The Departmental Boundary
The entities consolidated within the departmental boundary during 2014-15 are listed in Note 22. The Department continued to undergo re-organisation during the year. The financial impact of Machinery of Government (MoG) changes is explained in more detail in Note 26.The key organisational changes during the year are listed below:
a
On 9 April 2014, the Prime Minister announced that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA - formally a Non-Departmental Public Body of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) transferred to the Home Office;
b
following a ruling from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the Disclosure and Barring Service was reclassified as a Public Corporation, and hence it is no longer included within the Home Office departmental boundary;
c
Her Majesty's Passport Office (HMPO) ceased operating as an executive agency of the Department on 30 September, and was integrated within the core Department thereafter.
## 24. Termination Of The E-Borders Contract
In July 2010 the Home Office notified Raytheon Systems Limited (RSL), a subsidiary of Raytheon Company, that its e-Borders contract with UK Border Agency had been terminated. The termination occurred before the 2009-10 accounts had been concluded, and disclosure of this termination was made in the 2009-10 accounts as a post balance sheet event. Within the 2010-11 Home Office and UK Border Agency accounts, full disclosure of the impairment charges, capital commitments and contingent liabilities was made. The e-Borders Programme started in 2003 and it developed a prototype which successfully tested the core concept of an intelligence led, multi agency integrated border control. The e-Borders contract with RSL was intended to enhance and replace this earlier prototype, in line with the business case agreed in October 2007. Following a full external procurement, the e-Borders contract was signed in November 2007 with RSL as the prime contractor, heading the Trusted Borders consortium. Following contract termination, the e-Borders programme continued as part of the Border Systems Programme, with the development, enhancement and replacement of legacy systems. RSL disputed the contract termination, and the Home Office initiated arbitration proceedings in August 2010. In August 2014 the Arbitration Tribunal found that the contract had been wrongfully terminated and awarded RSL £186 million plus significant additional legal and interest costs. In September 2014, the Home Office challenged the arbitration award, pursuant to Section 68 of the Arbitration Act. In February 2015, the High Court, found significant flaws in the Tribunal award. The High Court ordered that the award should be set aside, but granted both parties permission to appeal. To protect the best interests of the taxpayer, including from further litigation costs, the Department reached a negotiated resolution with RSL. The settlement was a full and final payment to RSL of £150 million. This settlement represented a significant reduction on the original award made by the Arbitration Tribunal in August 2014. On contract termination, the Home Office called in Letters of Credit amounting to £49.9 million. These had been held on the Department's balance sheet as deferred income since termination, and have subsequently been realised as part of the overall £150 million settlement. The settlement recognises no admission of liability on the part of the Government.
## 25. Hm Passport Office Internal Restructure
On 30 September 2014, Her Majesty's Passport Office ceased to be an executive agency of the Home Office and was consolidated into the Core Home Office. This was an internal restructure and as such no restatement was made to the 2013-14 Core Home Office numbers to reflect the change. The analysis below shows the 2013-14 Core Home Office accounts Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure and Statement of Financial Position if a restatement had been required. In addition, no restatement was made to the 2014-15 numbers to reflect the first six months of the year. The analysis below shows the impact that a restatement would have had on the 2014-15 Core Home Office numbers.
| 2013-14 | 2013-14 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2014-15 | 2014-15 |
|---------------------------------------|-------------|-----------------|-------------|-------------|-----------------|
| Core Home | HM Passport | Combined Core | Core Home | HM Passport | Combined Core |
| Office (1) | Office (2) | Home Office (3) | Office (4) | Office (5) | Home Office (6) |
| £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 |
| Statement of Comprehensive | | | | | |
| Net Expenditure | | | | | |
| Administrative staff costs | 239,546 | 21,739 | 261,285 | 235,915 | 8,373 |
| Other Administrative costs | 204,514 | 19,478 | 223,992 | 302,413 | 14,257 |
| Administration income | (41,469) | (39,059) | (80,528) | (58,663) | (21,942) |
| Programme staff costs | 869,979 | 78,908 | 948,887 | 940,954 | 50,021 |
| Other Programme costs | 12,213,261 | 201,834 | 12,415,095 | 13,421,607 | 125,162 |
| Programme income | (1,428,945) | (412,519) | (1,841,464) | (1,624,511) | (258,377) |
| Grant-in-Aid | 105,134 | - | 105,134 | 110,357 | - |
| Total | 12,162,020 | (129,619) | 12,032,401 | 13,328,072 | (82,506) |
| Statement of Financial Position | | | | | |
| Property, plant and equipment | 1,022,704 | 66,721 | 1,089,425 | 1,068,459 | - |
| Intangible assets | 401,354 | 86,042 | 487,396 | 457,497 | - |
| Long term trade and other receivables | 42 | - | 42 | - | - |
| Assets classified as held for sale | 22,961 | - | 22,961 | 2,491 | - |
| Inventories | 6,650 | 4,393 | 11,043 | 12,713 | - |
| Trade and other receivables | 297,460 | 25,313 | 322,773 | 380,209 | - |
| Cash and cash equivalents | 206,173 | - | 206,173 | 140,915 | - |
| Trade and other payables | | | | | |
| (1,379,883) | (92,782) | (1,472,665) | (1,399,193) | - | (1,399,193) |
| Provisions | (267,226) | (6,723) | (273,949) | (900,706) | - |
| Long term trade and other payables | (290,362) | (2,811) | (293,173) | (290,261) | - |
| Pensions Liability | (332) | - | (332) | (353) | - |
| Total Assets Less Liabilities | 19,541 | 80,153 | 99,694 | (528,229) | - |
| General fund | (170,781) | 71,204 | (99,577) | (786,592) | - |
| Revaluation reserve | 190,654 | 8,949 | 199,603 | 258,716 | - |
| Pensions reserve | (332) | - | (332) | (353) | - |
| Total | 19,541 | 80,153 | 99,694 | (528,229) | - |
Notes (1) Core Home Office excludes HM Passport Office for 2013-14. (2) HM Passport Office results for 2013-14 (3) Combined total for Core Home Office and HM Passport Office for 2013-14. (4) Core Home Office, including HM Passport Office for the second half of 2014-15. (5) HM Passport Office results for the first six months of 2014-15. (6) Combined total for Core Home Office and HM Passport Office for 2014-15.
## Balances Transferred From Hm Passport To The Home Office
On 1 October 2014, the following balances were transferred from HM Passport Office to the Core Home Office as a result of the internal restructure.
£000
Statement of Financial Position Property, plant and equipment
59,133
Intangible assets
84,259
Inventories
3,337
Trade and other receivables
4,761
Trade and other payables
(68,445)
Provisions
(6,705)
Long term trade and other payables
(2,432)
Total Assets Less Liabilities
73,908
General fund
65,583
Revaluation reserve
8,325
Total
73,908
## 26. Machinery Of Government And Group Designation Changes
On 9 April 2014 the Prime Minister announced that the Gangmasters Licencing Authority (GLA), which had previously been part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, would become part of the Home Office. In 2014-15, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) carried out a review of the designation of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), a Non-Departmental Public Body of the Home Office. This review determined that DBS should instead be classified as a Public Corporation, and that this should be applied retrospectively to transactions made and balances held by DBS.
| 2013-14 | 2013-14 | 2013-14 | 2013-14 |
|------------------------------------|--------------|-----------|-----------|
| Impact on | | | |
| Core | | Impact on | |
| Department & | Departmental | | |
| Agencies | GLA | DBS | Group |
| £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 |
| Operating costs: | | | |
| Administrative staff costs | - | 574 | (7,568) |
| Other Administrative costs | - | 227 | 1,520 |
| Administration income | - | - | 6,048 |
| Programme staff costs | - | 2,259 | (16,758) |
| Other Programme costs | - | 1,259 | (108,756) |
| Programme income | - | (3,734) | 123,150 |
| Grant-in-Aid (GLA) | 1,270 | (1,270) | - |
| Total | 1,270 | (685) | (2,364) |
| Statement of Financial Position | | | |
| Property, plant and equipment | - | 46 | (1,713) |
| Intangible assets | - | 620 | (34,274) |
| Trade and other receivables | - | 90 | (13,563) |
| Cash and cash equivalents | - | 709 | (12,261) |
| Trade and other payables | - | (668) | 17,197 |
| Provisions | - | - | 1,040 |
| Long term trade and other payables | - | (39) | 11,135 |
| Total Assets Less Liabilities | - | 758 | (32,439) |
| General fund | - | 468 | (32,074) |
| Revaluation reserve | - | 290 | (365) |
| Total | - | 758 | (32,439) |
| 2012-13 | 2012-13 | 2012-13 | 2012-13 |
|------------------------------------|--------------|-----------|-----------|
| Impact on | | | |
| Core | | Impact on | |
| Department & | Departmental | | |
| Agencies | GLA | DBS | Group |
| £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 |
| Statement of Financial Position: | | | |
| Property, plant and equipment | - | 81 | (2,262) |
| Intangible assets | - | 743 | (24,633) |
| Trade and other receivables | - | 79 | (20,938) |
| Cash and cash equivalents | - | 980 | (16,141) |
| Trade and other payables | - | (927) | 13,133 |
| Provisions | - | - | 1,137 |
| Long term trade and other payables | - | (57) | - |
| Total Assets Less Liabilities | - | 899 | (49,704) |
| General fund | - | 618 | (48,627) |
| Revaluation reserve | - | 281 | (1,077) |
| Total | - | 899 | (49,704) |
## 2013-14 Statement Of Parliamentary Supply
The 2013-14 numbers reported in the Statement of Parliamentary Supply have not been restated to take account of the Machinery of Government and group designation changes mentioned above, as the amounts involved are not material. If the 2013-14 numbers had been restated, they would have had the following impact on the 2013- 14 outturn:
| 2013-14 | 2013-14 | 2013-14 |
|----------------------|-----------|-----------|
| Impact on | | |
| Departmental | | |
| GLA | DBS | Group |
| £000 | £000 | £000 |
| Resource DEL | | |
| Administration costs | 801 | - |
| Programme costs | (216) | (2,364) |
| Total Resource DEL | 585 | (2,364) |
| Resource AME | - | (877) |
| Total Resource | 585 | (3,241) |
| Net cash requirement | 1,270 | - |
| Capital DEL | 44 | (8,166) |
| Capital AME | - | - |
| Total Capital | 44 | (8,166) |
In addition to the changes mentioned above, the National Fraud Authority ceased operations on 31 March 2014 with assets transferred to the City of London Police on 1 April 2014. As the amounts involved with this transfer were immaterial, the results of the prior year have not been restated.
## 27. Events After The Reporting Period
The Police ICT Company was launched on 1 April 2015. The company will aim to support and enable policing and other associated bodies to make best use of technology to deliver effective and efficient policing and improve public safety.
John Hayes was appointed Minister of State for Security on Monday 11 May.
Lord Ahmad was appointed as Minister for Countering Extremism on 13 May 2015 (jointly with the Department for Transport). These financial statements were authorised for issue on the same date that the Comptroller and Auditor General signed his certificate.
## Home Office Total Departmental Spending 2009-10 To 2015-164
| | | | | | Table 1 - Public Spending | £'000 |
|--------------------------|-------------------------|------------|------------|------------|------------------------------|------------|
| 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 |
| Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Plans |
| Resource DEL | | | | | | |
| Crime and Policing Group | 5,642,682 | 9,139,314 | 8,881,331 | 8,262,650 | 8,345,349 | 8,602,371 |
| 814,501 | 807,786 | 880,553 | 970,908 | 695,834 | 701,265 | 718,634 |
| Counter Terrorism | | | | | | |
| UK Border Agency | 1,713,561 | 1,704,436 | 1,311,786 | 608,651 | - | - |
| Immigration Enforcement | - | - | - | - | 437,606 | 437,487 |
| UK Visas & Immigration | - | - | - | - | -253,235 | -187,800 |
| - | - | - | - | 35,744 | 34,793 | 32,040 |
| Policy | | | | | | |
| Border Force | - | - | - | 611,243 | 507,933 | 518,987 |
| HM Passport Office | 90,439 | 5,002 | -43,245 | -69,836 | -54,868 | -59,075 |
| Enablers | 251,147 | 195,492 | 166,444 | 350,157 | 769,491 | 825,643 |
| Arms Length Bodies (Net) | 436,620 | 421,820 | 413,144 | 238,320 | 75,617 | 106,123 |
| National Fraud Authority | 3,943 | 4,021 | 5,995 | 8,809 | 11,830 | - |
| Area Based Grants | 80,925 | 71,243 | 66,909 | 28,751 | - | - |
| -1 | - | - | 908 | - | - | 1 |
| Mechanism | | | | | | |
| Criminal Records Bureau | -4,616 | 1,527 | 270 | -14,783 | - | - |
| Total Resource DEL | | | | | | |
| 9,029,201 | 12,350,641 | 11,683,187 | 10,995,778 | 10,571,301 | 10,979,794 | 10,053,109 |
| Of which: | | | | | | |
| Staff costs | 1,314,069 | 1,389,038 | 1,268,011 | | | |
| 1,250,769 | 1,324,756 | 1,345,838 | 1,316,392 | | | |
| 1,995,000 | 2,212,994 | 1,795,940 | 1,983,369 | 1,972,319 | 2,131,748 | 2,090,920 |
| services | | | | | | |
| -1,673,097 | | | | | | |
| -1,214,943 | | | | | | |
| -1,361,206 | | | | | | |
| -1,209,861 | | | | | | |
| -1,194,189 | | | | | | |
| -1,369,732 | | | | | | |
| -1,173,552 | | | | | | |
| | Income from sales of | | | | | |
| goods and services | | | | | | |
| 8,469,606 | | | | | | |
| 8,901,629 | | | | | | |
| 8,670,253 | | | | | | |
| 9,044,789 | | | | | | |
| 9,537,501 | | | | | | |
| 9,903,879 | | | | | | |
| 6,414,746 | | | | | | |
| | Current grants to local | | | | | |
| government (net) | | | | | | |
| 168,257 | | | | | | |
| 37,975 | | | | | | |
| 30,107 | | | | | | |
| 44,389 | | | | | | |
| 178,019 | | | | | | |
| 124,731 | | | | | | |
| 446,340 | | | | | | |
| Current grants to | | | | | | |
| persons and non-profit | | | | | | |
| bodies (net) | | | | | | |
| -93,280 | | | | | | |
| -42,823 | | | | | | |
| -2,858 | | | | | | |
| -42,895 | | | | | | |
| -28,689 | | | | | | |
| -18,730 | | | | | | |
| -13,556 | | | | | | |
| | Current grants abroad | | | | | |
| (net) | | | | | | |
| - | | | | | | |
| 3,055 | | | | | | |
| 4,587 | | | | | | |
| 272,020 | | | | | | |
| - | | | | | | |
| - | | | | | | |
| - | | | | | | |
| | Subsidies to private | | | | | |
| sector companies | | | | | | |
| 27,200 | | | | | | |
| 110,805 | | | | | | |
| 66,678 | | | | | | |
| 100,417 | | | | | | |
| 278,027 | | | | | | |
| - | | | | | | |
| 308,680 | | | | | | |
| Rentals | | | | | | |
| Depreciation | | | | | | |
| 1 | | | | | | |
| 161,952 | 444,216 | 176,151 | 202,478 | 232,382 | 235,631 | 217,688 |
| Take up of provisions | - | - | 11,754 | - | - | - |
| 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 |
|--------------------------|-------------------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|
| Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Plans |
| Other resource | -424,478 | -335,755 | -339,338 | -649,697 | -365,717 | -529,121 |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | -2,090 |
| | Unallocated funds - | | | | | |
| resource | | | | | | |
| Resource AME | | | | | | |
| AME Charges | -102,713 | 179,006 | 1,424 | 2,935 | 95,998 | -41,709 |
| Police Superannuation | 754,193 | 720,594 | 1,059,297 | 1,232,860 | 1,286,042 | 1,883,758 |
| 28,138 | 14,708 | 7,454 | -3,368 | - | - | 1 |
| Length Bodies (Net) | | | | | | |
| Total Resource AME | | | | | | |
| 679,618 | 914,308 | 1,068,175 | 1,232,427 | 1,382,040 | 1,842,049 | 1,325,000 |
| Of which: | | | | | | |
| 763,262 | 728,336 | 1,066,899 | 1,239,647 | 1,284,844 | 1,429,975 | 1,324,999 |
| | Current grants to local | | | | | |
| government (net) | | | | | | |
| - | - | - | - | - | 42 | - |
| pensions | | | | | | |
| 2 | | | | | | |
| Depreciation | | | | | | |
| 1 | | | | | | |
| 30,126 | 69,750 | 7,803 | 7 | 194 | 7,207 | - |
| Take up of provisions | 39,420 | 117,418 | 83,146 | 42,454 | 137,162 | 491,254 |
| Release of provision | -152,839 | -1,196 | -90,126 | -49,962 | -49,603 | -86,570 |
| Other resource | -351 | - | 453 | 281 | 9,443 | 141 |
| Total Resource Budget | | | | | | |
| 9,708,819 | 13,264,949 | 12,751,362 | 12,228,205 | 11,953,341 | 12,821,843 | 11,378,109 |
| Of which: | | | | | | |
| Depreciation | | | | | | |
| 1 | | | | | | |
| 192,078 | 513,966 | 183,954 | 202,485 | 232,576 | 242,838 | 217,688 |
| Capital DEL | | | | | | |
| Crime and Policing Group | 284,949 | 261,641 | 105,853 | 137,671 | 125,971 | 145,118 |
| 206,824 | 153,103 | 92,103 | 77,124 | 64,292 | 78,375 | 86,420 |
| Counter Terrorism | | | | | | |
| UK Border Agency | 182,750 | 163,333 | 173,188 | 86,970 | - | - |
| Immigration Enforcement | - | - | - | - | 4,482 | 2,685 |
| UK Visas & Immigration | - | - | - | - | 9,356 | 1,688 |
| - | - | - | - | 8,618 | 4,706 | 1,500 |
| Policy | | | | | | |
| Border Force | - | - | - | 53,430 | 54,719 | 43,562 |
| HM Passport Office | 111,382 | 67,295 | 23,272 | 19,341 | 11,441 | 24,715 |
| Enablers | 2,633 | -2,497 | 34,003 | 22,020 | 57,878 | 59,568 |
| 80,300 | | | | | | |
| Arms Length Bodies (Net) | 151,270 | 56,943 | 28,450 | 17,889 | 25,972 | 12,334 |
| National Fraud Authority | 274 | 67 | 207 | - | - | - |
| Area Based Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Criminal Records Bureau | 354 | 4,054 | 1,931 | - | - | - |
| Total Capital DEL | | | | | | |
| 940,436 | 703,939 | 459,007 | 414,445 | 362,729 | 372,751 | 363,320 |
| 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 |
|--------------------------|---------------------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|
| Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Plans |
| Of which: | | | | | | |
| 317,455 | 285,971 | 173,640 | 174,462 | 150,013 | 191,742 | 133,300 |
| | Capital support for local | | | | | |
| government (net) | | | | | | |
| -1,564 | -10 | - | 1,108 | -5 | 9 | 500 |
| Capital grants to per | | | | | | |
| sons & non-profit bodies | | | | | | |
| (net) | | | | | | |
| 46,168 | 22,950 | 28,236 | 18,132 | 19,951 | 24,169 | 29,200 |
| sector companies (net) | | | | | | |
| - | 28,700 | - | - | - | - | - |
| public corporations | | | | | | |
| Purchase of assets | 527,717 | 301,862 | 243,988 | 199,170 | 174,845 | 194,778 |
| -4,181 | -4,391 | -4,507 | - | -2,065 | -29,553 | -23,000 |
| | Income from sales of | | | | | |
| assets | | | | | | |
| Other capital | 54,841 | 68,857 | 17,650 | 21,573 | 19,990 | -8,394 |
| Capital AME | | | | | | |
| Of which: | | | | | | |
| Total Capital Budget | 940,436 | 703,939 | 459,007 | 414,445 | 362,729 | 372,751 |
| Total departmental | | | | | | |
| spending | | | | | | |
| 3 | | | | | | |
| 10,457,177 | 13,454,922 | 13,026,415 | 12,440,165 | 12,083,494 | 12,951,756 | 11,523,741 |
| of which: | | | | | | |
| Total DEL | 9,807,685 | 12,610,364 | 11,966,043 | 11,207,745 | 10,701,648 | 11,116,914 |
| Total AME | 649,492 | 844,558 | 1,060,372 | 1,232,420 | 1,381,846 | 1,834,842 |
1 Includes impairments 2 Pension schemes report under FRS 17 accounting requirements. These figures therefore include cash payments made and contributions received, as well as certain non-cash items
3 Total departmental spending is the sum of the resource budget and the capital budget less depreciation. Similarly, total DEL is the sum of the resource budget DEL and capital budget DEL less depreciation in DEL, and total AME is the sum of resource budget AME and capital budget AME less deprecia tion in AME.
4 The numbers in this table cannot always be reconciled to the numbers in the accounts because they are taken at a different point in time from OSCAR, the HMT's database. We strive to ensure that they are taken as close to the date of the accounts as possible. These numbers were taken as at 22 May 2015.
2014-15
2014-15
2014-15
2014-15
OUTTURN
Adjusted Plans†
Final Plans
Original Plans
Resource
Capital
Resource
Capital
Resource
Capital
Resource
Capital
Spending in Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL)
10,729,811
420,382 10,729,811
420,382
11,136,331
390,575 10,979,794
372,751
Voted expenditure Of which:
8,496,997
127,500
8,496,997
127,500
8,630,053
146,274
8,711,548
145,118
Crime and Policing Group
684,296
102,182
684,296
102,182
707,070
81,075
701,265
78,375
Office for Security and Counter Terrorism
443,494
-
443,494
-
462,199
2,800
437,487
2,685
Immigration Enforcement
-264,728
6,000
-264,728
6,000
-254,084
8,000
-187,800
1,688
UK Visas & Immigration
37,264
6,000
37,264
6,000
36,980
6,000
38,720
4,706
International & Immigration Policy
519,184
75,400
519,184
75,400
522,789
57,360
518,987
43,562
Border Force
3,000
18,450
3,000
18,450
-25,854
18,491
-59,075
24,715
Her Majesty's Passport Office
696,110
44,950
696,110
44,950
945,753
49,400
712,539
59,568
Enablers
114,093
39,900
114,093
39,900
111,424
21,175
106,123
12,334
Arms Length Bodies (Net)
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
European Solidarity Mechanism (Net)
100
-
100
-
-
-
-
-
Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP)
10,729,811
420,382 10,729,811
420,382 11,136,331
390,575 10,979,794
372,751
Total Spending in DEL Spending in Annually Managed Expenditure (AME)
Voted expenditure
1,378,222
-
1,378,222
-
2,117,222
-
2,062,049
-
2014-15
2014-15
2014-15
2014-15
Original Plans
Adjusted Plans†
Final Plans
OUTTURN
Resource
Capital
Resource
Capital
Resource
Capital
Resource
Capital
Of which:
AME Charges
3,682
-
3,682
-
-76,319
-
-41,709
-
1,374,540
-
1,374,540
-
2,193,540
-
2,103,758
-
Police Superannuation
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
AME Charges Arms Length Bodies (Net)
1,378,222
-
1,378,222
-
2,117,222
-
2,062,049
-
Total Spending in AME
Total
12,108,033
420,382 12,108,033
420,382 13,253,553
390,575 13,041,843
-
Of which:
12,108,033
420,382 12,108,033
420,382 13,253,553
390,575 13,041,843
-
Voted expenditure
† Figures for Adjusted Plans have been adjusted for machinery of government changes effected during 2014 to reflect the Final Plans structure where applicable. The numbers in this table cannot always be reconciled to the numbers in the accounts because they are taken at a different point in time from OSCAR, the HMT's database. We strive to ensure that they are taken as close to the date of the accounts as possible. These numbers were taken as at 22 May 2015.
## Table 3 - Capital Employed £'000
| HOME OFFICE | 2009-10
| 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15
| 2015-16
|
|---------------------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|-------------------------|
| outturn | outturn | outturn | outturn | outturn | outturn | plans | |
| | | | | | | | |
| Assets and liabilities | | | | | | | |
| on the statement of | | | | | | | |
| financial position at | | | | | | | |
| end of year: | | | | | | | |
| Assets | | | | | | | |
| Non-current assets | | | | | | | |
| Intangible | 108,803 | 223,051 | 283,437 | 398,451 | 487,538 | 458,579 | 435,650 |
| Tangible | 1,177,624 | 1,170,331 | 940,547 | 927,292 | 1,089,425 | 1,057,926 | 1,005,030 |
| of which: | | | | | | | |
| Land and buildings | 641,366 | 559,415 | 536,892 | 550,353 | 607,886 | 663,800 | 630,610 |
| Plant and machinery | 71,739 | 63,607 | 132,464 | 128,353 | 213,541 | 189,319 | 179,853 |
| Vehicles | 21,343 | 13,561 | 13,709 | 11,486 | 17,422 | 16,996 | 16,146 |
| Information Technology | 65,745 | 90,561 | 116,983 | 107,686 | 119,588 | 89,683 | 85,199 |
| Furniture and Fittings | 28,664 | 23,998 | 21,653 | 20,170 | 10,478 | 9,948 | 9,451 |
| 348,767 | 419,189 | 118,846 | 109,244 | 120,510 | 88,180 | 83,771 | Payment on Account and |
| Assets under Construction | | | | | | | |
| Other | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Investments | 18,068 | 18,068 | 1 | 1 | - | - | - |
| Current Assets | 651,528 | 803,131 | 525,458 | 419,575 | 561,420 | 546,559 | 519,231 |
| Liabilities | | | | | | | |
| Payables (<1 year) | -1,445,927 | -1,431,338 | -1,392,610 | -1,434,247 | -1,472,678 | -1,403,624 | -1,333,381 |
| Payables (>1 year) | | | | | | | |
| -307,456 | -299,950 | -301,171 | -290,709 | -293,173 | -289,553 | -274,740 | |
| Provisions | -234,803 | -87,658 | -190,381 | -180,297 | -273,949 | -680,459 | -855,771 |
| -32,163 | 395,635 | -134,719 | -159,934 | 98,293 | -310,572 | -503,982 | Capital employed within |
| core department | | | | | | | |
| ALB net assets | -30,077 | -166,359 | 8,290 | -24,122 | 38,734 | 41,232 | 39,170 |
| Total capital employed in | | | | | | | |
| departmental group | | | | | | | |
| -62,240 | 229,276 | -126,429 | -184,056 | 137,027 | -269,340 | -464,811 | |
## Table 4 - Administration Budgets £'000
| 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 |
|--------------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Plans |
| Resource DEL | | | | | | |
| Crime and Policing Group | 32,143 | 39,576 | 34,191 | 38,546 | 42,928 | 16,354 |
| 57,028 | 56,557 | 54,599 | 48,444 | 52,309 | 49,109 | 50,336 |
| Counter Terrorism | | | | | | |
| UK Border Agency | 236,310 | 240,748 | 160,911 | 106,910 | - | - |
| Immigration Enforcement | - | - | - | - | 9,079 | 8,581 |
| UK Visas & Immigration | - | - | - | - | 14,726 | 29,588 |
| - | - | - | - | 23,917 | 21,378 | 22,411 |
| Policy | | | | | | |
| Border Force | - | - | - | 21,675 | 2,569 | 2,224 |
| HM Passport Office | 47,579 | 2,631 | 5,381 | 3,463 | 4,120 | 1,585 |
| Enablers | 226,696 | 179,881 | 146,479 | 180,730 | 308,357 | 343,162 |
| Arms Length Bodies (Net) | 80,791 | 71,685 | 64,471 | 48,987 | 20,763 | 32,763 |
| National Fraud Authority | 3,943 | - | 861 | 583 | 639 | - |
| Criminal Records Bureau | -4,616 | 6,269 | 6,472 | -29 | - | - |
| Total administration | | | | | | |
| budget | | | | | | |
| 679,874 | 597,347 | 473,365 | 449,309 | 479,407 | 504,744 | 378,165 |
| Of which: | | | | | | |
| Staff costs | 231,637 | 239,263 | 278,194 | 293,676 | 288,186 | 271,056 |
| 428,724 | 479,399 | 166,387 | 135,439 | 136,672 | 202,806 | 177,437 |
| Purchase of goods and | | | | | | |
| services | | | | | | |
| -156,484 | -145,913 | -85,024 | -21,313 | -21,879 | -15,777 | -23,559 |
| goods and services | | | | | | |
| - | - | - | - | -26 | 1 | - |
| government (net) | | | | | | |
| - | - | - | 7 | 89 | 146 | - |
| Current grants to | | | | | | |
| persons and non-profit | | | | | | |
| bodies (net) | | | | | | |
| -367 | - | -865 | - | 20 | - | - |
| (net) | | | | | | |
| Rentals | 155,345 | - | 89,398 | 102,664 | 117,522 | 101,950 |
| Depreciation | 6,532 | 13,118 | 12,050 | 10,378 | 11,575 | 23,434 |
| Take up of provisions | - | - | 10,924 | - | - | - |
| Other resource | 14,487 | 11,480 | 2,301 | -71,542 | -52,752 | -78,872 |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | -2,090 |
| resource | | | | | | |
The numbers in this table cannot always be reconciled to the numbers in the accounts because they are taken at a different point in time from OSCAR, the HMT's database. We strive to ensure that they are taken as close to the date of the accounts as possible. These numbers were taken as at 22 May 2015
Key workforce changes during 2014-15:
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
30.5.2014
2014-15
Outturn
Outturn
Outturn
NFA6
Leavers
Home Office - Core
Civil Servants Paid
11,152
22,246
27,825
-1,199
Civil Servants Unpaid
700
1,330
1,509
-673
Non Civil Servants
604
2,752
2,222
-
Total
12,456
26,328
31,556
-1,872
United Kingdom Border Agency7
Civil Servants Paid
10,426
-
-
Civil Servants Unpaid
469
-
-
Non Civil Servants
1,372
-
-
Total
12,267
-
-
HM Passport Office7
Civil Servants Paid
3,180
3,361
-
Civil Servants Unpaid 8
99
108
-
Non-Civil Servants
5
-
Total
3,134
3,284
3,469
National Fraud Authority Civil Servants Paid9
46
**
-
-**
Civil Servants Unpaid
4
-
-
-
Non Civil Servants9
0
**
-
-**
Total
50
9
-
-9
Key workforce changes during 2014-15:
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
30.5.2014
2014-15
Outturn
Outturn
Outturn
NFA6
Leavers
Total Home Office including Agencies
Civil Servants Paid
24,804
25,609
27,825
-1,199
Civil Servants Unpaid
1,271
1,437
1,509
-673
Non Civil Servants
1,981
2,760
2,222
-
Unknown10
81
73
71
-
Total
28,137
29,879
31,627
-1,872
Non Departmental Public Bodies11
Paid Staff
5,293
1,457
1,818
Unpaid Staff
82
17
14
Agency/Contractors
167
62
92
Total
5,542
1,537
1,924
Total Home Office including Agencies and Non Departmental Public Bodies Grand Total
33,679
31,416
33,551
Notes: (1)
This information has been extracted from Data View, the Department's single source of Office for National Statistics (ONS) compliant monthly snapshot corporate Human Resources data.
(2)
Outturn figures are accurate as at 31 March of each year and include all current employees on that date.
(3)
Figures are subject to rounding +/- 1.
(4)
Staff numbers are National Statistics published on the ONS website and have been collated on a different basis to the staff numbers in note (7) in the main body of the annual accounts, which are based on average numbers for the financial year 2014-15.
(5)
Figures are reported using ONS Definitions:
-
Civil Servants Paid includes permanent, temporary, fixed-term appointments (FTA), incoming loans paid (Other Government Departments (OGD)),
outgoing loans paid (OGD) and outgoing secondments paid (Non-OGD).
- Civil Servants Unpaid includes permanent unpaid, temporary unpaid, FTA unpaid, incoming loans unpaid (OGD) and outgoing loans unpaid (OGD).
- Non-Civil Servants includes agency employees, incoming secondments unpaid (Non-OGD) and contractors non-paid.
Key workforce changes in 2014-15 include:
(6)
National Fraud Authority closed on 31st March 2014, 9 (FTE) staff remained to facilitate the winding up of its business, moving on to other areas of the Home Office by 30th May 2014.
(7)
Home Office no longer has any Executive Agencies. United Kingdom Border Agency ceased Agency status on 1st April 2013 with 12,268 (FTE) staff
moved in to core Home Office. 3,578 HM Passport Office staff moved in to core Home Office on 1st October 2014.
(8)
Figures for HM Passport Office for unpaid civil servants and non civil servants have been merged, as the FTE of non civil servants is less than 5.
(9)
Figures for the National Fraud Authority for paid civil servants and non civil servants and for paid and unpaid civil servant staff moving to other Home
Office areas, have been redacted and replaced with ** to prevent the disclosure of figures less than 5.
(10)
Unknown: these employees were moving between businesses within the department at 31 March each year.
(11) The Non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) are:
-
Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS);
- Gangmaster Licencing Authority (GLA) - Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) - Office of the Immigration Service Commissioner (OISC); - Security Industry Authority (SIA)
The DBS are included in this staff table as an NDPB but for the purposes of the accounts they are not included.
## Country And Regional Analysis - Core Tables 6, 7 & 8
1.
Tables 6, 7 and 8 show analyses of the department's spending by country and region, and by function.
The data presented in these tables are consistent with the country and regional analyses (CRA) published by HM Treasury in the *November 2014 release*. The figures were largely taken from the Online System
for Central Accounting and Reporting (OSCAR) during the summer of 2014 and the regional distributions
were completed by the following autumn (taking on board any revisions to departmental totals). Please note that totals may not sum due to rounding.
2.
The analyses are set within the overall framework of Total Expenditure on Services (TES). TES broadly represents the current and capital expenditure of the public sector, with some differences from the national accounts measure Total Managed Expenditure. The tables show the central government and public corporation elements of TES. They include current and capital spending by the department and its NDPBs, and public corporations' capital expenditure, but do not include capital finance to public corporations. They do not include payments to local authorities or local authorities own expenditure.
3.
TES is a cash equivalent measure of public spending. The tables do not include depreciation, cost of capital charges, or movements in provisions that are in departmental budgets. They do include pay, procurement, capital expenditure, and grants and subsidies to individuals and private sector enterprises. Further information on TES can be found in Appendix E of *PESA 2014*.
4.
The data feature both identifiable and non-identifiable spending:
a. Identifiable expenditure on services - which is capable of being analysed as being for the benefit of
individual countries and regions.
b. Expenditure that is incurred for the benefit of the UK as a whole and cannot be disseminated by
individual country or region is considered to be non-identifiable.
5.
Across government, most expenditure is not planned or allocated on a regional basis. Social security payments, for example, are paid to eligible individuals irrespective of where they live. Expenditure on other programmes is allocated by looking at how all the projects across the department's area of responsibility, usually England, compare. So the analyses show the regional outcome of spending decisions that on the whole have not been made primarily on a regional basis.
6.
The functional analyses of spending in **Table 8** are based on the United Nations Classification of the
Functions of Government (COFOG), the international standard. The presentations of spending by function are consistent with those used in Chapter A of the CRA November 2014 release. These are not the same as the strategic priorities shown elsewhere in the report.
| Total identifiable expenditure on services by country and region, 2009-10 to 2013-14 | £ million |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|
| National Statistics | |
| Home Office | |
| 2009-10 | 2010-11 |
| North East | 56 |
| North West | 156 |
| Yorkshire and the Humber | 110 |
| East Midlands | 85 |
| West Midlands | 118 |
| East | 109 |
| London | 264 |
| South East | 161 |
| South West | 98 |
| Total England | 1,157 |
| Scotland | 34 |
| Wales | 62 |
| Northern Ireland | 12 |
| UK identifiable expenditure | 1,265 |
| Outside UK | - |
| Total identifiable expenditure | 1,265 |
| Non-identifiable expenditure | 2,197 |
| Total expenditure on services | 3,462 |
| Total identifiable expenditure on services by country and region, per head 2009-10 to 2013-14 | £ per head |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|
| National Statistics | |
| Home Office | |
| 2009-10 | 2010-11 |
| North East | 22 |
| North West | 22 |
| Yorkshire and the Humber | 21 |
| East Midlands | 19 |
| West Midlands | 21 |
| East | 19 |
| London | 33 |
| South East | 19 |
| South West | 19 |
| England | 22 |
| Scotland | 7 |
| Wales | 21 |
| Northern Ireland | 6 |
| UK identifiable expenditure per | |
| head | |
| 20 | 15 |
Grand Total
Not Identifiable
Outside UK
Northern Ireland
Wales
Scotland
England
South West
South East
National Statistics
London
East
West Midlands
East Midlands
Yorkshire and
The Humber
North West
North East
of which: immigration and
citizenship
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
977 977
of which: other police services
25
68
49
39 53 49
117
73 44
517
16 27
6
- -
566
TOTAL HOME OFFICE
EXPENDITURE ON SERVICES
56
153
110
87
119 110
262 164 100
1,161
37 61 13
-
977
2,249
Total public order and safety
56
153
110
87
119 110
262 164 100
1,161
37 61 13
-
977
2,249
3.6 Public order and safety not
elsewhere.classified.
30 81
58
46 63 58
138
87 53
614
20 32
7
- -
673
3.5 R&D public order and safety
1 4 3 2 3 3 7 4 3
30
1 2 0
- -
33
3.4 Prisons
- - - - - - - -
3.3 Law courts
- - - - - - - -
3.2 Fire-protection services
- - - - - - - -
3.1 Police services
25 68
49
39 53 49
117
73 44
517
16 27
6
-
977
1,543
3. Public order and safety
Home Office
## Glossary
| ACMD | Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| ACS | Approved Contractor Scheme |
| ALBs | Arm's Length Bodies |
| AME | Annually Managed Expenditure |
| ARAC | Audit and Risk Assurance Committee |
| BME | Black and Minority Ethnic |
| CAESER | Corporate Assessment of Environmental, Social & Economic Responsibility |
| CBI | Confederation of British Industry |
| CCL | Consultancy & Contingent Labour |
| CETV | Cash Equivalent Transfer Value |
| CIA | Chief Internal Auditor |
| CJS | Criminal Justice System |
| CMIP | Contract Management Improvement Plan |
| CPS | Crown Prosecution Service |
| CS | Corporate Security |
| CSA | Chief Scientific Adviser |
| CSA | Child Sexual Abuse |
| CTRIU | Counter-Terrorism Internet referral Unit |
| DBS | The Disclosure and Barring Service |
| DCLG | Department for Communities and Local Government |
| DRD | Data Retention Directive |
| DRIPA | Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act |
| DSAB | Digital Services at the Border' |
| DSB | Diversity Strategy Board |
| DUP | Departmental Unallocated Provision |
| DVLA | Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency |
| EEA | European Economic Area |
| EMB | Executive Management Board |
| ETS | Educational Testing Service |
| FNOs | Foreign National Offenders |
| FOI | Freedom of Information (FOI) |
| FReM | Financial Reporting Manual |
| FTE | Full Time Equivalent |
| GBS | Government Buying Standards |
| GGC | Greening Government Commitments |
| GLA | Gangmasters Licensing Authority |
| GRAA | Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 |
| HMPO | Her Majesty's Passport Office |
| HMRC | HM Revenue and Customs |
| HO | Home Office |
| HODS | Home Office Disability Support Network |
| IA | Information Assurance |
| IA | Internal Audit |
| IAOs | Information Asset Owners |
| IAU | Internal Audit Unit |
| ICIBI | Independent Chief Inspector of Borders & Immigration |
| ICT | Information Communications Technology |
| IE | Immigration Enforcement |
| IPCC | Independent Police Complaints Commission |
| ISC | Intelligence and Security Committee |
| ISIL | Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant |
| ITTs | Invitations To Tender |
| JESIP | Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Programme |
| LGBT | Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender |
| MoG | Machinery of Government |
| NCA | The National Crime Agency |
| NDPBs | Non-Departmental Public Bodies |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| NED | Non-Executive Director |
| NGC | Nominations and Governance Committee |
| NGSVCV | National Group on Sexual Violence against Children and Vulnerable People |
| OCPA | Office of Commissioner for Public Appointments |
| OISC | Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner |
| ONS | Office for National Statistics |
| PAC | Public Accounts Committee |
| IPCC | Independent Police Complaints Commission |
| PCC | Police and Crime Commissioners |
| PCC | Police Complaints Commission |
| PCPF | Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund |
| PHSO | Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman |
| PIC | Portfolio and Investment Committee |
| PIF | Police Innovation Fund |
| PIPU | Police Integrity and Powers Unit |
| PSRU | Police Strategy and Reform Unit |
| PSTU | Police Science and Technology Unit |
| QDS | Quarterly Data Summary |
| SB | Supervisory Board |
| SCS | Senior Civil Servant |
| SELT | Secure English Language Test |
| SIA | Security Industry Authority |
| SIO | Specified Information Order |
| SIRO | Senior Information Risk Owner |
| SLGRS | Senior Leadership Group on Risk and Safety |
| SMEs | Small and Medium Enterprises |
| SoPS | Statement of Parliamentary Supply |
| SPL | Shared Parental Leave |
| SR13 | Spending Round 2013 |
| SSRB | Senior Salaries Review Body |
| tCO2e | tonnes of carbon dioxide |
| TPIMS | Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures |
| UKVI | UK Visas and Immigration |
| VFM | Value for Money |
| en |
1765-pdf |
ISSUING OFFICE ADDRESS LINE 1-----X
ISSUING OFFICE ADDRESS LINE 2-----X
ISSUING OFFICE ADDRESS LINE 3-----X
ISSUING OFFICE ADDRESS LINE 4-----X
ISSUING OFFICE ADDRESS LINE 5-----X
ISSUING OFFICE ADDRESS LINE 6-----X
POSTCODE X
REPRINT-REFERENCE--X
999
Text left aligned at: X = 120.5mm Y = 55mm
Unique tax reference (UTR) 99999 99999
RECIPIENT NAME LINE 1 ------------X
RECIPIENT NAME LINE 2 ------------X
ADDRESS LINE 1 -------------------X
ADDRESS LINE 2 -------------------X
ADDRESS LINE 3 -------------------X
ADDRESS LINE 4 -------------------X
ADDRESS LINE 5 -------------------X
POSTCODE X
These data items to be 10 pt Arial -
helpline number to be emboldened
Top of recipient address data: X = 34mm, Y = 36mm
Accounts Office reference 999PA99999999
CIS Helpline
9999 999 9999
Date
99 XXXXXXXXX 9999
Heading 18pt Arial bold. X = 16mm, Y = 115mm
## 99/99/9999 Construction Industry Scheme Contractor'S Monthly Return For Period Ending
Sub-heading 14pt Arial bold. X = 16mm Data item to be 14 pt Arial bold We have received your Contractor's monthly return for the above period and note that you have included amounts in some of the boxes, but have also completed the nil declaration box on page 4. We have treated this monthly return as one which reports payments to subcontractors and/or deductions from subcontractors. If you disagree, please call the CIS Helpline to let us know what the correct entry should be. You also ticked the box on page 4 indicating that you will not be paying any subcontractors for the foreseeable future. We would normally suspend issue of any further monthly returns for a period of six months. Before we can treat you as inactive, please phone the CIS Helpline immediately in order to clarify the correct inactivity periods you require.
Overlay body text left aligned at: X = 16mm . Overlay body text 11pt Arial, emboldened where shown. | en |
0064-pdf |
## Credit, Debt And Financial Difficulty In Britain, 2011
A report using data from the YouGov DebtTrack survey JULY 2012
## Contents
Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 5
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................. 5
Use of Credit ............................................................................................................................. 5 Debt and savings ...................................................................................................................... 6 Financial difficulty...................................................................................................................... 7
Background..................................................................................................................................... 9
Sources of data............................................................................................................................. 9
Comparability with previous surveys......................................................................................... 9
Themes ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Use of credit .................................................................................................................................. 11
Unsecured credit......................................................................................................................... 11
Types of credit products.......................................................................................................... 12 Variation in credit use by household characteristics ............................................................... 14
Demand for credit........................................................................................................................ 17
Reliance on credit for everyday expenses .............................................................................. 17 Applications for credit.............................................................................................................. 18 Outcome of applications.......................................................................................................... 20 Future demand for credit......................................................................................................... 21
Secured credit............................................................................................................................. 23
Holdings of secured credit....................................................................................................... 23 Overlap between secured and unsecured credit..................................................................... 25
Debt and Savings.......................................................................................................................... 28
Unsecured debt........................................................................................................................... 28 Secured and total debt................................................................................................................ 29 Debt-to-income ratios.................................................................................................................. 31 Repayment-to-income ratios....................................................................................................... 32 High-indebtedness indicators...................................................................................................... 33
High levels of unsecured debt................................................................................................. 33 High levels of secured debt..................................................................................................... 36
Savings ....................................................................................................................................... 36
Financial difficulty ........................................................................................................................ 39
Objective indicators of financial difficulty..................................................................................... 39
Arrears with payments ............................................................................................................ 39 Personal insolvency ................................................................................................................ 41 Combined measure of objective difficulties............................................................................. 42
Subjective indicators of financial difficulty................................................................................... 44
Heavy burden indicator ........................................................................................................... 44 Other subjective indicators...................................................................................................... 46 Overlap between subjective indicators.................................................................................... 48 Overlap between objective and subjective indicators ............................................................. 51
Households at risk of financial difficulty ...................................................................................... 53
Indicators of risk...................................................................................................................... 53 Comparison with households in financial difficulty.................................................................. 55
Advice on debt ............................................................................................................................ 56
Likelihood of seeking professional debt advice....................................................................... 57 Reasons for not seeking advice.............................................................................................. 58
## Executive Summary
This report follows earlier BIS reports on credit use and household
indebtedness. It uses data from the YouGov DebtTrack survey, an on-
line survey carried out between January and November 2011, to update
trend information about credit use and the extent of consumer
indebtedness in Britain. Overall the analysis suggests a continued
decrease in the proportion of households using unsecured credit but
little change in the average amount of unsecured debt among credit
users. The survey data also indicate a decline in the incidence of
financial difficulty, measured through both objective and subjective
indicators. About one in ten households were either taking formal
action on debt problems or were more than three months in arrears on
payments during 2011.
The report includes discussion of trends over the twelve months from January to
November 2011 and changes since the previous sets of surveys in 2008/09 and 2009/10,
which were covered in previous reports.1 The DebtTrack is a quarterly survey conducted
online which collects data about the financial situation of a sample of adults sampled at
random from a YouGov panel of volunteers. The data are subsequently weighted back to
GB population totals.
## Key Findings
Unless otherwise stated, the figures quoted in this report are based on the combined sample for the four DebtTrack surveys carried out between January and November 2011, so represent average figures for 2011.2 Change between survey rounds in 2011 has also been explored for selected key measures, as indicated in the text.
## Use Of Credit
Unsecured Credit
The average proportion of households with unsecured credit commitments declined
from 58% in 2009/10 to 54% in 2011. The proportion of heavy credit users - those holding four or more different types of credit - also declined from 8% to 6%.
The use of most unsecured credit products declined relative to 2009/10, following a
more marked decline in the previous year. Credit cards remained the most common
10
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/consumer-issues/docs/10-830-over-indebtedness-secondreport
2 The overall sample size for the four surveys is just over 8,300.
source of unsecured credit, held by 25% of households, followed by authorised overdrafts (17%).
Analysis by household characteristics shows the usual pattern of variation in use of
unsecured credit - decreasing with increasing age and with increasing levels of household savings. There was also a high level of credit use among households with children.
The type of credit products used varied by household characteristics. Younger
respondents (aged 18-24 years) had above-average use of mainstream loans (which include student loans) and informal loans from family and friends. Lone-parent
households had high levels of usage for all types of loan, while couples with dependent
children had above-average prevalence of credit and store card debt and use of mail order/ hire purchase.
Demand for credit
About one in six (16%) of respondents had applied for an unsecured credit product in
the previous six months, slightly lower than in 2009/10. One in ten (10%) of respondents said that they were 'very likely' or 'fairly likely' to need to borrow money in the next 3 months; this rose to 15% for borrowing over the next 12 months.
Credit applications showed similar variation to credit holdings by household
characteristics. Applications were highest for young respondents (29% among those aged 18-24), for lone-parent households (30%) and for households with little or no savings (22-25%).
More than three quarters of applications for a range of products were approved for the
full amount - for student loans, car finance loans, store cards, payday loans and mail order accounts. Applications for unsecured personal loans and overdrafts were the most likely to have been rejected (33% and 29% rejected).
Secured credit
The proportion of households with a mortgage or secured loan increased slightly in
2011, from 37% to 39%, so was similar to the level reported in 2008/09 (40%).
There was substantial overlap with use of unsecured credit, with 25% of all households
having both secured and unsecured credit; 14% had only secured credit and twice this
number (29%) had only unsecured credit.
## Debt And Savings
Household indebtedness
Average levels of debt among borrowers have shown little change in recent years. In
2011 the mean amount of unsecured debt was around £8,500 (median £4,600). One quarter (25%) of borrowers had unsecured debts of £1,000 or less and around one half
(48%) of £4,000 or less, while 30% owed more than £10,000.
As in previous surveys, student loans were, on average, the largest (mean of £11,000)
followed by personal loans (£7,200) and car finance loans (£6,200).
Average levels of secured debt exceeded those for unsecured credit, with a mean value
of around £92,000. Combining values for secured and unsecured credit gives an average total debt of about £57,000 across all households using some form of credit.
The debt-to-income ratio can be a more useful indicator than absolute levels of debt in
assessing risk of financial difficulty. Most households had modest levels of debt on this
measure, with two fifths (40%) having an unsecured debt-to-income ratio of 10% or less, although 15% of households had unsecured debts amounting to more than 60% of
annual household income.
Looking at repayment-to-income ratios (for unsecured debts only), the majority of
households appears to be in a sustainable position; about three fifths of borrowers had repayments equivalent to 10% or less of their income. However, 13% were spending more than 30% of their income on unsecured credit repayments.
The highest levels of unsecured debts were found among young respondents. High
debt-to-income ratios were found among lower income groups and one-person households as well as for young respondents. High repayment-to-income ratios were most common among lone-parent, one-person and low-income households.
Household savings
As seen in 2009/10, most households had very low levels of 'liquid' (i.e. easily
accessible) savings, with three-fifths (60%) having savings of less than £5,000. In particular, households using unsecured credit had below-average savings; half of this
group had savings of less than £1,000.
The likelihood of having a higher level of savings (£10,000 or more) increased steeply
with age and household income. It was also above-average for couples with no children (38% compared with 28% overall) and below-average for lone-parent households (8%).
## Financial Difficulty
Objective indicators of financial difficulty
On average in 2011, 7% of households were more than three months in arrears on bills
and payments. This proportion has fallen over recent years and was 9% in 2009/10.
In total, 5% of the sample were subject to a formal arrangement or an agreement to
deal with debts (6% in 2009/10); 1% had been declared bankrupt in the past two years, 1% had a current IVA and 4% were paying off debts through a Debt Management Plan.
Combining these two measures, 10% of households were defined as being in financial
difficulties - 5% were taking action on debt and a further 5% were in structural arrears. This compares with 12% of households in 2009/10.
Households with little or no savings and those with low income were more likely than
others to be in financial difficulties, as were lone-parent households and households in
which one or more adult was unemployed.
Subjective indicators of financial difficulty
Subjective measures show that a higher proportion of people have concerns about their
financial position than are experiencing difficulties on the objective indicators used here. In 2011, 13% of respondents considered that keeping up with bills and credit
commitments was a heavy burden, 22% said that they either constantly struggled to
keep up with bills and payments or were falling behind and 19% said that they struggled to last to the next pay day 'more often than not'. All of these measures showed a decrease over recent years.
There was a significant degree of overlap between the three subjective indicators of
financial stress; overall, 30% of respondents gave a positive response on at least one indicator, with 17% giving a positive response on two or more measures.
The overlap between subjective and objective measures of financial difficulty was less
complete. One half or more of those who perceived they were under financial pressure
were not experiencing severe financial difficulties nor beginning to fall behind on their payments.
Households at risk of financial difficulty
About 12% of households might be considered at risk of financial difficulties. These
households were not experiencing severe financial difficulties (either taking action on
debt or in structural arrears) but showed signs of subjective stress on at least two indicators.
The characteristics of households experiencing financial stress were broadly similar to
those households already experiencing difficulties, with high incidence among
households with low savings or low income and lone-parent households.
Debt advice
In 2011, 5% of respondents who had some difficulties keeping up with bills and
payments had sought professional debt advice in the previous six months. This compares with 7% in 2009/10.
The most common reason given for not having sought advice was that respondents did
not feel that they needed advice (69% of those who had not sought advice). About one
in ten respondents had either received advice in the past and knew what to do (5%) or
had got advice elsewhere (5%).
The most common types of action reported by respondents after receiving advice were
that they had cut back on spending (34%), had contacted creditors (33%) and set out a budget plan (33%).
## Background
Conducting in-depth analysis of groups who are either already in or at risk of falling into financial difficulties requires detailed survey data.
This is the third in a series of BIS reports using data from the YouGov DebtTrack Surveys; previous reports presented data for the periods from July 2008 to July 2009 and from November 2009 to October 2010.3 4
This latest report is based on the DebtTrack surveys carried out between January and November 2011.5
## Sources Of Data
The YouGov DebtTrack is an online survey that was launched in July 2008 and designed to provide a better understanding of the nature and dynamics of consumer debt and financial difficulty. In 2008/9, the survey included both cross-sectional and panel elements;
the panel comprised a small sample of households that were experiencing financial stress. Since November 2009 only the cross-sectional survey has been carried out. These results from the DebtTrack survey are based on four cross-sectional surveys conducted at intervals between January and November 2011. The sample size for the survey was reduced in 2011 to around 2,000 respondents per quarter, as compared to around 3,000 respondents per quarter in the previous years. Most of the figures quoted in this report are based on the combined sample of 8,338 respondents to the four surveys, so represent average figures for 2011. The quarterly DebtTrack survey collects data from a sample of around 2,000 adults aged 18 or over. An invitation to take part in the survey is sent by e-mail to a randomly-selected sample of individuals from the YouGov plc GB panel 6 and respondents access the survey through a link to the relevant part of the YouGov website. The questions relate to the current financial position of the respondent and, where relevant, their spouse or partner.
The responding sample is weighted back to the profile of the British population using known distributions of key variables, including age, gender, tenure and household income, to provide a nationally-representative sample.
## Comparability With Previous Surveys
The DebtTrack is particularly valuable in being able to provide regular and timely updates on the financial position of households in Great Britain and how they have been affected by the changing macroeconomic climate. Most of the trends discussed in this report involve comparison with the earlier rounds of the DebtTrack survey, which utilised similar methodology and survey design although there have been some changes in question wording and routing that may affect comparisons over time. Comparison of results with other surveys is complicated by possible differences in methodology, including differences in precise question wording and in the context in which questions are asked, sample structure 7 and survey mode 8. Some of the measures used in this report are compared with published results from the Wealth and Assets Survey, carried out by the Office for National Statistics9 which uses face-to-face interviewing and has other design attributes that may affect comparability with the DebtTrack.
## Themes
Three main areas are addressed in this report. Use of credit This section focuses mainly on the use of unsecured credit, exploring the prevalence of different types of unsecured credit (e.g. personal loans, overdrafts, credit cards) and variation in credit use among different groups of households. It also covers recent applications and future demand for credit. It finally looks at the interaction and overlap between holdings of secured and unsecured credit and how this varies by household characteristics. Debt and savings This section explores levels of unsecured and secured debt, both in absolute terms and relative to household income, and how this differs across households. It also includes an analysis of repayment-to-income ratios for unsecured debts and data on levels of liquid savings for different groups of households. Financial difficulty This section utilises a mixture of objective indicators (e.g. personal insolvency action, arrears on repayments or household bills) and subjective indicators (e.g. whether repayments are a 'heavy burden', struggling to keep up with bills/credit commitments) to assess the prevalence of financial difficulties and to explore the characteristics of households at risk of financial difficulty.
have more time to complete surveys or who are attracted by possible financial gain, which may in turn be related to the type of credit products used or to the incidence of financial difficulties.
8 The DebtTrack is a self-completion survey that is administered online so it could under-represent those households that do not have access to the Internet, such as older people and low-income households. Additionally, self-completion surveys are likely to result in a greater degree of measurement error.
## Use Of Credit
Credit use decreased between 2009/10 and 2011, both at the aggregate level and across several key unsecured products such as credit cards, overdrafts and personal loans. The decreasing demand for credit is also seen in a fall in applications for new credit products and in the likelihood that households would need to borrow more in the next few months. The pattern of credit use has remained broadly unchanged, with high usage among households with low savings and lone-parent households, who were also more likely to make use of non-mainstream credit including loans from family and friends.
## Unsecured Credit
In 2011, just over one half (54%) of households had some form of unsecured credit commitment (Table 1). This continues the decline in prevalence of unsecured credit seen in earlier years, from 64% in 2008/09 and 58% in 2009/10, although the proportion appeared to be levelling out in the second half of 2011.
| | 2008/ | 2009/ | Jan | March | June | Nov | Total |
|------------------------|----------|----------|--------|----------|---------|--------|----------------------------|
| | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2011 | 2011 | 2011 | 2011 |
| (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | |
| Unsecured credit | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 64 | 58 | 56 | 55 | 52 | 54 | 54 | Any unsecured credit |
| commitments | | | | | | | |
| 11 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 4 or more unsecured credit |
| commitments | | | | | | | |
| 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 or more unsecured credit |
| commitments | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| All credit commitments | | | | | | | |
| (inc. mortgages and | | | | | | | |
| secured loans) | | | | | | | |
| 75 | 70 | 69 | 69 | 66 | 69 | 68 | Any credit commitments |
| (including mortgage or | | | | | | | |
| secured loan) | | | | | | | |
| 18 | 13 | 11 | 12 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 4 or more credit |
| commitments | | | | | | | |
| 8 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 or more credit |
| commitments | | | | | | | |
| Base = 100% | 14,132 | 13,172 | 2,043 | 2,072 | 2,142 | 2,099 | 8,338 |
| | | | | | | | |
There was a corresponding reduction in the proportion of households using a large number of different types of credit; in 2011, 6% of households had four or more different types of unsecured credit compared with 8% of households in 2009/10 and 11% in
2008/09. A similar decrease was also seen in the proportion of households with any form of credit, including mortgages and secured credit, from 75% in 2008/09 to 68% in 2011. The decrease in use of unsecured credit and in the number of credit products held is illustrated in Figure 1.10 This shows a slight increase in the proportion of households with just one unsecured credit product as well as a more substantial increase in the proportion with no products. The proportions of households with two or more products have decreased consistently since 2008/09.
## Types Of Credit Products
The DebtTrack survey collects detailed information on the type of loans and sources of credit used by respondents and their partners together with the amount of outstanding credit for each type of commitment at the time of interview. Although the data are not strictly comparable with other surveys because of differences in the mode of interview and question content, they provide a useful indicator of trends and allow investigation of the relationship between credit commitments and other aspects of the household's financial position.
As in previous years, the most common sources of unsecured credit were credit cards
(25% of households) and bank overdrafts (17%) (Figure 2).11 These were followed by
student loans (13%), personal loans (13%) and mail order accounts (10%).
Informal loans from family or friends were used by 7% of respondents, and 3% of the
sample were using high-cost credit sources (home-collected credit, payday and
pawnbroker loans).
In line with the overall reduction in use of unsecured credit, the prevalence of most of
these types of credit decreased between 2009/10 and 2011, following a more marked decline in the previous year. For example, the prevalence of authorised overdrafts decreased from 29% in 2008/09 to 22% in 2009/10 and 17% in 2011 and that of unsecured personal loans from 22% to 15% and 13% (Figure 3). The prevalence of
some of the less commonly used sources of credit was fairly stable over the last two years; 10% of households had mail order loans in both of these years, and high-cost credit sources (home-collected credit, payday loans and pawnbroker loans) were used by 2-3% of households in both years.
Overall, almost one half (47%) of users of unsecured credit had only one type of credit and only one in eight (12%) had four or more types.12 As shown in Figure 4, the likelihood of having multiple loans varied for users of different products. Holders of student loans were the most likely group to have only one type of loan: 47% had no other unsecured credit commitments.13 Store card users were most likely to have other commitments - only 9%
of users had no other types of credit commitment. Users of store cards, high-cost credit and hire purchase were all very likely to have multiple types of unsecured credit: about two-fifths of each of these groups was using three or more other types of unsecured credit.
The standard list of credit products used on the DebtTrack surveys includes authorised overdrafts, which were used by some 17% of respondents in 2011. Additional questions on unauthorised overdrafts were also included in the 2011 surveys. Analysis of these questions is included at Appendix C and indicates that about one in ten respondents had used an unauthorised overdraft in the previous 12 months.
## Variation In Credit Use By Household Characteristics
Analysis of credit use in the previous series of DebtTrack surveys has supported the accepted pattern of variation through the life-cycle, with high usage among families with children and lower usage for older households. Analysis of data for the 2011 surveys shows similar patterns, as illustrated in Figure 5.14 Key points were as follows.
Declining credit use with increasing age of the respondent. Usage was 67% to 68% for
those aged 18-24 and 25-39 but fell sharply to 39% for respondents aged 55 or over.
A strong inverse relationship between credit use and the level of household savings.
More than three quarters of households with zero or less than £1,000 in savings (77- 78%) had some form or unsecured credit, compared with 44% of households with
savings of £10,000-£20,000 and 26% of those with savings of £20,000 or more.
Little variation in the use of unsecured credit with household income. A high level of credit use among households with children (61% for couples with
children and 70% for lone parents with children).
Low credit use among households that owned their home outright - 27% compared with
54% overall. This reflects the greater average age and affluence of this group.
As in 2009/10, there was some variation in the type of credit products used by different groups of household.15 For this analysis, credit products were grouped into the following categories:
-
Mainstream loans - personal loans, authorised overdrafts and student loans
-
Credit and store cards
-
Mail order, hire purchase agreements and car finance
-
DSS/ Social Fund and Credit Union loans
-
Informal loans from family and friends
-
High-cost credit - payday loans, home-collected credit and pawnbroker loans.
The main patterns were as follows.
The likelihood of using mainstream loans and credit or store cards tended to increase
with household income. In contrast, the likelihood of using Credit Union/ DSS loans or
high-cost credit tended to decrease with increasing household income. (Figure 6)
Prevalence of all types of loan was highest among households with no or very low
savings and decreased steeply with increasing household savings. Use of high-cost credit, informal loans and Credit Union/ DSS loans were particularly high among these groups.
Lone-parent households had above-average usage of all types of loan, with a
particularly high prevalence of credit and store card debt (41% compared with 26% overall). Couples with dependent children also showed above-average prevalence of
credit and store card debt and use of mail order/ hire purchase. (Figure 7)
Younger respondents (aged 18-24 years) had above-average use of mainstream loans,
which include student loans, and informal loans from family and friends. Respondents in middle age bands (25-39 and 40-54) had relatively high usage of credit or store card loans.
Although high-cost credit (payday loans, home-collected credit and pawnbroker loans) is used by only a small proportion of the population, there are concerns that it impacts on low income and more vulnerable consumers. Further analysis of the use of high-cost credit, based on data from all three years of the DebtTrack surveys, can be found in Appendix B.
## Demand For Credit
The DebtTrack surveys provide data on various measures for credit demand, with questions about respondents' reliance on credit for everyday expenses, applications for credit products in the recent past and intentions to apply in the future.
## Reliance On Credit For Everyday Expenses
Although credit is an important feature of modern living it can become problematic when relied on to pay for everyday expenses. One in ten respondents in 2011 (10%) said that they (or their partner) used credit or store cards or an overdraft to pay for everyday living expenses 'all the time', and a further 14% used credit for living expenses 'once in a
while'.16 The use of credit for everyday expenses appears to have decreased slightly over time from 26% in 2008/09 to 24% in 2011. Variation between households in the likelihood of using credit to meet everyday living expenses was broadly similar to the variation in use of unsecured credit, as illustrated in Figure 9.17 As would be expected, households with zero or very small savings were much more likely to use credit for everyday expenses either 'all the time' or 'once in a while' -
38% to 45% compared with 24% overall. There was, however, very little variation by current household income. Households with children were also more likely than average to use credit for everyday expenditure - 39% for lone parents with children and 30% for couples with children.
## Applications For Credit
Overall, about one in six respondents (16%) had applied for an unsecured credit product in the six months before interview and 2% for a mortgage or secured loan.18 This does not cover increased borrowing on existing products but is simply a measure of the level of demand for new credit products. Applications for a credit card were the most common (8%
of respondents) followed by applications for an overdraft facility or unsecured loan (each
2%). All other unsecured credit products had application rates of less than 2% across the year as a whole.
There is some evidence of a fall in the rate of applications for new products in the last year, from 18% in 2009/10 to 16% in 2011, but during 2011 the rate varied between 15% and 19% by quarter (see Figure 10). The comparison with 2008/9 is affected by question changes as more credit products were prompted in the recent surveys but a comparison based on the same list of products also suggests a decrease in applications, from 18% in 2008/9 to 14% in 2009/10 and 13% in 2011. Respondents who had applied for an additional unsecured credit product were asked about the main reason for doing so. The responses prompted in the questionnaire all related to existing credit products and were used by about one third of those who had applied for a credit product. Overall about one in six of those making an application had either reached the maximum borrowing on existing products (12%) or faced a decrease in their credit limit (4%). A similar proportion (16%) said that existing credit products had become more expensive to use (table not shown). Variation by household characteristics The level of applications for all types of unsecured loan showed similar variation by household characteristics to that seen for holdings of unsecured credit (Figure 11).19
The likelihood of having applied for an unsecured credit product decreased through the
age range, from 29% for respondents aged 18-24 and 22% for the 25-39 age-group to 9% for respondents aged 55 or over.
Lone-parent families had a particularly high rate of applications (30%) and levels were
also above average for households with little or no savings - 25% to 22% for those with savings of zero or less than £1,000.
## Outcome Of Applications
The outcomes of recent applications for credit varied for the different types of product (see Figure 12).20 Car finance, student loan, store card and mail order account applications were all very likely to have been agreed for the full amount, with acceptance rates of 77% or higher. DSS/Social Fund loans were most likely to have been agreed for a reduced amount (49% of applications). Applications for unsecured personal loans and overdrafts were the most likely to have been rejected by the provider (33% and 29% of applications respectively). The likelihood of having loan applications for the main product types turned down by the provider showed some variation across households. For this analysis data from the last two years of the DebtTrack were combined because of the small number of applications for some products. As illustrated in Figure 13, households with low income (less than £25,000 per annum) tended to have higher rejection rates than higher income households, though not for applications for personal loans. The difference was most marked for credit and store card applications. Younger respondents (aged 18-39) also had higher rejection rates for credit and store cards, and also for personal loans. Households with children had relatively high rejection rates for store cards and bank overdrafts.21
## Future Demand For Credit
One tenth (10%) of respondents in the 2011 surveys said that they were 'very likely' or
'fairly likely' to need to borrow more money over the next three months. This suggests a continuing reduction in demand for credit - some 13% of respondents in 2008/09 said that they were very or fairly likely to need to borrow more in the near future. The decrease in demand was also evident during the past year with an increase in the proportion of respondents who said that they were very unlikely to need to borrow more, from 52-54% in January and March to 59% in June and November.22
As well as being asked about the likelihood of borrowing more in the next three months, respondents were also asked to look further ahead and assess their likelihood of needing to borrow more over the next 6-12 months. The data from the two questions can be combined to provide an overall estimate of demand for credit over a longer period of up to a year. This combined measure indicated that 15% of respondents were fairly or very likely to need to borrow more over the coming year, compared with 10% over the next three months.23
Variation by household characteristics There was substantial variation by household characteristics in expectations for borrowing more money over the next three months.24 The associations with age, level of savings and household composition were broadly similar to those seen for credit applications made in the previous 6 months
.
Young respondents (aged 18-24) were more likely than older groups to say that they
were likely to need to borrow in the next three months (20% compared with 10% overall).
Households with low savings (25% of those with no savings) and lone-parent
households (23%) also showed a high likelihood of needing to borrow more.
There was an inverse relationship between income and the likelihood of needing to
borrow, with low-income groups more likely to say that they might need to borrow. This
association with income was not seen for reported credit applications in the previous six months (Table A9), which may reflect the difficulties experienced by this group in obtaining credit.
## Secured Credit
This section focuses on mortgages and other secured loans, looking first at the prevalence of these loans and then at the overlap with holdings of unsecured credit.
## Holdings Of Secured Credit
Overall, 38% of DebtTrack respondents in 2011 had a mortgage and 3% had some other type of secured credit. In total, 39% of respondents had either a mortgage or another secured loan. This compares with 37% in 2009/10 but is similar to the level seen in 2008/09 (40%). As mortgages tend to be large debts that are taken out over long periods, there are unlikely to be large changes in holdings over a short period. Between 2009/10 and 2011 there was a slight increase in the proportion of respondents with a mortgage, from 36% to 38%, following a decline in the previous year from 39% in 2008/09. There has been a more consistent trend in holdings of other secured loans, which decreased from
5% in 2008/09 to 4% in 2009/10 and 3% in 2011 (Figure 16).25 More than one half (51%) of households with a mortgage reported having a variable-rate mortgage, with most of these reviewed monthly (42% of households with a mortgage). About two-fifths (38%) of respondents with a mortgage had a fixed-rate deal. There was little change between 2009/10 and 2011 in the levels of variable and fixed rate mortgages but over the three-year period there has been an increase in variable rate mortgages, from
46% to 51%, and a decrease in fixed rate mortgages, from 42% to 38% (see Figure 17).26 About three quarters (74%) of respondents with a mortgage had a repayment mortgage; this proportion increased from 70% in 2008/9 and 71% in 2009/10. The proportion of households with an interest-only mortgage has decreased slightly over recent years from
30% in 2008/09 to 28% in 2011.27 One in ten (9%) of respondents with a mortgage had an interest-only loan with no linked repayment vehicle; this represented about one third of those with an interest-only mortgage. About one fifth of mortgage holders had an interestonly mortgage with a linked payment policy: 14% had an endowment policy and 5% had repayment vehicle such as an ISA or pension plan.28
## Overlap Between Secured And Unsecured Credit
Use of unsecured credit is more common than secured credit: 54% of DebtTrack respondents had some form of unsecured credit whereas 39% had a mortgage or other secured loan. In total, 68% of households had one or other form of credit. As already seen, use of credit has decreased over recent years from 75% of households in 2008/09 to 68% in 2011. The decrease is due mainly to a decline in the prevalence of unsecured credit (from 64% in 2008/09 to 54% in 2011) whereas the prevalence of mortgages and secured loans has varied between 37% and 40%.29
There was substantial overlap between holdings of secured and unsecured credit. One quarter (25%) of households had both secured and unsecured credit; this represented almost two thirds of households with secured credit. Some 14% of all households only had a mortgage or secured loan whereas twice as many (29%) only had unsecured credit. The overall decrease in use of unsecured credit between 2008/9 and 2011 is seen both in the proportion of households with only unsecured credit (which fell from 35% to 29%) and those with both secured and unsecured credit (from 29% to 25%).
27 Respondents could have more than one type of mortgage, so percentages sum to more than
100%.
28 See Appendix Table A16
Variation by household characteristics The figures below combine the data on secured and unsecured credit to show variation in any credit use by household characteristics.30
Overall use of credit was lowest in the upper age band (55 or over) at 48%. Otherwise
credit use was reasonably stable across the age bands, varying between 72% and 84%, although there was a clear shift towards secured credit or a combination of secured and unsecured credit in the middle age bands (Figure 19).
There were high levels of credit use among households with dependent children
although couples with children were more likely than lone-parent families to have secured credit (66% compared with 42%).
Overall credit use tended to increase across the income range (from 60% to 82%) but
there were differences in the type of credit used (Figure 20). Households in lower
income bands had higher levels of use of unsecured credit whereas a greater
proportion of those in higher income bands had secured credit; 14%-25% of households with an annual income of less than £25,000 were using secured credit compared with 50%-63% for higher income bands.
Credit use decreased with increasing household savings but this was due mainly to a
decrease in use of unsecured credit with increasing savings. The prevalence of
secured credit tended to be highest among households with mid-range savings of between £1,000 and £20,000.
## Debt And Savings
Although the use of credit has declined in recent years, average debt levels among borrowers have shown relatively little change. The financial position for the majority of households appears to be sustainable and the proportion of households with high debt-to-income ratios has fallen over recent years. Levels of savings remain low with three-fifths of households holding less than £5,000.
Unsecured debt The DebtTrack surveys collect data on the amount currently owed for each type of unsecured loan or credit used by the household and the value of monthly repayments, recorded either as a precise or banded amount. This information has been used to estimate the value of credit from each source as well as debt and repayment ratios
(calculated as a percentage of annual household income).
The majority of borrowers in 2011 had relatively small amounts of unsecured debt. 31 One quarter (25%) of borrowers had debts of less than £1,000 and a further 23% had borrowing of between £1,000 and £4,000. However, at the other end of the distribution, 30% of households owed more than £10,000 on unsecured credit and one tenth (11%)
owed more than £20,000.32 As illustrated in Figure 21, the distribution for the amount of unsecured debt has been relatively stable over recent years. The proportion of responding households with very low levels of debt decreased between 2008/09 and 2009/10 but increased again in 2011. Figure 22 compares the average amounts owed for different types of credit commitment.
nce
33 As in previous surveys student loans were, on average, the largest in terms of value, with a mean of £11,000. 34 They were followed by personal loans (£7,200) and car fina loans (£6,200). The averages for loans from family and friends and for credit card debt were both around £4,500. For every type of debt the median value for the amount owed was substantially less than the mean value, so the distributions are positively skewed with a small number of high values; this can be seen in the high values for the 90th percentile for some types of credit.
Combining the values for amounts owed on individual types of credit gives a mean value for total unsecured debt of around £8,500 with a median of £4,600.35 The comparison of mean values across recent years shows no clear trend in the amount of unsecured debt; small changes from year to year may be due to the influence of a small number of very large values in a specific sample.
## Secured And Total Debt
Levels of secured debt are, predictably, much higher than those for unsecured credit. The distribution in Figure 23 shows that almost two-fifths (37%) of households with secured
debts owed £100,000 or more and some 16% owed £150,000 or more.36 The mean value of secured borrowing was around £92,000 and the median amount was £78,000.37 The data for 2011 suggest that there may have been a small reduction in the value of secured debt over the last two years but this may be an artefact related to an improvement in data collection on this variable, with the proportion of missing values having decreased by about two fifths. The YouGov value for mean secured debt for 2011 is broadly similar to the value reported for the second wave of the Wealth and Assets Survey, covering 2008/10.38 The latter survey provides more robust estimates based on face-to-face interviews of a larger sample with lower levels of non-response.39
The frequency distribution for total debt has a very wide range because of the different values and distributions for secured and unsecured debt.40 At the lower end of the distribution shown in Figure 24, about one quarter (27%) of households using credit had total debts of £5,000 or less.41 At the other end of the distribution, almost two fifths (38%)
of respondents with loans had total debts of more than £50,000. The mean amount of debt recorded by the 2011 DebtTrack surveys for households with some form of credit was around £57,000, with a median of £23,000. This represented a small increase over the levels recorded in the 2009/10 surveys (mean of £53,400, median £17,000) but the comparison is affected by the improvement in data collection for secured borrowing mentioned above. The reduction in the proportion of missing values for the
36 Analysis is based on cases for which information on the value of secured borrowing was available. This value was missing for 22% of households with secured borrowing.
amount of secured debt, which is on average much higher than unsecured debt, will tend to increase average values for total debt.
## Debt-To-Income Ratios
High levels of debt are not necessarily a problem so long as households have the means to continue servicing and repaying them. However, highly-indebted households may be more vulnerable to adverse economic shocks, such as unemployment and increases in interest rates or other household bills, that may put them at risk of falling into financial difficulty. Measures that relate debt and repayments to levels of income are considered to be more useful as indicators of vulnerability. The first of these is the ratio of debt to annual income. Over the last ten years debt has increased at a faster rate than income which has led to an increase in the aggregate debt-to-income ratio, driven mainly by the expansion of secured debt. Due to the different nature of secured and unsecured debt (with secured debt being guaranteed by a saleable asset), much of the discussion of debt burden relates to unsecured debt so the analysis of DebtTrack data focuses on this part of total debt. Figure 25 compares the distribution for the ratio of unsecured debt to household income, for households with unsecured debt, for 2011 and previous years of the DebtTrack surveys.42
As also seen for absolute levels of unsecured debt, the ratio of debt to income indicates that most households had relatively modest levels of borrowing in 2011.43 Two fifths (40%)
of borrowing households had unsecured debts amounting to 10% or less of annual household income and 57% to 20% or less of income. However, some 15% of borrowing households had a very high ratio of unsecured debt to income, of more than 60%, and most of these (11% of borrowing households) had a debt to income ratio of more than 80%.
There is some evidence of a decrease in unsecured debt-to-income ratios over recent years. The proportion of households with a ratio of more than 60% decreased from 19% in 2008/09 and 21% in 2008/09 to 15% in 2011. This tendency to a decreasing debt burden was less clear in terms of absolute levels of unsecured debt (see Figure 21).
## Repayment-To-Income Ratios
Indicators based on the affordability of credit repayments have been widely used in previous reports on credit use and household indebtedness. As the focus of this report is on unsecured credit, the measure used here is the ratio of repayments on unsecured credit to current monthly income. There is a relatively high level of missing data for this measure as is usually the case for self-completion surveys.44
Figure 26 highlights that most households using unsecured credit had relatively low repayment to income ratios, which indicates that the levels of payment were probably manageable. About three-fifths (57%) of borrowing households had debt repayments amounting to 10% or less of household income. The proportion has fluctuated between
55% and 63% since 2008/09.45 On the basis of this ratio, about one in ten households would be considered to have very high levels of borrowing; in 2011, 13% of borrowers had unsecured credit repayments amounting to more than 30% of their income and 9% to more than 40% of income. Again, there is no consistent trend in these figures over recent years and the proportion of borrowing households with a repayment to income ratio of more than 30% has varied between 10% and 16%. The trend may be affected by the variable proportion of cases with missing values on this measure.
## High-Indebtedness Indicators
Previous sections of this report have highlighted the variation in credit use by standard household characteristics. This section looks at variation in the incidence of three indicators of high unsecured debt and at variation in high levels of secured debt. The measures considered are the proportion of households with:
unsecured debts of more than £10,000; an unsecured debt-to-income ratio of more than 60%;
an unsecured repayment to income ratio of more than 30%; and
secured debts of £150,000 or more.
## High Levels Of Unsecured Debt
Variation in the indicators for unsecured debt by selected household types is illustrated in Figures 27 to 29. 46 In all cases the analysis is based only on cases for which the relevant ratio or measure was available. Age of respondent The absolute level of unsecured debt showed a strong association with the age of respondent. Some 45% of respondents in the 18-24 age group had unsecured debts of £10,000 or more, falling to 18% among those aged 55 or over. Young respondents (aged 18 to 24) also had the highest debt-to-income ratios but otherwise the ratio was broadly similar through the age range - 34% of the 18-24 age-group had an unsecured debt to income ratio exceeding 60%, compared with 14% of older groups. There was not, however, a strong association between repayment-to-income ratios and age of respondent
(Figure 29). This may be because much of the total debt of younger groups was due to student loans, for which repayments were either zero or at a very low level. Household income The likelihood of having higher levels of unsecured debt was positively associated with household income. About a quarter (23%) of households with an income of less than £13,500 had unsecured debts of £10,000 or more, rising to 40% of households with an income of £50,000 or more. This relationship was, however, reversed when debt was considered as a proportion of income. Two-fifths (38%) of borrowing households in the lowest income band had debts amounting to 60% or more of annual income, compared with 4% of households in the highest income band.
The likelihood of having a high repayment-to-income ratio was also negatively associated with income; about one third (31%) of households in the lowest income band had a repayment-to-income ratio in excess of 30% and this decreased to 9% of households with an annual income of £25,000 or more. Household savings
There was little variation in the prevalence of high levels of unsecured debt with household savings, although households with lower savings were more likely than others to have high debt-to-income ratios and high repayment-to-income ratios. For example, 20-23% of households with savings of less than £1,000 had unsecured debts amounting to 60% or more of household income, compared with 7% of households with savings of £10,000 or more.
Household composition Although lone-parent households were more likely than average to use unsecured credit and to have a large number of commitments, they did not have high absolute levels of debt. They were, however, more likely than average to have high repayment-to-income ratios - 23% compared with 14% overall. Single-person households were the most likely group to have high unsecured debt-to-income ratios; 25% had unsecured debts equivalent to 60% or more of their annual income compared with 16% overall.
## High Levels Of Secured Debt
Levels of secured debt may not be as problematic as high levels of unsecured debt as the debt is directly linked to a saleable asset, but groups with high debt levels may have an increased risk of falling into financial difficulty. The incidence of high levels of secured debt showed a markedly different pattern to high levels of unsecured debt. 47 As would be expected, there was a strong association between the level of debt and household income. One third (33%) of households in the highest income band (£50,000 or more) had secured debts of £150,000 or more compared with between 2% and 9% of lower income groups. High levels of secured debts were also prevalent among respondents in the 25-39 age-group (23% compared with 16% overall) and among couples with children (22%).
## Savings
In order to give a more complete picture of the financial position of responding households this section presents some information about household savings. The DebtTrack Survey includes a question about the amount that the respondent (and partner) have in 'liquid'
savings. These are defined as savings that could easily be used in an emergency and are not tied up in a pension or long-term savings product. The estimate of savings is collected either as a precise amount or in banded form and, as for other detailed financial data, there was a relatively high level of missing information for this variable.48 Generally, households had relatively low levels of savings. Almost two-fifths (39%) of households had liquid savings of less than £1,000 and three-fifths (60%) had savings of less than £5,000 (Figure 31).49 At the other end of the distribution, just 8% of households had savings of £50,000 or more. The distribution was broadly similar to that reported in the 2009/10 surveys. The mean level of savings across all households was £14,500 in 2011 but the distribution is highly skewed with a median of only £2,000. As seen in earlier analyses, households using unsecured credit had below-average levels of savings (mean of £6,300, median of £800) and substantially lower savings than households using secured credit (mean £10,400, median £3,000). Households that were not using any form of credit reported much higher savings of £29,500 on average (median
£7,500). Figure 32 illustrates variation in savings by selected household characteristics by comparing the proportion of households with savings of £10,000 or more.50 Overall, threetenths (28%) of the responding sample had savings of this level, but the proportion ranged from just 8% among lone-parent households to 38% among couples with no children. There were very strong positive associations between higher levels of savings and both age and income. Almost one half (47%) of households with an annual income of £50,000
or more had savings of £10,000 plus, compared with just 11% of those with an income of less than £13,500. Similarly, 41% of respondents aged 55 or over had savings of £10,000 or more compared with 22% of those aged 25-39 and 8% of 18-24 year-olds.
## Financial Difficulty The Survey Data Suggest That The Incidence Of Financial Difficulty, Measured Through Both Objective And Subjective Indicators, Continued To Decline During 2011. About One In Ten Households Were Either Taking Formal Action On Debt Problems Or Were In Three Month Arrears On Payments, And About One In Five Said That They Constantly Struggled To Keep Up With Bills And Payments.
There is no universal agreement on the definition of the indicators that should be used to measure financial difficulty. In 2004, Oxera defined an over-indebted household or individual as one where 'households or individuals are in arrears on a structural basis, or are at a significant risk of getting into arrears on a structural basis'.51 More recently, Nottingham University considered a more precise definition of 'over-indebtedness' to be,
"where the household's credit-financed spending plans are inconsistent with its potential income stream" 52 although this concept is clearly difficult to monitor through a standard cross-sectional survey. This section focuses first on 'objective' indicators of financial problems available for the DebtTrack Surveys, covering arrears on payments and various forms of insolvency action, and then considers various subjective indicators of financial stress.
## Objective Indicators Of Financial Difficulty
The first objective indicator, and the most easily measured, identifies households that are in arrears on payments.
## Arrears With Payments
Questions about arrears on current bills and payments are considered to be a strong objective indicator of current financial difficulties. Respondents to the DebtTrack surveys were asked directly about whether they (or their partner) were currently behind with any payments on bills or credit commitments and, if so, whether they had been behind with any payments for more than three months. The latter measure was used to identify households that were in 'structural' arrears, i.e. excluding those who may have simply forgotten to pay a bill or who had delayed payment over a short period.
In 2011, 12% of households were one or more months behind with at least one bill or
credit payment and 7% of households were more than three months behind with a payment, so were identified as being in structural arrears. These levels compare with
14% and 9% respectively in 2008/09 (see Figure 33). The prevalence of structural arrears has been stable at 7% or 8% over the past year.53
The proportion of households who were between one and three months behind with
payments has remained stable at 5% over recent years.
The level of arrears for households that were using unsecured credit was higher than for
the sample as a whole but again showed a decrease over the past year. In 2011, 11%
of households with unsecured debts were in structural arrears compared with 13% in 2009/10.
The surveys also provide information on the number and type of payments for which households are in arrears. Figure 34 shows, for households that were in structural arrears, the distribution for the number of payments that were more than three months behind.54
Almost three fifths (58%) of households that were in arrears were more than three months behind with only one payment although 19% were behind with three or more payments.
Comparison with previous years suggests a slight fall in the number of payments in arrears in addition to the decrease in the proportion of households in structural arrears with payments; the proportion of households with just one payment in arrears increased from 54% in 2008/09 to 58% in 2011. Around one half of the households that were in three-month arrears on payments had fallen behind with major household bills (46%) and a similar proportion of households were behind with payments for unsecured credit (48%). Since 2008/9 there are signs of a decrease in the likelihood of arrears with major household bills (from 54% to 46% of those in arrears) while the prevalence of arrears on unsecured credit payments has remained stable over time (see Figure 35). The rate of arrears on 'other' bills and payments has tended to increase over the period, from 27% in 2008/09 to 33%-37% in later years. 55
## Personal Insolvency
A number of statutory insolvency instruments are available to individuals facing serious financial difficulty. These include bankruptcy, in which debts are written off, and Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVAs), which are formal court-based agreements with creditors to repay an appropriate proportion of outstanding debts over a specified period of time. A
further non-statutory option for dealing with debts is a Debt Management Plan (DMP), which is an informal arrangement with creditors to repay debts at a rate that the individual should be able to afford. The DebtTrack surveys include questions on whether respondents had ever been declared bankrupt and when this occurred, whether they were currently dealing with debts through an IVA or DMP, and whether they had been subject to a County Court Judgement (CCJ) or other legal proceedings for non-payment of debts in the past two years. Results for each type of action are shown in Table 2.
The overall prevalence of personal insolvencies remains very low. Just 1% of the 2011
DebtTrack sample had been declared bankrupt in the last two years and 1% had a current IVA. Informal arrangements to pay off debts through a Debt Management Plan were more common, affecting 4% of the sample.
A total of 5% of the sample were subject to at least one of these three instruments to
deal with debts. This proportion has decreased over recent years, from 7% in 2008/09 and 6% in 2009/10.
Overall, 2% of the sample had been subject to court proceedings for non-payment of
debts in the two years before interview. The total proportion of respondents subject to an insolvency instrument or to court proceedings was 7%.
2008/09 to 2011
2008/09
(%)
2009/10
(%)
2011
(%)
Declared bankrupt in last 2 years *
1
1
1
IVA
1
1
1
DMP
5
5
4
Any of the above measures
7
6
5
3
3
2
CCJ or other legal proceedings for nonpayment of debts in last 2 years CCJ or any of the other measures
8
8
7
Base = 100%
14,132
13,172
8,338
* 'Currently' declared bankrupt in 2008/09 surveys
## Combined Measure Of Objective Difficulties
A composite measure of financial difficulties has been derived for use in this report, combining the three types of insolvency action - bankruptcy, IVA and DMPs - with the structural arrears indicator discussed above. The variable relating to court proceedings for non-payment of debts is not included in the measure as it relates less specifically to current debts and insolvency.
In 2011, 10% of households were identified as being in financial difficulties on this composite measure. As already seen, 5% of responding households were subject to one of the statutory or informal actions on debt and a further 5% were in structural arrears on payments.56 Thus about one-third of the households previously identified as being in structural arrears were also involved in statutory action or a DMP. A further 4% of households were between one and three months behind with any payments at the time of interview but these households are not included in the indicator of financial difficulties as they may be experiencing only temporary problems or have simply forgotten to pay a bill on time. Again there is evidence of a reduction in the level of financial difficulties since 2008/09, as illustrated in Figure 36. The combined measure of insolvency action or structural arrears suggests a reduction in the proportion of households experiencing severe financial difficulties, from 13% in 2008/09 to 10% in 2011.
Variation by household characteristics The likelihood of either being involved in insolvency action or being in structural arrears varied substantially for different groups of households (Figure 37).57 As might be expected, households with little or no savings were much more likely than other groups to be experiencing severe financial difficulties: one third (32%) of households with no savings were either involved in formal action on insolvency or in arrears on payments compared with 10% of the sample as a whole. Lone-parent households also had a high rate of financial difficulties with one quarter (26%) of the group either taking action on insolvency or being in structural arrears on payments, as also did households in the lowest income band (21%).
Looking at other household characteristics, the likelihood of being in financial difficulties was above average for households living in rented accommodation (20%) and those where one or both adults were unemployed (21%). The rate was also above average for households that had experienced a significant change in circumstances in the past year - 21% for households in which the respondent or partner had lost their job and 18% for those affected by a relationship breakdown or a new child in the household. Some groups had very low levels of financial difficulty, notably those with substantial savings (1% of those with savings of £10,000 or more), high income (5% of those with an annual income of £50,000 or more) and those who owned their home outright (3%).
## Subjective Indicators Of Financial Difficulty
The DebtTrack surveys include a number of questions on respondents' perceptions of their current financial situation and how their situation has changed in recent months. This section looks first at the heavy burden indicator and then at other subjective indicators of financial stress.
## Heavy Burden Indicator
The most widely-used subjective indicator of financial stress is based on a direct question about the extent to which respondents feel that keeping up with their bills and credit commitments is a heavy burden. On the DebtTrack survey, this question was asked of all households regardless of whether they were using any form of credit.
In 2011, one in eight (13%) respondents considered that keeping up with bills and credit
commitments was a heavy burden for their household (see Figure 38).58
Active users of unsecured credit were more likely to see their commitments as a heavy
burden. One-fifth (20%) of respondents with any form of unsecured credit or loan said that keeping up with their bills and credit commitments was a heavy burden. This group
was also more likely to perceive that keeping up with payments was 'somewhat of a burden' (49% compared with 42% for all households).
The proportion of households finding payments a heavy burden has tended to decrease
over recent years, from 15% in 2008/09 to 13% in 2011. The heavy burden indicator for households using unsecured credit has shown little variation over past years, ranging
from 20% to 21%.
Variation by household characteristics The subjective burden indicator showed similar variation with household characteristics to the objective measures discussed in the previous section. The measure was particularly strongly associated with the level of household savings (Figure 39).59 Some 39% of respondents from households with no savings said that keeping up with bills and payments was a heavy burden compared with 8% of those in households with savings of between £1,000 and £10,000. High levels of burden were also seen among low income households (22% among those with a gross annual income of less than £13,500) and lone-parent households (31% compared with an average of 13%). As with objective financial difficulties, high levels were also seen for households in which one or both adults was unemployed (27%) and households affected by changes in the past year - 24% for households affected by loss of a job in the last 12 months and 21% for those affected by relationship breakdown or birth of addition of a child.
## Other Subjective Indicators
The DebtTrack surveys include a number of other questions relating to respondents'
perceptions of their financial situation, as shown in Figure 40.60 The measure which most directly relates to financial difficulties is the question about how well the respondent is keeping up with bills and payments. More than one fifth (22%) of respondents said that they either constantly struggled to keep up with bills and payments or were falling behind with their commitments (17% and 6% respectively). A slightly smaller proportion of respondents (19%) said that they struggled to last to the next pay day 'more often than not'. The other two measures shown here relate to the way in which respondents deal with financial problems, either by going overdrawn on a current account or by using credit for day-to-day expenses. Again, around one fifth (18%) of respondents said they were either 'constantly' or 'usually' overdrawn on their current account. A smaller proportion (10%) said that they used credit for day-to-day living expenses 'all the time', although a further 14% of respondents did so 'once in a while'. The levels for all of these subjective measures showed little change compared with earlier years although all have tended to decrease between 2008/09 and 2011, as illustrated in Figure 40. This suggests some improvement in people's perceptions of their financial position over this period, which is consistent with the decrease in the objective indicators of financial difficulty discussed earlier.
When asked specifically about changes in their household's financial circumstances in the past six months, only 13% of respondents in 2011 said that their circumstances had improved whereas more than one half (53%) said that they were either a bit worse or much worse (Figure 41).61 Respondents in 2011 had a very similar view of recent
changes in their financial circumstances to those asked in 2008/09 but a less positive view than those interviewed in 2009/10. Some 41% of respondents in the latter year said that their circumstances were a bit or much worse, compared with 56% in 2008/09 and 53% in 2011. Respondents with some unsecured credit commitments were more likely than those with none to show signs of financial stress on the three main subjective measures considered here, and levels were particularly high for respondents with a large numbers of commitments (Table 3). About three tenths (28%) of respondents using some form of unsecured credit said that they struggled to reach the next pay day 'more often than not' and this increased to 53% among households with four or more unsecured credit commitments; this compares with 9% for households not using unsecured credit. Similarly, 31% of those using unsecured credit and 51% of those with four or more unsecured credit commitments said that they constantly struggled or were falling behind with bills and payments, compared with 12% of those not using unsecured credit. Those with large numbers of credit commitments were also more likely to say that their financial circumstances had got worse in the past six months (66% compared with 52% overall).
Total
(%)
No
unsecured
credit (%)
Has
unsecured
credit (%)
4 or more
types of
unsecured
credit (%)
Commitments were a heavy burden
20
44
5
13
31
51
12
22
Constantly struggled/ falling behind with bills & commitments Struggled to reach payday 'more often than not'
28
53
9
19
54
66
51
52
Financial circumstances got a bit/ much worse in past 6 months Base = 100%
4,532
528
3,805
8,337
## Overlap Between Subjective Indicators
The subjective indicators of financial stress available for DebtTrack Surveys showed varying degrees of overlap as detailed in Table 4. There was a high degree of overlap between the two measures relating to respondents struggling to keep up with payments. Approaching three-quarters (72%) of respondents who said that they struggled to reach payday 'more often than not' also said that they constantly struggled to keep up or were falling behind with bills and credit payments. These two measures also showed considerable overlap with the burden indicator. Around three-quarters of those who found their payments a heavy burden also said that they struggled to keep up with payments (76%) or often struggled to last until the next payday
(73%). The two measures that relate to actions taken to deal with financial problems showed somewhat less overlap with the three more general subjective measures. About one quarter (26%) of those who constantly struggled to keep up with payments said that they often used credit for everyday expenses and 39% said that they were constantly or usually overdrawn.
(%)
Total
Commit-ments are a
heavy burden (%)
Constantly or usually
overdrawn (%)
Constantly struggle to
keep up/ falling behind
(%)
Use credit for everyday
expenses all the time
(%)
Struggle to reach
payday more often than
not (%)
Constantly struggle to keep up/ falling behind
-
72
76
58
49
22
Struggle to reach payday 'more often than not'
61
-
73
58
52
19
Commitments are a heavy burden
44
50
-
43
35
13
Use credit for everyday expenses all the time
26
31
33
-
40
10
Constantly or usually overdrawn
39
48
48
70
-
18
Base = 100%
1,858
1,587
1,088
845
1,490
8,339
The Venn diagram in Figure 42 illustrates the overlaps between the three general measures of subjective stress - struggling to reach payday, struggling or falling behind with payments and finding payments a heavy burden. The diagram shows the conformity between the measures in that 8% of respondents met all three indicators and a further 8%
of respondents met two of the three indicators. Only 2% of respondents answered positively to the burden question but did not meet either of the other two indicators. For ease of presentation when exploring the relationship between subjective measures and other indicators of financial difficulties, these three subjective indicators have been combined into a single measure of subjective stress, as shown in Figure 43.62 About one in six respondents (17%) gave a positive response to two or three of the individual
indicators and would appear to be under some financial stress. A further 13% of respondents showed signs of stress on just one of the separate indicators.
As already seen for the individual questions, respondents with some unsecured credit commitments were more likely than those who were not using credit to show signs of financial stress, and respondents using four or more types of credit had very high prevalence of stress on the combined measure. One half (49%) of households with four or more unsecured credit commitments showed signs of financial stress on two or more of the indicators and only 35% of this group showed no signs of stress on these measures; this compares with 7% and 84% respectively for households with no unsecured credit commitments.
## Overlap Between Objective And Subjective Indicators
Previous research indicates that peoples' perception of their financial situation is usually worse than their actual financial position and Figure 44 illustrates that the subjective measures reported for the 2011 DebtTrack surveys were only imprecise indicators of actual financial difficulties.63
One half or more of respondents who perceived that they were under financial pressure based on the various subjective indicators were neither experiencing severe financial difficulties (insolvency action or structural arrears) nor beginning to fall behind on payments. Some 60% of those who said that they constantly struggled or were falling behind with their bills and credit payments were not experiencing any difficulties according to the objective measures, as also were 49% of those who said that their bills and credit payments were a heavy burden. The combined measure of subjective stress also showed relatively little overlap with objective financial difficulties: 51% of those identified as under financial stress on two or more subjective measures were not experiencing any of the objective difficulties considered here. Generally, respondents who were experiencing severe financial difficulties did also perceive that they had problems according to the three main subjective measures. The considerable overlap between the measures in this direction is shown in Figure 45. Around four-fifths (77%) of households that were experiencing severe financial difficulties (insolvency action or arrears) showed signs of financial stress on at least one of the subjective indicators and almost three-fifths (57%) on two or three. Households that were one to three months behind with any payments also showed high levels of subjective stress - 69% on one or more indicator and 53% on two or three indicators.
Households already involved in formal insolvency action tended to show less subjective stress than those in structural arrears but not taking action. About one half (52%) of those involved in insolvency action showed two or more indicators of stress compared with 62% of households that were in structural arrears with payments. This difference in perceptions between the two groups suggests an easing of financial stress for those engaged in some form of insolvency action as compared to those who are not yet taking formal action to deal with debt problems.
The overlap was also high for the individual questions about whether respondents struggled to keep up with payments or struggled to last until payday.64 For example, more than two-thirds (70%) of those in structural arrears said that they constantly struggled to keep up or were falling behind with bills and payments, as did 58% of those involved in formal action on debt. However, there was somewhat less overlap between the 'heavy burden' indicator and actual financial problems: 50% of respondents who were in structural arrears and 44% of those taking formal action on debt felt that their commitments were a heavy burden.
## Households At Risk Of Financial Difficulty Indicators Of Risk
There are a variety of measures available from the DebtTrack surveys which may be helpful in indicating risk of more serious financial problems, as summarised in Table 5. These include indicators of burden and high levels of credit commitment as well as the indicator of subjective stress discussed above. A further measure that can be constructed from the surveys uses a series of questions on payment shocks. These record respondents' views on how a hypothetical 10% or 20% increase in bills for housing costs (mortgage or rent), utilities and council tax would impact on their ability to keep up with these and other payments. These have been combined in a single measure to identify those who thought they were likely to fall behind with payments if subjected to a 20% increase in any of these household bills.
| | Households not taking |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|
| action on debt or in | |
| structural arrears | |
| (%) | |
| Two or more subjective indicators of stress | 12 |
| Likely to fall behind with payments if subject to | |
| a 20% increase in any major bills | |
| 11 | |
| Payments are a heavy burden | 9 |
| Four or more types of unsecured credit | |
| commitments | |
| 5 | |
| Unsecured credit repayments >30% of income | 4 |
| One month behind with payments (but not 3 | |
| months behind) | |
| 5 | |
| Base = 100% | 7,471 |
The results shown here are for households that were not in serious financial difficulties at the time of interview, so exclude those already involved in action on debt or in structural arrears on payments. The proportion of households identified by the measures ranged from 4% to 12%. At the lower end of the range, the identifiers based on unsecured credit commitments are perhaps too narrowly defined to be of use on their own as indicators of risk of financial difficulties. Similarly, focusing on the 5% of households that were already falling behind with payments may be too narrow a definition. The three measures that identified around 10% of the sample appear more useful as broad indicators of risk of financial problems. These are households showing two or three of the separate subjective measures of stress (12%), those who were likely to fall behind with payments if subjected to a 20% increase in major household bills (11%) and those who considered keeping up with bills and credit payments to be a heavy burden (9%).
Households
showing two or
more signs of
stress (%)
Vulnerability to a
20% increase in
major bills (%)
Keeping up with
payments was a
heavy burden (%)
Two or more subjective indicators of stress
n/a
43
81
Likely to fall behind with payments if subject to a 20% increase in any major bills
40
n/a
40
Payments are a heavy burden
62
33
n/a
Four or more types of unsecured credit commitments
16
12
19
Unsecured credit repayments >30% of income
11
9
13
One month behind with payments (but not 3 months behind)
20
15
21
Base = 100% *
891
827
682
* Households not taking formal action on debt nor in structural arrears Table 6 provides a comparison of the overlap between these three indicators of financial stress or vulnerability and other measures of risk. It suggests that there was little difference between the measures in terms of their association with current financial position: between 15% and 21% of the sub-groups were already behind with some payments at the time of interview. The indicator based on vulnerability to an increase in major bills was less closely related to the measures of high unsecured credit commitments than were the other two. Since reliance on unsecured credit is a major contributor to financial difficulties, the measures based on the questions about subjective stress may be better indicators of the future risk of financial difficulties, though it is not possible to evaluate the measures fully from a series of cross-sectional surveys. Interestingly, there was little difference between the two subjective measures in their overlap with other indicators, suggesting that the simpler measure based on a single question on payment burden may be the most practical indicator of risk for survey analysis.
## Comparison With Households In Financial Difficulty
This section briefly compares the circumstances of households who were already experiencing financial difficulties with those showing a high level of stress on at least two of the three subjective indicators, who might be considered to be at risk of financial difficulties. Table 7 shows that respondents identified as under financial stress were more likely than those already facing difficulties to say that their financial circumstances had deteriorated in the last six months (81%,compared with 64%). They were, however, no more likely than respondents with more severe financial difficulties to have to have suffered job loss or a significant change of income in the last 12 months. Those identified as being at risk of financial difficulties were more likely than those already experiencing difficulties to make frequent use of credit and/or an overdraft to meet their everyday expenses (35% compared with 20%), but they were much less likely to have sought professional advice on debt in the last six months (6% compared with 18%).
Total
(%)
Under financial
stress
In financial
difficulties
(%)
(%)
Financial circumstances got a bit or much worse in last 6 months
81
64
53
Respondent or partner lost job in last 12 months
15
20
10
Significant change in income reported or lost job in last 12 months
33
36
21
Use credit for everyday expenses 'all the time'
35
20
10
Constantly or usually overdrawn by pay day
49
37
18
Sought debt advice in last 6 months
6
18
3
Have 4 or more types of unsecured credit
16
16
6
11
12
5
Unsecured debt repayments >30% of income Unsecured debt more than £10,000
26
22
13
Unsecured debt more than 60% of income
13
18
6
Base = 100% *
891
867
8,338
* Households not taking formal action on debt or in structural arrears In terms of their use of credit, the households defined as being under financial stress were similar to those already experiencing financial difficulties. They tended to have large amounts of unsecured debt: 26% had debts of more than £10,000; 13% had unsecured credit amounting to more than 60% of their current income, and 16% had four or more types of unsecured credit.
Variation by household characteristics The characteristics of households under financial stress were broadly similar to those of households already experiencing difficulties (Figure 46).65 Households with zero or very low savings and those with low income were more likely than more affluent groups to be facing financial stress, just as they were more likely already to be experiencing financial difficulties. About one quarter (27%) of households with zero savings were under financial stress as were one fifth (18%) of households with an annual income of less than £13,500, compared with 11% of the total sample. Lone-parent households were markedly over-represented both among those in financial difficulties and those showing signs of financial stress. Almost one half of these households were either already in financial difficulties (26%) or experiencing stress (20%).
In comparison, only 16% of couples without children were either in difficulties (8%) or experiencing financial stress (8%). Households in which one or more adult was unemployed were also likely to be experiencing financial stress (19%, compared with 11% overall) as well as having an above-average rate of financial difficulties (21%, compared with 10% overall).
## Advice On Debt
Free and impartial debt advice is a vital safety net for many vulnerable consumers, improving their ability to manage their financial commitments and avoid more costly consequences. In the DebtTrack surveys, all respondents who said that they had some
difficulties keeping up with bills and payments 66 were asked whether they had contacted anyone in the previous six months to seek professional advice on debt problems.
## Likelihood Of Seeking Professional Debt Advice
In 2011 some 5% of respondents who had some difficulties keeping up with bills and payments said that they had sought professional debt advice in the previous six months
(Table 8). This was equivalent to 3% of the total sample. Respondents in 2011 were less likely to have sought advice than those interviewed in 2009/10, when 7% of those with some financial difficulties had done so. In 2008/09 the question was asked of a more limited group of respondents so analysis of the trend over the three years requires that the proportion is calculated only for those who said they constantly struggled to keep up with bills and commitments or were falling behind with payments. This revised statistic also suggests a decrease in the demand for advice over the period, from 14% among this sub-set of respondents in 2008/09 to 10% in 2011.
2008/ 09
(%)
2009/10
(%)
2011
(%)
% of those asked the question 1
7
5
Base
7,583
5,045
% of those who constantly struggled/
were falling behind with payments 2
14
13
10
Base
3,258
3,023
1,858
% of total sample who sought professional debt advice
4
4
3
Base
14,132
13,173
8,338
1 Respondents who struggled to keep up 'from time to time' or 'constantly' or were falling behind with payments.
2 Based on the smaller group of respondents who were asked about debt advice in the
2008/09 surveys
The likelihood of having sought advice on debt was strongly associated with the severity of the household's financial difficulties, as shown in Figure 47.67 Not surprisingly, households that were involved in action to deal with their debt problems were the most likely group to have sought advice on debt in the reference period; about one third (31%) of these households had done so. One in ten (9%) of households in structural arrears on payments had sought advice in the past six months, as also had 6% of households that were one to three months behind with payments. Further analysis of the relatively small group households in structural arrears on payments shows little variation by household characteristics in the likelihood of having sought advice.
There are, however, indications that households in which one or both adults were unemployed at the time of interview were more likely than others to have sought advice
(19% compared with 7% of other households).68
## Reasons For Not Seeking Advice
As in previous years, by far the most common reason given for not having sought advice was that respondents did not feel that they needed advice; this was mentioned by 69% of those asked about debt advice. About one in ten of those who had not sought advice said that they had either received advice in the past and knew what to do (5%) or had got advice elsewhere (5%), and 2% had not sought advice because they felt they had received bad advice in the past. Only a small minority of respondents said that they were unaware of the services available (2%) or unaware of how to contact providers (3%).
Respondents who were in structural arrears on payments and faced serious financial difficulties were more likely to perceive a need for advice: 41% said that they did not need advice (compared with 69% overall) and 9% said that they had not yet got round to seeking advice. This group was also more likely to have received advice before - 10% had received professional advice previously, 9% had got advice elsewhere and 10% said that they had received bad advice in the past and didn't want to return.
In structural
arrears on
payments
Constantly
struggled to
keep up or
falling behind
All not
seeking
debt advice
(%)
(%)
(%)
Do not feel I/we need such advice
52
41
69
10
10
5
Had advice before and know what to do
8
9
5
Got advice elsewhere e.g. friend, website Not got round to it yet
7
9
4
Don't know how to contact providers
5
7
3
5
10
2
Had bad advice in past, don't want to return Not aware such services available
3
3
2
1
3
1
Couldn't make appointment/ get through
1,610
336
4,699
Base = 100% (Households that had not sought advice)
## Agencies Contacted
One third (34%) of the DebtTrack sample who had sought advice had contacted a Citizens Advice Bureau. The next most popular sources for advice were the Consumer Credit Counselling Service (18%), a professional adviser such as a bank or accountant (17%) and National Debtline (16%). Use of PayPlan (9%) and the Money Advice Service (7%) continued at a relatively low level.
| Agency | 2009/10 |
|------------------------------|--------------|
| (%) | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) | 31 |
| 24 | 18 |
| (CCCS) | |
| 19 | 17 |
| bank) | |
| National Debtline (NDL) | 12 |
| Payplan | 9 |
| Money Advice Service (MAS) | 8 |
| Other advice centre | 7 |
| Insolvency Service | 6 |
| Other | 19 |
| Base | 506 |
## Action Taken After Receiving Advice
Figure 48 summarises the type of action taken by respondents after receiving advice on debt. The most common types of action reported were to have cut back on spending
(34%), to have contacted creditors (33%) and setting out a budget plan (33%). More than one quarter (28%) of those who had sought advice on debt had entered into a Debt Management Plan or similar scheme, and a further 8% of respondents had enquired about a DMP. The other types of action listed in the question were followed by 10% or less of the sample. As would be expected, the type of action varied according to the severity of the household's financial problems, and those with serious problems were much more likely to have entered into or enquired about formal action on debt or to have contacted creditors.69
Households that did not have serious financial difficulties were still highly likely to have taken action to cut back on spending (35%) or to set out a budget plan (28%) and one in eight (12%) of this group had taken out a consolidation loan.
## Appendix A: Additional Tables
| | 2008/ |
|-----------------------------------|----------|
| 2009 | |
| (%) | |
| 2009/ | |
| 2010 | |
| (%) | |
| Jan | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| March | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| June | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| Nov | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| Total | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| All households | |
| None | 36 |
| 1 | 24 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 3 | 12 |
| 4 | 7 |
| 5 or more | 4 |
| Base = 100% | 14,134 |
| Households using unsecured credit | |
| 1 | 37 |
| 2 | 27 |
| 3 | 19 |
| 4 | 10 |
| 5 or more | 7 |
| Base= 100% | 9,109 |
| | |
2008/
2009
(%)
2009/
2010
(%)
Jan
2011
(%)
Mar
2011
(%)
June
2011
(%)
Nov
2011
(%)
Total
2011
(%)
Has credit card account 1
62
60
64
63
62
62
35
27
24
27
25
25
25
Credit card (not usually paid
in full & amount outstanding)1
Authorised overdraft
29
22
19
19
132
16
17
Student loan
12
16
13
12
12
14
13
Unsecured personal loan
22
15
13
14
12
13
13
Mail Order catalogue
14
10
11
9
11
9
10
Car finance loan
9
9
8
10
8
8
8
Loan from friends and family
7
9
6
8
6
7
7
Has store card account 1
16
17
15
16
13
15
7
5
6
5
4
4
4
Store card (not usually paid in
full & amount outstanding) 1
Hire purchase agreement
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
Home collected credit
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
DSS/ Social Fund loan
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
Pay day loan
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Credit Union loan
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
Pawnbroker/ cash converter loan
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
Any high-cost credit: homecollected, payday, pawnbroker loan Other loans
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Base = 100%
14,132
13,173
2,043
2,072
2,124
2,099
8,338
1 Questions changed from Nov. 2009
2 Additional questions on overdrafts were asked before this section in the June 2011 survey. If this result is excluded, the 2011 average is 18%.
types of credit
Base =
100%
Number of other unsecured credit
commitments
None
(%)
One
(%)
Two
(%)
Three or
more (%)
Unsecured personal loan
17
25
26
32
1,099
Authorised overdraft
18
28
26
28
1,417
Student loan
47
25
14
14
1,072
Hire purchase agreement
18
26
15
40
253
Car finance loan
29
28
19
23
688
DSS/Social Fund loan
23
28
24
25
95
Loan from friends and family
19
28
21
32
578
Mail Order catalogue
26
25
20
28
845
High-cost credit *
16
25
20
39
219
Store card
9
24
27
39
366
Credit card
24
31
24
22
2,088
* All users of either home-collected credit, payday or pawnbroker loans. Counts of other products include different types of these loans.
Base =
100%
Has 4 or more
types of
unsecured credit
(%)
Has any
unsecured credit
commitments
(%)
Annual household income Less than £13,500
54
4
1,154
£13,500 < £25,000
54
6
1,467
£25,000 < £50,000
60
9
2,376
£50,000 or more
59
8
1,288
Not known
46
3
2,053
Household savings Zero
78
17
1,517
£1 < £1,000
77
12
783
£1,000 < £10,000
60
4
1,951
£10,000 < £20,000
44
1
591
£20,000 or more
26
1
1,118
Not known
44
3
2,378
Housing tenure Mortgage
64
9
3,171
Owned outright
27
1
2,192
Rented
66
8
2,165
Rent free/ other
63
5
689
Household composition Couple, with child(ren)
61
9
1,788
Couple, no child
50
6
3,672
One adult with child(ren)
70
13
339
One adult, no child
55
4
2,469
Age of respondent 18 to 24
67
4
729
25 to 39
68
9
2,252
40 to 54
59
8
2,205
55 or over
39
4
3,152
54
5
453
Unemployment One or both adults unemployed Other
54
6
7,885
All households
54
6
8,338
Base = 100%
Mainstream
loan (%)
Credit or Store
card debts (%)
Mail order/
Hire Purchase/
Car finance (%)
Credit Union/
DSS loan (%)
Informal loan
(%)
High-Cost
Credit (%)
Annual household income Less than £13,500
30
22
19
5
7
4
1,154
£13,500 < £25,000
29
27
20
2
8
4
1,467
£25,000 < £50,000
39
32
22
1
8
3
2,376
£50,000 or more
41
29
21
1
7
1
1,288
Not known
28
20
14
1
5
1
2,053
Household savings Zero
52
47
32
4
16
9
1,517
£1 < £1,000
48
43
27
3
12
5
783
£1,000 < £10,000
39
26
19
1
6
1
1,951
£10,000 < £20,000
26
15
13
0
3
0
591
£20,000 or more
13
7
10
0
1
0
1,118
Not known
25
20
14
1
4
1
2,378
Housing tenure Mortgage
40
36
25
1
8
2
3,171
Owned outright
12
11
12
0
2
0
2,192
Rented
41
31
22
4
10
7
2,165
Rent free/ other
51
19
11
1
9
1
689
Household composition Couple, with child(ren)
36
34
25
2
8
4
1,788
Couple, no child
30
25
20
1
5
2
3,672
One adult with child(ren)
39
41
29
9
15
7
339
One adult, no child
37
22
13
1
8
2
2,469
Age of respondent 18 to 24
58
14
7
1
10
1
729
25 to 39
47
33
19
2
11
3
2,252
40 to 54
33
33
25
3
7
4
2,205
55 or over
19
20
18
1
3
2
3,152
36
21
13
5
8
4
453
Unemployment One or both adults unemployed Neither unemployed
33
27
19
2
7
3
7,885
All households
34
26
19
2
7
3
8,838
Reliance on credit for everyday expenditure
2008/
2009
(%)
2009/
2010
(%)
Jan
2011
(%)
Mar
2011
(%)
June
2011
(%)
Nov
2011
(%)
Total
2011
(%)
All the time
11
11
10
10
11
10
10
Once in a while
15
13
14
14
13
13
14
Either
26
25
24
24
24
23
24
Base = 100%
14,132 13,172
2,043
2,072
2,124
2,099
8,338
Reliance on credit for everyday
expenditure
Base =
100%
All the
time (%)
Once in a
while (%)
Either (%)
Annual household income Less than £13,500
11
12
23
1,154
£13,500 < £25,000
11
14
25
1,466
£25,000 < £50,000
11
15
27
2,376
£50,000 or more
12
15
26
1,288
Household savings Zero
26
19
45
1,517
£1 < £1,000
16
22
38
783
£1,000 < £10,000
7
15
22
1,951
£10,000 or more
3
9
12
1,709
Housing tenure Mortgage
13
17
30
3,171
Owned outright
4
7
11
2,192
Rented
12
16
29
2,164
Rent free/ Other
9
11
20
689
Age of respondent 18 to 24
10
12
22
729
25 to 39
13
17
30
2,253
40 to 54
13
15
28
2,205
55 or over
6
11
17
3,152
Household composition Couple, with child(ren)
14
16
30
1,789
Couple, no child
8
13
21
3,672
One adult with child(ren)
16
22
39
339
One adult, no child
9
13
22
2,468
All households
10
14
24
8,337
| Credit product | 2008/ |
|-------------------------|----------|
| 2009 | |
| (%) | |
| 2009/ | |
| 2010 | |
| (%) | |
| Jan | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| Mar | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| June | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| Nov | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| Total | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| Credit card | 11 |
| Overdraft facility | 3 |
| Unsecured loan | 4 |
| Mortgage | 3 |
| Student loan * | |
| Mail Order catalogue * | |
| Car Finance loan * | |
| Store card | 2 |
| Home-collected credit | 1 |
| DSS/ Social Fund loan | 1 |
| Pay day loan | 0 |
| | 1 |
| agreement * | |
| Secured loan | 1 |
| Pawnbroker * | |
| Credit union loan * | |
| Any unsecured credit | |
| 18 | 14 |
| Any unsecured credit | |
| (only products asked in | |
| 2008/09) | |
| Mortgage or secured | |
| loan | |
| 4 | 3 |
| 2 | 3 |
| Base | 14,132 |
* Products added to the questionnaire from Nov. 2009
| Base = 100% | |
|---------------------------|-----|
| type of unsecured | |
| credit (%) | |
| Annual household income | |
| | |
| Less than £13,500 | 17 |
| 1,154 | |
| £13,500 < £25,000 | 17 |
| 1,467 | |
| £25,000 < £50,000 | 19 |
| 2,376 | |
| £50,000 or more | 18 |
| 1,288 | |
| Not known | 11 |
| 2,053 | |
| | |
| Household savings | |
| | |
| | |
| Zero | 25 |
| 1,517 | |
| £1< £1,000 | 22 |
| 783 | |
| £1,000 < £10,000 | 16 |
| 1,951 | |
| £10,000 or more | 14 |
| 1,709 | |
| Not known | 12 |
| 2,378 | |
| | |
| Age of respondent | |
| | |
| | |
| 18 to 24 | 29 |
| 729 | |
| 25 to 39 | 22 |
| 2,252 | |
| 40 to 54 | 17 |
| 2,205 | |
| 55 or over | 9 |
| 3,152 | |
| | |
| Household composition | |
| | |
| | |
| Couple, with child(ren) | 17 |
| 1,788 | |
| Couple, no child | 13 |
| 3,672 | |
| One adult with child(ren) | 30 |
| 339 | |
| One adult, no child | 19 |
| 2,469 | |
| | |
| All households | 16 |
| 8,338 | |
| | |
| | |
Base = 100%
(cases where
outcome known)
Respondent
decided against
(%)
Application was
rejected (%)
Obtained product
for full amount
(%)
Obtained product
for reduced
amount (%)
Credit card
70
11
19
-
636
Overdraft facility
58
12
29
1
178
Unsecured loan
63
5
33
-
174
Mail order
77
8
13
1
106
Student loan
79
17
4
-
98
Pay day loan
77
10
11
3
94
Car finance loan
88
2
10
-
84
Store card
79
13
8
-
76
DSS/ Social Fund loan
28
49
21
2
43
Hire Purchase
85
5
10
-
40
Home-collected credit
74
8
16
3
38
Credit union loan
52
33
15
-
27
Pawnbroker
38
42
8
12
24
| Store card | |
|-------------------------|-----|
| loan | |
| Overdraft | |
| facility | |
| % | |
| Base | |
| % | |
| Base | |
| % | |
| Base | |
| % | |
| Base | |
| Annual household income | |
| Less than £25,000 | 32 |
| 459 | |
| 45 | |
| 152 | |
| 34 | |
| 228 | |
| 27 | |
| 78 | |
| £25,000 or more | 19 |
| 943 | |
| 27 | |
| 249 | |
| 28 | |
| 225 | |
| 14 | |
| 105 | |
| Age of respondent | |
| 18 to 39 | 27 |
| 907 | |
| 36 | |
| 251 | |
| 29 | |
| 368 | |
| 25 | |
| 137 | |
| 40 or over | 16 |
| 736 | |
| 29 | |
| 214 | |
| 30 | 6 |
| 175 | 127 |
| 23 | |
| 482 | |
| 37 | |
| 165 | |
| 36 | |
| 146 | |
| 25 | |
| 79 | |
| Household composition | |
| Couple/ one adult | |
| with children | |
| 22 | |
| 1153 | |
| 30 | |
| 298 | |
| 27 | |
| 390 | |
| 12 | |
| 186 | |
| Couple/ one adult, no | |
| child | |
| | |
| All households | 22 |
| 1,644 | |
| 33 | |
| 463 | |
| 29 | |
| 539 | |
| 16 | |
| 265 | |
* Cases where outcome was known at time of interview
Nov
2011
(%)
Total
2011
(%)
June
2011
(%)
2009/
2010
(%)
Jan
2011
(%)
March
2011
(%)
2008/
2009
(%)
Likelihood in next 3 months * Very likely
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
Fairly likely
9
8
7
7
8
6
7
Very or fairly likely
13
11
11
11
11
9
10
Neither likely nor unlikely/ Don't know
21
19
19
21
16
15
18
Fairly unlikely
17
16
17
17
14
17
16
Very unlikely
49
54
54
52
59
59
56
Very or fairly unlikely
66
70
70
69
73
76
72
Likelihood in next 3 months or next 6 to12 months Very or fairly likely
16
15
15
15
13
15
Base = 100%
14,131
13,172
2,043
2,072
2,124
2,099
8,338
* Question referred to 'next 6 months' in 2008/09
Base =
100%
Very/ fairly
likely
(%)
Neither/
Don't know
(%)
Very/ fairly
unlikely
(%)
Annual Household income Less than £13,500
16
22
63
1,154
£13,500 < £25,000
13
18
69
1,467
£25,000 < £50,000
10
14
75
2,376
£50,000 or more
9
13
78
1,288
Not known
6
23
70
2,053
Household savings Zero
25
25
50
1,517
£1 < £1,000
14
24
62
783
£1,000 < £10,000
8
14
77
1,951
£10,000 or more
3
7
90
1,709
Not known
6
22
72
2,378
Age of respondent 18 to 24
20
22
59
729
25 to 39
14
22
64
2,252
40 to 54
12
21
68
2,205
55 or over
4
12
83
3,152
Household composition Couple, with child(ren)
11
23
66
1,788
Couple, no child
7
14
79
3,672
One adult with child(ren)
23
25
52
339
One adult, no child
12
18
70
2,469
Housing tenure Mortgage
9
19
72
3,171
Owned outright
3
10
87
2,192
Rented
17
21
61
2,165
Rent free/ other
14
20
66
689
16
25
59
453
Unemployment One or both adults unemployed Other
10
18
73
7,885 All households
10
18
72
8,338
2008/
2009
(%)
2009/
2010
(%)
Jan
2011
(%)
March
2011
(%)
June
2011
(%)
Nov
2011
(%)
Total
2011
(%)
Mortgage
39
36
37
41
37
37
38
Other secured loan
5
4
3
3
3
2
3
Mortgage or secured loan
40
37
37
41
38
38
39
Base = 100%
14,132
13,172
2,043
2,072
2,124
2,099
8,338
2008/
2009
(%)
2009/
2010
(%)
Jan
2011
(%)
March
2011
(%)
June
2011
(%)
Nov
2011
(%)
Total
2011
(%)
38
42
42
45
40
39
42
Variable - reviewed monthly
4
5
6
3
5
6
5
Variable - reviewed annually
4
5
4
4
5
6
5
Variable - other/ don't know Total variable
46
51
51
52
50
51
51
Fixed rate
42
39
37
39
37
37
38
Discounted rate
4
4
2
3
3
5
3
Other/ Don't know type
10
8
9
9
11
9
10
Base = 100%
5,516
4,766
751
847
792
781
3,171
2008/
2009
(%)
2009/
2010
(%)
Jan
2011
(%)
March
2011
(%)
June
2011
(%)
Nov
2011
(%)
Total
2011
(%)
Repayment mortgage
70
71
72
76
74
74
74
16
13
14
17
11
15
14
Interest only with endowment
6
6
8
4
6
5
5
Interest only with other repayment vehicle (ISA, pension, other)
8
11
8
9
10
9
9
Interest only, no repayment vehicle Total interest-only
30
29
29
28
26
28
28
Don't know type
6
4
4
3
4
4
4
Base = 100%
5,516
4,766
751
847
792
781
3,171
Total
2011
(%)
Nov
2011
(%)
June
2011
(%)
March
2011
(%)
Jan
2011
(%)
2009/
2010
(%)
2008/
2009
(%)
40
37
37
41
38
38
39
Mortgage or secured loan Unsecured credit
64
58
56
55
52
54
54
Any form of credit
75
70
69
69
66
69
68
Secured credit only
11
12
13
14
14
14
14
29
25
25
28
23
24
25
Has secured and unsecured credit Unsecured credit only
35
34
31
27
28
31
29
No credit
25
30
31
31
34
31
32
Base = 100%
14,132 13,173
2,043
2,072
2,124
2,099
8,338
Base = 100%
Mortgage or
secured loan
only (%)
Any credit (%)
Unsecured credit
only (%)
All with mortgage
or secured loan
(%)
Both secured and
unsecured credit
(%)
| | | | | Annual household income | |
|---------------------------|----|------|------|---------------------------|-----|
| Less than £13,500 | 14 | 6 | 8 | 45 | 60 |
| 1,153 | | | | | |
| £13,500 < £25,000 | 25 | 8 | 16 | 37 | 62 |
| 1,466 | | | | | |
| £25,000 < £50,000 | 50 | 16 | 34 | 26 | 76 |
| 2,377 | | | | | |
| £50,000 or more | 63 | 23 | 41 | 18 | 82 |
| 1,288 | | | | | |
| Not known | 34 | 14 | 20 | 26 | 60 |
| 2,053 | | | | | |
| Household savings | | | | | |
| Zero | 35 | 5 | 31 | 48 | 83 |
| 1,517 | | | | | |
| £1 < £1,000 | 35 | 5 | 30 | 47 | 81 |
| 783 | | | | | |
| £1,000 < £10,000 | 49 | 16 | 32 | 27 | 76 |
| 1,951 | | | | | |
| £10,000 < £20,000 | 48 | 23 | 24 | 20 | 67 |
| 591 | | | | | |
| £20,000 or more | 34 | 21 | 13 | 13 | 47 |
| 1,118 | | | | | |
| Not known | 34 | 15 | 19 | 25 | 58 |
| 2,378 | | | | | |
| Household composition | | | | | |
| Couple, with child(ren) | 66 | 23 | 43 | 18 | 84 |
| 1,789 | | | | | |
| Couple, no child | 37 | 12 | 24 | 26 | 62 |
| 3,672 | | | | | |
| One adult with child(ren) | 42 | 12 | 29 | 41 | 83 |
| 339 | | | | | |
| One adult, no child | 22 | 10 | 13 | 42 | 64 |
| 2,469 | | | | | |
| Age of respondent | | | | | |
| 18 to 24 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 62 | 72 |
| 729 | | | | | |
| 25 to 39 | 51 | 17 | 34 | 33 | 84 |
| 2,251 | | | | | |
| 40 to 54 | 57 | 20 | 37 | 22 | 79 |
| 2,205 | | | | | |
| 55 or over | 24 | 9 | 14 | 25 | 48 |
| 3,151 | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| All households | 39 | 14 | 25 | 29 | 68 |
| 8,338 | | | | | |
2008/ 2009
(%)
2009/ 2010
(%)
2011
(%)
£1,000 or less
24
20
25
>£1,000 to £2,000
11
9
10
>£2,000 to £4,000
14
13
13
>£4,000 to £6,000
9
9
8
>£6,000 to £10,000
14
14
14
>£10,000 to £15,000
11
13
12
>£15,000 to £20,000
7
8
7
More than £20,000
10
13
11
6,928
6,224
3,753
Base = 100% (households using
unsecured credit)*
24%
19%
17%
% of households with missing values
* Excludes cases where the value of unsecured credit was missing
2011 surveys
Type of credit
Mean (£)
Mean (£)
2008/ 2009
2009/ 2010
Mean (£)
% missing
values
Median (£)
10th percentile
(£)
90th percentile
(£)
Base= 100%
(Using unsecured
credit)1
Student loan
11,100
11,200
11,000
10,000
2,000
21,000
842
21
Personal loan
7,800
7,700
7,200
5,000
900
15,600
894
19
Car finance loan
5,400
5,900
6,200
4,800
1,000
12,500
559
19
3,700
5,400
4,400
1,700
200
10,000
444
23
Loan from friends/family Credit card
4,400
5,000
4,500
2,000
300
11,000
1,638
22
Hire purchase
2,400
3,000
2,500
1,200
200
6,200
214
15
1,400
1,400
1,100
600
100
2,300
1,077
24
Authorised overdraft Store card
800
1,400
1,400
400
100
3,000
275
25
900
1,200
1,000
700
200
2,300
105
18
Home collected credit
600
700
600
200
50
1,500
716
15
Mail Order catalogue
400
500
500
400
100
800
77
19
DSS/ Social Fund loan "Other" loans
10,600
22,700
13,200
5,700
400
39,000
45
29
400
1,500
700
200
100
2,500
33
28
Pawnbroker / cash converter
loan 2
Pay day loan2
600
800
600
400
100
1,300
65
27
Credit Union loan
1,400
1,700
2,100
800
100
6,000
43
14
1,000
600
100
2,200
167
24
All high-cost credit
8,700
9,9003
8,500
4,600
200
21,000
3,753
17
All unsecured loans
1 Excludes cases where the value of credit was missing
2 Figures for 2009/10 revised since previous report to exclude extreme outliers
3 Figure revised since previous report.
2009/ 2010
(%)
2011
(%)
Less than £25,000
16
17
£25,000 < £50,000
14
16
£50,000 < £75,000
15
16
£75,000 < £100,000
15
16
£100,000 < £150,000
20
21
£150,000 < £200,000
10
9
£200,000 or more
10
7
2,960
2,496
Base = 100% (Households using secured credit) *
39%
22%
% of households with missing values Mean value (£)
98,400
91,800
Median value (£)
80,000
78,000
10th percentile
15,000
15,000
90th percentile
196,000
175,000
* Excludes households for which the value of secured credit was missing
household
All using
credit (%)
Unsecured
credit only
(%)
Secured
credit only
(%)
Secured and
unsecured
credit (%)
£1,000 or less
1
1
30
14
>£1,000 to £5,000
4
1
27
13
>£5,000 to £10,000
4
2
16
9
>£10,000 to £20,000
12
5
18
12
>£20,000 to £50,000
22
16
9
14
>£50,000 to £10,000
29
30
0
16
More than £100,000
28
46
0
22
Mean value (£)
82,800
107,200
7,500
57,400
Median value (£)
65,000
93,000
3,600
23,000
Base = 100% *
869
1,560
2,005
4,434
* Excludes cases for which the value of credit was missing
All households
Households using
credit
2009/10
(%)
2011
(%)
2009/10
(%)
2011
(%)
Zero
38
38
n/a
n/a
£1,000 or less
8
9
13
14
>£1,000 to £5,000
10
8
15
13
>£5,000 to £10,000
6
5
10
9
>£10,000 to £20,000
9
8
15
12
>£20,000 to £50,000
8
9
14
14
>£50,000 to £100,000
8
10
14
16
More than £100,000
12
14
19
22
Mean value (£)
33,000
35,800
53,400
57,400
Base = 100% *
10,255
7,098
6,364
4,434
22%
15%
31%
22%
% of households with missing values
* Excludes households for which the value of credit was missing
| | 2008/ 2009 |
|------------------------------|-----------------|
| (%) | |
| 2009/ 2010 | |
| (%) | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| 10% or less | 38 |
| >10% to 20% | 17 |
| >20% to 40% | 17 |
| >40% to 60% | 9 |
| >60% to 80% | 6 |
| More than 80% | 13 |
| 5,863 | 5,446 |
| using unsecured credit) | |
| 1 | |
| | |
| 36% | 29% |
| % of households with missing | |
| values | |
| | |
* Excludes cases where the value of the ratio was missing
| | 2008/ 2009 |
|-------------------------------------|---------------|
| (%) | |
| 2009/ 2010 | |
| (%) | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| Up to 10% | 55 |
| >10% to 20% | 19 |
| >20% to 30% | 10 |
| >30% to 40% | 5 |
| More than 40% | 11 |
| Base = 100%* | 6,492 |
| % of households with missing values | 29% |
* Excludes cases where the ratio was missing
| | Annual household income | |
|---------------------------|---------------------------|-----|
| Less than £13,500 | 23 | 8 |
| 537 | | |
| 38 | | |
| 529 | | |
| 31 | | |
| 451 | | |
| £13,500 < £25,000 | 25 | 9 |
| 719 | | |
| 21 | | |
| 719 | | |
| 14 | | |
| 662 | | |
| £25,000 < £50,000 | 32 | 11 |
| 1,320 | | |
| 10 | | |
| 1,320 | | |
| 9 | | |
| 1,210 | | |
| £50,000 or more | 40 | 17 |
| 711 | | |
| 4 | | |
| 711 | | |
| 10 | | |
| 649 | | |
| Not known | 25 | 7 |
| 466 | - | |
| - | | |
| | | |
| Household savings | | |
| Zero | 33 | 14 |
| 1,075 | | |
| 23 | | |
| 999 | | |
| 19 | | |
| 927 | | |
| £1 < £1,000 | 31 | 12 |
| 545 | | |
| 20 | | |
| 502 | | |
| 16 | | |
| 466 | | |
| £1,000 < £10,000 | 33 | 11 |
| 1,070 | | |
| 12 | | |
| 1,005 | | |
| 12 | | |
| 886 | | |
| £10,000 or more | 27 | 8 |
| 521 | | |
| 7 | | |
| 496 | | |
| 8 | | |
| 443 | | |
| Not known | 20 | 6 |
| 543 | | |
| 8 | | |
| 277 | | |
| 3 | | |
| 249 | | |
| Housing tenure | | |
| Mortgage | 33 | 13 |
| 1,717 | | |
| 12 | | |
| 1,533 | | |
| 12 | | |
| 1,423 | | |
| Owned outright | 16 | 5 |
| 469 | | |
| 12 | | |
| 401 | | |
| 12 | | |
| 369 | | |
| Rented | 27 | 9 |
| 1,220 | | |
| 20 | | |
| 1,083 | | |
| 15 | | |
| 970 | | |
| Rent free/ other | 43 | 15 |
| 338 | | |
| 21 | | |
| 256 | | |
| 17 | | |
| 203 | | |
| Household composition | | |
| Couple, with child(ren) | 27 | 12 |
| 939 | | |
| 11 | | |
| 838 | | |
| 11 | | |
| 779 | | |
| Couple, no child | 30 | 11 |
| 1,510 | | |
| 12 | | |
| 1,335 | | |
| 11 | | |
| 1,228 | | |
| One adult with child(ren) | 27 | 6 |
| 200 | | |
| 17 | | |
| 183 | | |
| 23 | | |
| 176 | | |
| One adult, no child | 33 | 12 |
| 1,085 | | |
| 25 | | |
| 915 | | |
| 18 | | |
| 786 | | |
| Age of respondent | | |
| 18 to 24 | 45 | 21 |
| 371 | | |
| 34 | | |
| 292 | | |
| 15 | | |
| 196 | | |
| 25 to 39 | 37 | 12 |
| 1,314 | | |
| 14 | | |
| 1,167 | | |
| 13 | | |
| 1,084 | | |
| 40 to 54 | 27 | 11 |
| 1,080 | | |
| 14 | | |
| 954 | | |
| 13 | | |
| 887 | | |
| 55 or over | 18 | 6 |
| 989 | | |
| 14 | | |
| 868 | | |
| 15 | | |
| 809 | | |
| 26 | 9 | |
| 205 | | |
| 25 | | |
| 171 | | |
| 18 | | |
| 145 | | |
| Unemployment | | |
| One or both adults | | |
| unemployed | | |
| Other | 30 | 11 |
| 3,550 | | |
| 15 | | |
| 3,108 | | |
| 13 | | |
| 2,829 | | |
| | 30 | 11 |
|---------------------|-------|-------|
| 3,753 | 16 | 3,279 |
| 14 | | |
| 2,976 | | |
| | | |
| All households with | | |
| unsecured credit | | |
* Bases exclude cases where value or ratio for unsecured credit was missing
Base =
100% *
Secured credit
of £150,000 or
more (%)
Secured credit
of £200,000 or
more (%)
Annual household income Less than £13,500
8
5
142
£13,500 < £25,000
2
2
328
£25,000 < £50,000
9
3
1,037
£50,000 or more
33
15
731
Not known
17
8
258
Household savings Zero
16
6
453
£1 < £1,000
13
5
238
£1,000 < £10,000
15
5
866
£10,000 < £20,000
18
8
260
£20,000 or more
22
11
353
Not known
12
7
323
Household composition
Couple, with child(ren)
22
11
926
Couple, no child
14
5
1,026
One adult with child(ren)
12
5
110
One adult, no child
8
3
432
Age of respondent
18 to 24
12
2
48
25 to 39
23
8
915
40 to 54
14
8
970
55 or over
7
4
562
Unemployment
One or both adults unemployed
12
5
103
Other
16
7
2,393
16
7
2,496 All households with secured credit
* Excludes cases where amount of secured debt was missing
2009/ 2010
2011
Total
(%)
No credit
(%)
Total
(%)
Using
unsecured
credit (%)
Using
secured
credit (%)
Zero
27
34
22
15
26
Less than £1,000
12
17
11
9
13
£1,000 less than £5,000
20
23
26
15
21
£5,000 less than £10,000
11
10
13
13
12
£10,000 less than £50,000
21
13
22
28
20
£50,000 or more
9
2
5
19
8
Base = 100% 1
9,514
3,501
2,420
1,671
5,964
Mean value (£) 2
16,200
6,300
10,400
29,500
14,500
Median value (£)
2,000
800
3,000
7,500
2,000
% of households with no information
28%
23%
25%
37%
28%
1 Excludes cases where the value of household savings was missing 2 Means exclude a small number of cases with reported savings of £1 million or more
Value of household savings
Base =
100% *
£1,000
<£10,000
(%)
£10,000
<£50,000
(%)
£50,000
or more
(%)
Mean value
(£)
Less
than
£1,000
(%)
Annual Household income Less than £13,500
61
28
9
2
4,500
1,010
£13,500 < £25,000
45
32
17
6
9,500
1,267
£25,000 < £50,000
32
35
23
10
16,200
2,085
£50,000 or more
20
33
32
15
2,900
1,156
Not known
48
32
15
4
9,400
446
Age of respondent 18 to 24
51
41
7
0
3,000
494
25 to 39
40
38
18
4
8,500
1,689
40 to 54
44
30
19
7
12,300
1,640
55 or over
30
29
26
15
24,100
2,140
Housing tenure Mortgage
33
39
22
5
10.400
2,382
Owned outright
15
28
33
24
37,200
1,426
Rented
63
27
8
2
4,400
1,678
Rent free/ other
49
34
16
1
4,800
458
Household composition Couple, with child(ren)
42
32
19
7
12,400
1,355
Couple, no child
29
33
26
12
20,000
2,560
63
29
7
2
3,400
273
One adult with child(ren) One adult, no child
46
33
16
5
10,600
1,763 All households
39
33
20
8
14,700
5,964
* Excludes cases where the value of household savings was missing
| | 2008/ |
|---------------------------------|----------|
| 2009 | |
| (%) | |
| 2009/ | |
| 2010 | |
| (%) | |
| Jan | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| March | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| June | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| Nov | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| Total | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| All households | |
| 9 | 9 |
| behind with any | |
| payments | |
| 5 | 5 |
| any payments | |
| 14 | 13 |
| behind with any | |
| payments | |
| Base = 100% | 14,132 |
| Households with unsecured debts | |
| 12 | 13 |
| More than 3 months | |
| behind with any | |
| payments | |
| 8 | 7 |
| any payments | |
| 20 | 20 |
| Total at least 1 month | |
| behind with any | |
| payments | |
| Base = 100% | 9,105 |
| | |
| | 2008/ 2009 |
|----------------------------------------------|---------------|
| (%) | |
| 2009/ 2010 | |
| (%) | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| Number of payments more than 3 months behind | |
| One | 54 |
| Two | 24 |
| Three or more | 22 |
| Type of payments in arrears | |
| Arrears on major household bills * | 54 |
| Arrears on credit card payments | 27 |
| Arrears on any unsecured loans or credit | 49 |
| Arrears on other bills or payments | 27 |
| Arrears on mortgage payments | 4 |
| 1,242 | 1,120 |
| arrears) | |
* Including rent, excluding mortgage payments
Total
2011
(%)
Nov
2011
(%)
June
2011
(%)
March
2011
(%)
Jan
2011
(%)
2009/
2010
(%)
2008/
2009
(%)
Bankrupt*, IVA or DMP
7
6
5
6
5
5
5
Structural arrears
6
6
5
6
5
5
5
Total
13
12
9
12
10
10
10
5
4
4
3
4
5
4
1 to 3 months behind with any payments Total
17
16
13
15
15
15
14
Base = 100%
14,132
13,172
2,043
2,072
2,124
2,099
8.338
* 'Currently' declared bankrupt in 2008/09; declared bankrupt in the last 2 years from 2009/10
Base =
100%
Structural
arrears (total)
(%)
Insolvency
action
(%)
Insolvency
action or
arrears (%)
Annual household income Less than £13,500
16
8
21
1,154
£13,500 < £25,000
10
7
14
1,467
£25,000 < £50,000
6
6
10
2,376
£50,000 or more
3
3
5
1,288
Not known
4
3
6
2,053
Household savings Zero
23
16
32
1,517
£1 < £1,000
10
9
16
783
£1,000 < £10,000
4
3
5
1,951
£10,000 or more
1
1
1
1,709
Not known
3
3
6
2,378
Housing tenure Mortgage
6
6
9
3,171
Owned outright
2
1
3
2,192
Rented
14
10
20
2,165
Rent free/ other
6
3
8
689
Household composition Couple, with child(ren)
8
8
13
1,788
Couple, no child
5
4
8
3,672
One adult with child(ren)
18
12
26
339
One adult, no child
8
5
11
2,469
Age of respondent 18 to 24
5
1
6
729
25 to 39
8
6
12
2,252
40 to 54
10
8
14
2,205
55 or over
5
4
7
3,152
16
9
21
453
Unemployment One or both adults unemployed Other
6
5
10
7,885
15
11
21
621
Changes experienced in last 12 months * Respondent or partner lost job Split up/ new child
13
8
18
289
All households
7
5
10
8,338
* Relevant questions were not asked in the June 2011 survey
burden
| | 2008/ |
|-----------------------------------|----------|
| 2009 | |
| (%) | |
| 2009/ | |
| 2010 | |
| (%) | |
| Jan | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| March | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| June | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| Nov | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| Total | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| All households | |
| Heavy burden | |
| 15 | 14 |
| 12 | 15 |
| 13 | |
| Somewhat of a burden | |
| 43 | 41 |
| 44 | 44 |
| 42 | |
| Not a burden at all | |
| 39 | 40 |
| 40 | 37 |
| 40 | |
| Don't know/ No answer | |
| 4 | 5 |
| 5 | 5 |
| 5 | |
| Base = 100% | 14,132 |
| Households using unsecured credit | |
| Heavy burden | |
| 21 | 20 |
| 18 | 22 |
| 20 | |
| Somewhat of a burden | |
| 49 | 49 |
| 52 | 50 |
| 49 | |
| Not a burden at all | |
| 28 | 27 |
| 27 | 25 |
| 28 | |
| Don't know/ No answer | |
| 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 3 |
| 3 | |
| Base = 100% | 9,109 |
Base =
100%
Structural
arrears
(%)
Keeping up is
a heavy
burden (%)
Annual household income Less than £13,500
16
22
1,154
£13,500 < £25,000
10
16
1,467
£25,000 < £50,000
6
13
2,376
£50,000 or more
3
9
1,288
Not known
4
9
2,053
Household savings Zero
23
39
1,517
£1 < £1,000
10
20
783
£1,000 < £10,000
4
8
1,951
£10,000 < £20,000
1
5
591
£20,000 or more
1
2
1,118
Not known
3
6
2,378
Housing tenure Mortgage
6
15
3,171
Owned outright
2
5
2,192
Rented
14
20
2,165
Rent free/ other
6
11
689
Household composition Couple, with child(ren)
8
17
1,788
Couple, no child
5
10
3,672
One adult with child(ren)
18
31
339
One adult, no child
8
13
2,469
Age of respondent 18 to 24
5
9
729
25 to 39
8
15
2,252
40 to 54
10
18
2,205
55 or over
5
10
3,152
Unemployment One or both adults unemployed
16
27
453
Other
6
12
7,885
Changes experienced in last 12 months Respondent or partner lost job
15
24
621
Split up/ new child
13
21
289
All households
7
13
8,338
| | 2008/ |
|----------------------------------------|----------|
| 2009 | |
| (%) | |
| 2009/ | |
| 2010 | |
| (%) | |
| Jan | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| March | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| June | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| Nov | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| Total | |
| 2011 | |
| (%) | |
| Keeping up with bills and commitments | |
| Constant struggle | 16 |
| 7 | 7 |
| behind | |
| Either of above | 23 |
| Struggle to last until next pay day | |
| More often than not | 22 |
| Using credit for day to day living | |
| All the time | 11 |
| Once in a while | 15 |
| Either of above | 26 |
| How often overdrawn on current account | |
| Constantly | 13 |
| Usually | 10 |
| Either of above | 22 |
| | |
| Base = 100% | 14,132 |
Total
2011
(%)
March
2011
(%)
June
2011
(%)
Nov
2011
(%)
Jan
2011
(%)
2008/
2009
(%)
2009/
2010
(%)
A bit/ much better
13
18
14
13
14
13
13
Stayed the same
29
40
33
32
32
31
32
A bit worse
38
29
37
39
36
38
38
Much worse
18
12
14
14
17
16
15
DK/ NA
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
Base
14,132
13,174
2,043
2,072
2,124
2,099
8,338
Total
(%)
Number of subjective measures
Has no
unsecured
credit
commitments
Has some
unsecured
credit
commitments
Has four or
more types of
unsecured
credit
(%)
(%)
(%)
2 or 3 measures
7
25
49
17
1 measure
9
16
16
13
None
84
59
35
70
Base = 100%
3,805
4,532
527
8,338
| (%) | (%) |
|------------------------|--------|
| All households | |
| Commitments a | |
| heavy burden | |
| 2 or 3 indicators of | |
| stress (%) | |
| Struggle to reach | |
| payday 'more often | |
| than not' (%) | |
| Constantly struggle | |
| to keep up/ falling | |
| behind (%) | |
| 1 or more indicators | |
| of stress (%) | |
| | |
| 18 | 14 |
| (Bankrupt, IVA or DMP) | |
| Structural arrears | 19 |
| 13 | 11 |
| any payments | |
| None of these | 49 |
| Base = 100% | 1,089 |
(%)
Insolvency action
(%)
with payments (%)
Insolvency action or
structural arrears (%)
44
50
47
42
8
13
Commitments were a heavy burden
58
70
64
58
16
22
Constantly struggled/ falling behind with bills & commitments
56
62
59
54
13
19
Struggled to reach payday 'more often than not' Number of subjective indicators of stress Two or three
52
62
57
53
10
17
One
21
19
20
17
12
13
None
27
20
23
31
78
70
Base = 100%
451
416
867
340
7,132
8,338
* In structural arrears and not involved in insolvency action (Bankrupt, IVA or DMP)
be experiencing financial stress by household characteristics
Neither
(%)
Base =
100%
In financial
difficulties
(%)
Under
financial
stress (%)
Annual household income Less than £13,500
21
18
62
1,154
£13,500 < £25,000
14
14
72
1,467
£25,000 < £50,000
10
10
81
2,376
£50,000 or more
5
6
90
1,288
Not known
6
9
85
2,053
Household savings Zero
32
27
41
1,517
£1 < £1,000
16
19
65
783
£1,000 < £10,000
5
7
88
1,951
£10,000 or more
1
2
96
1,709
Not known
6
7
88
2,378
Housing tenure Mortgage
9
11
79
3,171
Owned outright
3
5
92
2,192
Rented
21
15
65
2,165
Rent free/ other
8
12
80
689
Household composition Couple, with child(ren)
13
13
74
1,788
Couple, no child
8
8
85
3,672
One adult with child(ren)
26
20
54
339
One adult, no child
11
12
78
2,469
Age of respondent 18 to 24
6
10
85
729
25 to 39
12
11
76
2,252
40 to 54
14
13
73
2,205
55 or over
7
9
84
3,152
21
19
61
453
Unemployment One or both adults unemployed Other
10
10
80
7,885
All households
10
11
79
8,338
| Total | Insolvency |
|---------------------|---------------|
| action | |
| Others | |
| (%) | |
| (%) | |
| If sought advice on | |
| debt in previous 6 | |
| months | |
| Structural | |
| arrears | |
| (only) | |
| (%) | |
| 1 to 3 | |
| months | |
| behind with | |
| payments | |
| (%) | |
| (%) | |
| Yes | 31 |
| No | 66 |
| No answer | 3 |
| Base = 100% | 405 |
| No answer | | Had sought |
|---------------------------|-----|---------------|
| advice | | |
| Had not | | |
| sought advice | | |
| Base = | | |
| 100% * | | |
| (%) | | |
| (%) | (%) | |
| Annual household income | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Less than £13,500 | 12 | 85 |
| 136 | | |
| £13,500 < £25,000 | 11 | 84 |
| 99 | | |
| £25,000 or more | 4 | 91 |
| 100 | | |
| Not known | 5 | 80 |
| 59 | | |
| Household savings | | |
| Zero | 10 | 84 |
| 234 | | |
| £1 < £1,000 | 6 | 92 |
| 50 | | |
| £1,000 or more | 4 | 93 |
| 55 | | |
| Not known | 11 | 75 |
| 57 | | |
| Household composition | | |
| Couple, with child(ren) | 8 | 81 |
| 89 | | |
| Couple, no child | 10 | 83 |
| 114 | | |
| One adult with child(ren) | 17 | 83 |
| 47 | | |
| One adult, no child | 6 | 90 |
| 143 | | |
| Unemployment | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 19 | 76 | 6 |
| 54 | | |
| One or both adults | | |
| unemployed | | |
| Other | 7 | 87 |
| 340 | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| All households | 9 | 85 |
| 394 | | |
* Households in structural arrears on payments
| Other | Total |
|-------------------------------|-------------------|
| (%) | (%) |
| | Insolvency action |
| or in structural | |
| arrears (%) | |
| Cut back on spending | 33 |
| Set out budget plan | 36 |
| Contacted creditors | 40 |
| Entered into a DMP or similar | 42 |
| Enquired about bankruptcy | |
| 1 | |
| | 13 |
| Enquired about DMP or similar | |
| 1 | |
| | 9 |
| Enquired about IVA | |
| 1 | |
| | 11 |
| Entered into an IVA | 7 |
| Consolidation loan | 1 |
| Declared bankrupt | 4 |
| Something else | 7 |
| Nothing yet | 6 |
| | |
| Base= 100% | 160 |
1 Excluding those who had already entered into an arrangement of this type.
## Appendix B: Use Of High-Cost Credit Summary
Between 2% and 3% of respondents were using high-cost credit over the past three
years of the DebtTrack Surveys. Use of home-collected credit was slightly more
common than use of payday loans or pawnbroker loans.
Users of high-cost credit were likely to have other types of unsecured loans; 46% had
four or more types of unsecured credit. They had lower debt levels than other users of
unsecured credit but markedly higher repayment to income ratios.
Users of high-cost credit were more likely than other credit users to have applied for
mainstream credit products in the previous six months, but they were much more likely
than other borrowers to have had their application rejected; more than three fifths of
applications had been rejected for some mainstream products.
Users of high-cost credit were particularly concentrated in households with low levels of
savings, with dependent children, living in rented accommodation and households where no adults were in paid employment at the time of interview.
Households using high-cost credit were very likely to be experiencing financial
difficulties and showing signs of financial stress on subjective measures. They also
tended to have less financial knowledge and confidence than other users of unsecured credit.
## Use Of High-Cost Credit
This appendix presents analysis of the use of high-cost credit based on DebtTrack surveys over the past three years. The term "high-cost credit" is commonly used to cover three main types of unsecured credit offered by non- mainstream providers. These are payday loans, home-collected credit and pawnbroker loans. Loans of this type are usually of low value but involve high interest rates. They tend to be available quickly and offer considerable flexibility, particularly to users who are not able to access or extend other types of mainstream credit. Overall only a very small proportion of DebtTrack respondents were using the three types of high-cost or non-mainstream credit (Table B1).
Home-collected credit was the most common type of loan, used by around 2% of
households. Just 1% of households had a payday loan and less than 1% had a loan
from a pawnbroker at the time of interview. Overall between 2% and 3% of surveyed
households were using one or other form of high-cost credit in each of the survey
years.
2008/09
(%)
2009/10
(%)
2011
(%)
Average
(%)
Home-collected credit
2.1
1.5
1.5
1.7
Payday loan
0.6
0.6
1.1
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.4
Loan from a pawnbroker/ cash converter Any of these loans
2.7
2.2
2.6
2.5
Base = 100%
14,132
13,173
8,338
35,643
Analysis of the DebtTrack surveys suggests that the overall use of high-cost credit has
remained broadly stable over recent years. It is difficult to draw conclusions about national prevalence solely from this survey, but there are some indications that the use
of payday loans may be increasing and that this has been balanced by a slight fall in the use of home-collected credit.
## Amount Of High-Cost Credit
The information on the amount of borrowing shown in Table B2 is based on responses across all three years of the survey because of the small number of survey respondents using these types of loan. It should be noted that a value was not given for between one quarter and one third of such loans and that a small number of very large values were excluded from the analysis because of their impact on the mean value. Looking at the median amounts of loan, which are more stable year on year, it is apparent that most payday and pawnbroker loans were for relatively small amounts. One half of users owed £350 or less on payday loans and £250 or less to a pawnbroker. The amounts for home-collected credit were somewhat greater with a median of £600. These amounts were similar to the amounts owed on store cards (median of £400 in 2011) and authorised overdrafts (median of £600) but substantially smaller than the median amounts for outstanding credit card debts (£2,000) and unsecured personal loans (£5,000) (see Table A20).
| | Mean |
|-----------------------|-------------|
| (£) | |
| Median | |
| (£) | |
| Base = | |
| 100% | |
| % missing | |
| values | |
| 90th | |
| percentile | |
| (£) | |
| Home-collected credit | 920 |
| 462 | |
| 25% | |
| Payday loan | 680 |
| 174 | |
| 28% | |
| Pawnbroker loan | 870 |
| 90 | |
| 35% | |
* Combined data for 3 years. A small number of outliers have been excluded.
## Use Of Other Credit Products
Generally there was little overlap between users of the different high-cost credit products.
Only 15% of respondents who used home-collected credit also had one of the other products. The overlap was greater for the smaller groups who used payday loans or pawnbroker loans, with about one third (32% to 37%) of these groups having more than one type of high-cost credit product. Figure B1 indicates that users of high-cost credit were very likely to have a number of other unsecured credit products. Almost one half (46%) of this group had a total of four or more unsecured credit products as compared with just 13% of users of other types of unsecured credit.
Home-collected
credit (%)
Payday loan
(%)
Pawnbroker
loan (%)
Home-collected credit
-
25
25
Payday loan
10
-
16
6
10
-
Loan from a pawnbroker/ cash converter
15
32
37
Total using another high-cost product Base = 100%
615
242
142
Generally the group had high levels of usage of mainstream products. Two fifths had outstanding credit on a credit card (43%) or a mail order account (40%) and about one third had an authorised overdraft (32%) or an unsecured personal loan (30%). Compared with other respondents with unsecured credit, users of high-cost credit were more likely to have a mail-order account (40% compared with 19%), a loan from family or friends (25% compared with 12%) or a DSS/ Social Fund loan (20% compared with 2%). They were less likely than other credit users to have a student loan (8% compared with 23%) and also had relatively low usage of authorised overdrafts and credit cards.
Credit products
Users of high-cost
credit products
(%)
Other users of
unsecured credit
(%)
Credit card
43
50
Authorised overdraft
32
40
Unsecured personal loan
30
29
Student loan
8
23
Mail order account
40
19
Car finance loan
11
15
Loan from family/ friends
25
12
Store card
12
10
Hire purchase agreement
12
6
DSS/ Social Fund loan
20
2
Credit Union loan
3
1
Other loan
2
1
Base = 100%
886
20,440
In spite of the large number of products held, users of high-cost credit tended to have lower levels of debt than did other respondents with unsecured credit - a median value of
£3,000 compared with about £5,000 for other users of unsecured credit (Table B5). One quarter of high-cost credit users had total debts of £1,000 or less and two fifths (42%) of £2,000 or less, compared with 22% and 30% respectively of other users of unsecured credit (Figure B2).
Total unsecured debt
Respondents using
high-cost credit
(%)
Other users of
unsecured credit
(%)
Mean value (£)
8,300
9,200
Median value (£)
3,000
5,100
Base = 100%
703
15,655
% of households with missing values
21%
23%
Although they had relatively low levels of debt, users of high-cost credit had high repayment to income ratios (Figure B3). More than one quarter (29%) of the group had total credit repayments amounting to more than 30% of their income and one fifth (20%) to more than 40% compared with 15% and 10% respectively of other credit users.
## Demand For Credit Products
There is some evidence that users of high-cost credit had looked elsewhere to borrow money as they showed consistently higher rates than other credit users of having applied for mainstream credit products in the six months before being interviewed (Table B6).
Some 16% had applied for a credit card, 12% for an unsecured personal loan and 11% for a DSS/ Social Fund loan.
Respondents using
high-cost credit
(%)
Other users of
unsecured credit
(%)
Credit card
16
12
Unsecured personal loan
12
4
DSS/ Social Fund loan
11
1
Authorised overdraft
8
4
Mail order catalogue
7
2
Store card
3
2
Base = 100%
886
20,435
Users of high-cost credit were, however, much more likely than other users of unsecured credit to have had their application rejected, suggesting that the group found it difficult to increase their credit from mainstream sources (Table B7). Some 64% of applications for a credit card by this group had been rejected, 69% for unsecured personal loans and 72% for authorised overdrafts; this compares with rejection rates of 22% to 27% for applications by other users of unsecured credit. There was much less disparity between these groups in the rejection rates for mail-order catalogues and DSS/ Social Fund loans.
Respondents using
high-cost credit
Other users of
unsecured credit
%
Base
%
Base
Credit card
64
135
22
2,327
Store card
61
23
21
340
Unsecured personal loan
69
99
27
840
Authorised overdraft
72
65
27
742
DSS/ Social Fund loan
13
88
10
187
Mail order catalogue
27
37
13
199
The surveys also provide evidence of continuing financial pressure and demand for credit among users of high-cost credit (Table B8). Two fifths (40%) of the group said that they were likely to need to borrow more money in the next few months, compared with 15% of other unsecured credit users. Only one quarter (26%) of high-cost credit users thought it unlikely that they would need to borrow more money in the near future, compared with around three fifths (58%) of respondents using other types of unsecured credit.
Respondents using
high-cost credit
(%)
Other users of
unsecured credit
(%)
Very likely
14
4
Fairly likely
26
11
Neither likely nor unlikely/ Don't know
34
26
Fairly unlikely
10
21
Very unlikely
16
37
Base = 100%
886
20,438
## Characteristics Of Users Of High-Cost Credit
Table B9 compares the characteristics of users of high-cost credit with those of all households using unsecured credit and the total sample. Because of the small number of households using high-cost credit, the analysis of characteristics is again based on combined data from the last three years of the survey.
In comparison with all users of unsecured credit, users of high-cost credit were
particularly concentrated in households with low levels of savings and, to a lesser
extent, in low income households. Four fifths (80%) of households with nonmainstream loans had savings of £1,000 or less, compared with 43% of all users of unsecured credit and 31% of the total sample. Around three-fifths (58%) had an annual income of less than £25,000, compared with 32% of all users of unsecured credit and 32% of the total sample.
Approaching one half (46%) of users of high-cost credit were in households with
dependent children compared with 30% of all users of unsecured credit. Some 14% were in lone-parent households compared with 5% of all users of unsecured credit.
Users of high-cost credit were particularly likely to live in rented accommodation - 70%
compared with 26% of the total sample. More than one half (58%) of the group had left
school at or before the age of 16, compared with 37% of users of any type of
unsecured credit.
Users of high-cost credit were also likely to be in households where no adults were in
paid employment at the time of interview (29% compared with 15% among all unsecured credit users). One fifth (21%) of users were in households affected by loss of a job in the previous 12 months, compared with 11% of all users of unsecured credit.
Columns 2 to 4 of Table B9 compare the characteristics of users of the three different types of non-mainstream credit. Note that sample sizes are much smaller so only very large differences are likely to be significant. Users of payday loans were less likely than users of home-collected credit or pawnbrokers to be in lower income bands. About one third (36%) of payday loan users had an annual income of less than £25,000, compared with 57-64% of the other groups. This is to be expected given the requirement that those taking such loans are in work. This difference is also evident in the comparison of the proportions of households with one or more adults working at the time of interview - 89% for households with a payday loan compared with 55-66% of those with a home-collected or pawnbroker loan. Users of payday loans were also more likely than users of other types of high-cost credit to be in the 25-39 age-group and to be in one-person households.
Total (%)
All users of
unsecured
credit (%)
Payday loan
(%)
Pawn-broker
loan (%)
Home-collected
credit (%)
All users of
high-cost credit
(%)
| | | | | | Annual household income | |
|---------------------------|----|------|------|------|---------------------------|------|
| Less than £13,500 | 36 | 12 | 27 | 31 | 14 | 14 |
| £13,500 to £25,000 | 28 | 24 | 30 | 27 | 18 | 18 |
| £25,000 to £50,000 | 19 | 39 | 26 | 23 | 30 | 28 |
| £50,000 or more | 3 | 9 | 4 | 4 | 16 | 15 |
| DK/ NA | 13 | 16 | 13 | 14 | 22 | 25 |
| Household savings | | | | | | |
| Zero | 68 | 65 | 59 | 66 | 28 | 20 |
| £1 < £1,000 | 14 | 12 | 14 | 14 | 15 | 11 |
| £1,000 < £10,000 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 25 | 23 |
| £10,000 < £20,000 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 7 |
| £20,000 or more | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 13 |
| Not known | 12 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 21 | 26 |
| Housing tenure | | | | | | |
| Mortgage | 16 | 28 | 31 | 21 | 43 | 38 |
| Owned outright | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 14 | 26 |
| Rented | 77 | 57 | 59 | 70 | 32 | 26 |
| Rent free/ other | 3 | 12 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 9 |
| Household composition | | | | | | |
| Couple, with child(ren) | 34 | 29 | 30 | 32 | 25 | 21 |
| Couple, no child | 26 | 26 | 35 | 27 | 40 | 44 |
| One adult with child(ren) | 16 | 9 | 11 | 14 | 5 | 4 |
| One adult, no child | 24 | 36 | 22 | 27 | 30 | 30 |
| Age of respondent | | | | | | |
| 1 | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| 18 to 24 | 5 | 14 | 10 | 8 | 13 | 11 |
| 25 to 39 | 28 | 42 | 28 | 31 | 34 | 28 |
| 40 to 54 | 41 | 35 | 44 | 39 | 27 | 26 |
| 55 or over | 26 | 10 | 18 | 22 | 26 | 36 |
Age left full-time education 2
16 or under
69
45
44
58
37
39
17-18
20
30
44
26
21
22
19 or over
10
25
11
16
42
39
Working status of household One or more adults working
55
89
66
64
75
69
9
2
4
7
10
17
One or more adults retired, none working Not working or retired
35
9
29
29
15
13
10
8
16
11
6
5
Unemployment One or both adults unemployed
Changes in last 12 months 3
Lost job in last 12 months
19
23
30
21
11
10
Split up/ new child in h'hold
8
9
15
9
6
5
Base = 100%
615
241
141
885
21,326
35,641
1 Not including round 1 2 Rounds 9-12 only 3 Not including round 9
Users of home-collected credit were more likely than users of the other products to have left full-time education at or before the age of 16 (69% compared with 44-45%) and to be in households living in rented accommodation (77% compared with 57-59%). They were also less likely than the other groups to be in households in which one or both adults were in employment (55% compared with 66-89%).
Users of pawnbroker loans were typical of all high-cost credit users in having low household income and living in rented accommodation.
## Financial Situation
There is evidence from the DebtTrack surveys that users of high-cost credit were very likely to be experiencing financial difficulties and showing signs of financial stress on the subjective measures (see Table B10).
More than three fifths (63%) of users of high-cost credit were either involved in
insolvency action or in structural arrears on payments compared with 17% of all users of unsecured credit and 12% of the total sample.
Some 70% of users of high-cost credit said that they often struggled to reach payday
and 73% that they constantly struggled to keep up or were already falling behind with their bills and payments; this compares with 30% and 31% respectively of all users of
unsecured credit.
Users of payday loans appeared less likely to be in financial difficulties than the other
groups (56% compared with 67-73%) but they showed similarly high levels of financial stress on the subjective measures.
Total (%)
All users of
unsecured
credit (%)
Payday loan
(%)
Pawn-broker
loan (%)
Home-collected
credit (%)
All users of
high-cost credit
(%)
Often struggle to reach payday
69
76
73
70
30
21
73
74
77
73
31
23
Constant struggle or behind with payments Payments a heavy burden
47
56
58
49
20
14
56
45
64
52
12
8
3 months in arrears on any payments
67
56
73
63
17
12
Taking action on debt or in structural arrears Base = 100%
615
241
141
885
21,326
35,641
## Financial Awareness And Knowledge
Based on their level of agreement to a series of attitude statements, it appears that users of high-cost credit tended to have less financial knowledge and confidence than other users of unsecured credit or the sample as a whole (Table B11). Although similar to the other groups in whether they thought that financial services were complicated and confusing, they were less likely to say that they were organised in managing money (29% compared with 58% of all users of unsecured credit) or that they regularly read the financial pages (15% compared with 24%). They were also less likely than others to say that they only bought financial products from a company that they trusted (54% compared with 74%), or to think that buying on credit and paying the amount off each month was a smart thing to do (28% compared with 43%).
Total
(%)
Agree strongly or tend to agree with the statement
All users of
unsecured
credit
(%)
All users
of highcost credit
(%)
39
40
37
Financial services are complicated and confusing I am organised in managing money
29
58
66
Regularly read financial pages in press
15
24
30
12
17
20
People come to me for advice on financial matters
54
74
74
Only buy financial products from a company I trust
28
43
49
Buying on credit and paying off each month is smart Often move money on cards for zero interest
9
22
16
Base = 100%
508
12,219
21,510
* Data for 2009/10 and 2011 only
## Appendix C: Unauthorised Overdrafts Summary
In the second half of 2011 about one in ten respondents (9%) said that they had used
an unarranged overdraft in the past 12 months.
Most respondents were overdrawn only rarely and for short periods. One half (53%)
went overdrawn once or twice a year or less often and 50% were overdrawn last time for only one or two days.
Two thirds (65%) of the sample said that they could have avoided going overdrawn if
they had been given up to 12 hours notice to credit their account.
Respondents using an unauthorised overdraft had broadly similar characteristics to
those using an authorised overdraft. Compared with the sample as a whole, they were more likely to be in households with zero or very small savings and to have dependent children.
Users of unauthorised overdrafts were more likely than both users of authorised
overdrafts and the sample as whole to be experiencing financial difficulties.
## Use Of Unauthorised Overdrafts
The 2011 DebtTrack Surveys included questions about unarranged overdrafts and bank charges. These provide data on the prevalence of unauthorised overdrafts to complement the trend data on use of authorised overdrafts in the main report, and also information about the circumstances in which such overdrafts occur. The results presented here are based mainly on the June and November 2011 surveys and relate to those using overdrafts in the previous 12 months; different questions were used in January and March 2011 and these were asked of respondents who had ever had an unarranged overdraft. An unauthorised overdraft occurs where the available balance on an account goes below zero without the bank's prior permission. This includes situations where the agreed limit for an authorised overdraft is exceeded. Banks may impose penalty charges on unauthorised overdrafts. About one in ten (9%) of respondents said that they had made use of an unarranged overdraft in the past 12 months. For the January and March surveys, a slightly higher proportion of respondents (11%) said that they had 'ever' used an unauthorised overdraft (Table C1). In comparison, about 17% of respondents owed money on an authorised overdraft at the time of interview. Not surprisingly there was substantial overlap between the two types of overdraft; about one third (34%) of those who said that they had used an unarranged overdraft in the previous 12 months also reported owing money on an authorised overdraft at the time of interview (table not shown).
Total
(%)
Jan
2011
(%)
March
2011
(%)
June
2011
(%)
Nov
2011
(%)
9
8
9
Had used an unauthorised overdraft in the last 12 months
11
11
11
Had ever used an unauthorised overdraft
19
19
13
16
17
Had a non-zero authorised overdraft at time of interview Base = 100%
2,043
2,072
2,124
2,099
8,338 *
* Bases of 4,115 for Jan/March 2011 and 4,223 for June/Nov 2011.
## Details Of Unauthorised Overdrafts
Analysis of the nature of unauthorised overdrafts is based only on the June and November
2011 surveys when questions referred to the last time that an overdraft was used. Most respondents had an unarranged overdraft only rarely. One third (31%) of those who had gone into overdraft in the previous 12 months said that they did so less often than once a year and a total of one half (53%) did so just once or twice a year or less often. However, about one quarter (26%) of respondents said that they used an unauthorised overdraft once a month or more often (Table C2)
June - Nov 2011
(%)
Every week
7
At least once a month
19
Once every three months
21
Once or twice a year
22
Less than once a year
31
Base = 100%
374
Overdrafts were generally used for very short periods of time. Four-fifths (83%) of those affected said that they had been overdrawn for up to one week on the last occasion and one half (50%) had been overdrawn for just one or two days. Some 6% of those affected had been overdrawn for more than one month, indicating that this was not due to a temporary problem that was easily corrected. The amounts overdrawn were generally small. Around one half of respondents (53%) had been overdrawn by less than £50 and three-quarters (73%) by less than £100. About one in twenty (5%) of respondents owed much larger amounts of £500 or more (Table C3).
June - Nov 2011
(%)
Length of time overdrawn Up to 2 days
50
3 days to 1 week
33
Between one week and one month
11
More than one month
6
Amount overdrawn Less than £50
53
£50 to £100
20
£100 to £500
22
£500 or more
5
Base = 100%
370
Did not know would
be going overdrawn
(%)
Knew would be
going overdrawn
(%)
How often overdrawn Once a month or more often
35
21
Once every three months
31
15
Once or twice a year
22
22
Less than once a year
12
43
Length of time overdrawn last time Up to 2 days
40
56
days to one week
39
29
Between one week and one month
14
10
More than one month
7
5
Amount overdrawn last time Less than £50
38
61
£50 to £100
24
19
£100 to £500
34
15
£500 or more
4
6
Base = 100%
135
236
About one third (37%) of respondents said that they knew they would be going overdrawn on the last occasion. Although sample numbers are small, there are some differences in details of the overdraft between respondents who knew they were going overdrawn last time and those who did not. Those who did not know they were going overdrawn were very likely to be infrequent users of an overdraft, to be overdrawn for only a short time and by only a small amount. Some 43% had an overdraft less often than once a year compared with just 12% of those who knew they would be going overdrawn. More than half (56%) of the group were overdrawn last time for two days or less and 61% were overdrawn by less than £50, compared with 40% and 38% respectively of those who knew they would be going overdrawn (Table C4).
Monthly or
more often
(%)
Once or
more a year
(%)
Less often
than once a
year (%)
Length of time overdrawn last time Up to 2 days
36
47
65
3 days to one week
35
41
20
Between one week and one month
20
9
8
More than one month
8
3
7
Amount overdrawn last time Less than £50
42
50
65
£50 to £100
25
22
15
£100 to £500
23
26
15
£500 or more
9
2
5
If knew would be going overdrawn last time Yes
49
46
14
If had any unsecured credit/ loan Yes
87
80
71
Base = 100%
96
158
117
Further analysis was carried out to explore variation in circumstances by the frequency of use of unauthorised overdrafts. Although sample sizes are small, the results in Table C5 suggest differences between those who use an unauthorised overdraft frequently - once a month or more often - and those making only occasional use - less often than once a year. The latter group tended to be overdrawn for only a short period (65% for up to two days) and by a modest amount (65% by less than £50) compared with 36% and 42% for respondents who went overdrawn at least once a month. They were also unlikely to have known in advance that they would be overdrawn; only 14% knew in advance as compared to 49% of those who were frequently overdrawn. Finally, respondents who rarely went overdrawn were less likely than other groups to be using unsecured credit - 71% compared with 87% of those going overdrawn once a month or more often.
## Reasons For Going Overdrawn
Respondents who had used an unarranged overdraft were asked further questions about the circumstances in which this had happened. The most common reason given was that respondents had not checked their account balance at the appropriate time; this was mentioned by one quarter (26%) of respondents (Table C6). Others who were perhaps not fully aware of their account balance included those who had forgotten about a payment that was due to come out of their account (17% of the group) or had forgotten to pay money in (2%). About one fifth (20%) of respondents indicated that they knew about the situation but needed to make a payment. Others appeared to have been caught out by the time taken for payments to arrive or clear; 8% said that an expected payment hadn't arrived in time and 7% mentioned the time taken for payments to clear. A further group mentioned unforeseen circumstances such as imposition of bank charges (8%) or having to make an unexpected payment (6%).
Main reason
June - Nov 2011
(%)
Didn't check account balance
26
Knew it would happen but needed to make a payment
20
Forgot about a payment that came out of the account
17
8
Expected to receive a payment that didn't arrive in time Charge from bank pushed account into overdraft
8
Had to make an unexpected payment
6
Incoming payment took longer to clear than expected
5
2
Outgoing payment took less time to clear than expected Forgot to make a payment into account
2
Error by the bank
1
Other
5
Base = 100%
372
Respondents were also asked how they found out that they would be going or had gone overdrawn last time (Table C7). Looking first at those who had realised in advance that they would be overdrawn, around one half (45%) had checked their balance through online or telephone banking and 15% had checked at an ATM or cash machine, so about three fifths had checked their balance in some way. One quarter (23%) of respondents said that they had realised that a payment would take them into overdraft based on a previous balance. One in ten (11%) had received a text alert from their bank and 3% had received another type of communication from their bank. Respondents who did not realise in advance they would be going overdrawn generally found out in similar ways by checking their account balance online or by telephone (46%) or at an ATM (14%). One quarter (24%) had found out through a statement or other communication from their bank and 8% found out when they tried to make a payment which was refused.
Knew would be
going overdrawn
(%)
Did not know
would be going
overdrawn (%)
45
46
Checked balance through online or telephone banking
15
14
Checked balance at an ATM or cash machine
23
1
Was aware of balance and knew payment would take them into overdraft Tried to make a payment which was refused
-
8
Received a text alert
11
3
3
24
Through a statement / other communication
from bank
Other/ Don't know
3
5
Base = 100%
136
237
A substantial proportion of respondents did not think that receiving notification by text message that they were close to a zero balance would have enabled them to avoid going overdrawn; 39% thought it would not have helped and a further 7% did receive a text notification but still went overdrawn (Table C8).
| | June - Nov 2011 |
|-----------------------------------------------------|---------------------|
| (%) | |
| Yes | 53 |
| No | 39 |
| Did receive a text message but still went overdrawn | 7 |
| Did receive a text message and did not go overdrawn | 2 |
| Base = 100% | 371 |
| | |
When asked more specific questions about whether they could have stayed in credit if given different periods of warning of going overdrawn, two thirds of respondents (65%) said that they could have avoided an overdraft if given up to 12 hours to credit their account. This proportion increased to 74% if respondents were given 24 hours warning but it appeared that there was little improvement (to 76%) if given 48 hours warning (Table C9)
Infrequent users of overdrafts were more likely to say that being given warning would have enabled them to avoid an overdraft; 76% could have avoided going overdrawn with 12 hours notice and 85% with 36 hours notice (table not shown).
| Amount of time given | June - Nov 2011 |
|--------------------------|--------------------|
| (%) | |
| Up to 12 hours | 65 |
| Up to 24 hours | 74 |
| Up to 48 hours | 76 |
| Base = 100% | 369 |
## Characteristics Of Those Using Unauthorised Overdrafts
Users of unauthorised overdrafts showed broadly similar characteristics to respondents who were currently using an authorised overdraft (Table C10). Households with very low savings, either zero or less than £1,000, were over-represented in both groups - 57% of those who used an unauthorised overdraft and 53% who were using an authorised overdraft were in these categories compared with 27% of all respondents. Households with children were also over-represented - 34% of users of unauthorised and of authorised overdrafts compared with 25% overall. In contrast, households which owned their accommodation outright were under-represented (12% compared with 27% overall) as were older age groups (19% were aged 55 or over compared with 38% overall). Users of unauthorised overdrafts were much more likely than the sample as whole to be experiencing financial difficulties –12% were taking action on debt, a further 12% were in structural arrears on payments and 14% were one to three months behind with payments compared with 7%, 5% and 4% respectively of the total sample. They were also more likely to be in financial difficulties than respondents who were making use of an authorised overdraft: 62% of users of unauthorised overdrafts were experiencing none of the difficulties shown here compared with 72% of users of authorised overdrafts and 84% of the sample as a whole. Users of unauthorised overdrafts were also more likely than the sample as a whole to show signs of financial stress on the subjective measures. For example, 46% of the group said that they struggled to reach payday 'more often than not' and 37% that their commitments were a heavy burden compared with 20% and 13% respectively of the total sample. (Table C11)
Total sample
(%)
Had unauthorised
overdraft in last
year (%)
Currently has an
authorised
overdraft (%)
Annual household income Less than £13,500
16
14
14
£13,500 to £25,000
18
14
17
£25,000 to £50,000
30
34
29
£50,000 or more
17
18
15
DK/ NA
18
20
25
Household savings Zero
41
39
18
£1 < £1,000
16
14
9
£1,000 < £10,000
15
19
23
£10,000 < £20,000
4
4
7
£20,000 or more
5
4
14
Not known
19
19
29
Housing tenure Mortgage
44
50
37
Owned outright
12
10
27
Rented
35
33
26
Rent free/ other
8
6
8
Household composition Couple, with child(ren)
27
27
21
Couple, no child
33
39
44
One adult with child(ren)
7
7
4
One adult, no child
32
27
30
Age of respondent 18 to 24
11
7
8
25 to 39
39
32
27
40 to 54
31
33
26
55 or over
19
29
38
8
6
6
Unemployment One or both adults unemployed Other
92
94
94
Base = 100%
370
624
4,225
| | Had unauthorised |
|-------------------------------|---------------------|
| overdraft in last | |
| year (%) | |
| Currently has | |
| an authorised | |
| overdraft (%) | |
| Total | |
| sample | |
| (%) | |
| 12 | 9 |
| Actual financial difficulties | |
| Insolvency action (Bankrupt, | |
| IVA or DMP) | |
| Structural arrears | 12 |
| 13 | 10 |
| payments | |
| None of these | 62 |
| 37 | 29 |
| Subjective measures of stress | |
| Commitments were a heavy | |
| burden | |
| 46 | 43 |
| Constantly struggled/ falling | |
| behind with bills & | |
| commitments | |
| 46 | 41 |
| 'more often than not' | |
| 53 | 62 |
| to day living | |
| Base = 100% | 371 |
© Crown copyright 2012 You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. Visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence, write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email:
psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk.
This publication is also available on our website at www.bis.gov.uk
Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to:
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 1 Victoria Street London SW1H 0ET Tel: 020 7215 5000
If you require this publication in an alternative format, email enquiries@bis.gsi.gov.uk, or call 020 7215 5000.
| en |
3777-pdf |
## Mapping The Technical Dependencies Of Information Assets
This guidance relates to:
Stage 1: Plan for action Stage 2: Define your digital continuity requirements Stage 3: Assess and address risks to digital continuity Stage 4: Maintain digital continuity
This guidance should be read before you start to manage digital continuity. The full suite of guidance is available on The National Archives' website.
## © Crown Copyright 2017
You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-governmentlicence or email psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Where we have identified any third-party copyright information, you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available for download at nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Contents
1
Introduction
................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1
What is the purpose of this guidance?
....................................................................................................................... 4
1.2
Who is this guidance for? ............................................................................................................................................... 4
2
Why map your technical dependencies? ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.1
What does it involve? ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2
What are the benefits?
.................................................................................................................................................... 6
3
Identify the technical environment supporting your information assets
................................................................ 8
3.1
What technical dependencies should you record?
................................................................................................. 8
3.2
Where should you record this information? ..........................................................................................................
11
4
Capture and document your technical dependencies .................................................................................................
12
4.1
Key data repositories......................................................................................................................................................
12
4.2
Key information flows and work flows.....................................................................................................................
14
4.2.1
Data flow ..................................................................................................................................................................
14
4.2.2
Work flow .................................................................................................................................................................
14
4.3
Software tools ..................................................................................................................................................................
14
4.4
Roles and responsibilities
..............................................................................................................................................
15
5
Monitor and review your outputs ......................................................................................................................................
16
5.1
Understanding how the mapping helps deliver your usability requirements ..............................................
16
5.2
Measuring against business objectives
.....................................................................................................................
17
5.3
Reviewing and auditing processes .............................................................................................................................
17
5.4
Reviewing documentation and processes ...............................................................................................................
17
6
Next steps ..................................................................................................................................................................................
18
Appendix
...............................................................................................................................................................................................
19
## 1 Introduction Digital Continuity Is The Ability To Use Your Information In The Way You Need, For As Long As You Need.
If you do not actively work to ensure digital continuity, your information can easily become unusable. Digital continuity can be put at risk by changes in your organisation, management processes or technology. You need to manage your information carefully over time and through change to maintain the usability you need.
Managing digital continuity protects the information you need to do business. This enables you to operate accountably, legally, effectively and efficiently. It helps you to protect your reputation, make informed decisions, avoid and reduce costs, and deliver better public services. If you lose information because you haven't managed your digital continuity properly, the consequences can be as serious as those of any other information loss.
## 1.1 What Is The Purpose Of This Guidance?
This guidance forms part of a suite of guidance that The National Archives has delivered as part of a digital continuity service for government, in consultation with central government departments.
This document follows on from the companion guidance Identifying Information Assets and Understanding Business Requirements which helped your organisation to identify its information assets and business needs. The guidance you are reading now will enable you to complete the second stage of managing digital continuity: mapping these information assets to their technical dependencies.
Reading this will help you to understand:
why you need to identify and map the relationships between the information assets your business requires and your technical environment
how to understand and document the technical dependencies of information assets
who to work with
## 1.2 Who Is This Guidance For?
This is a hands-on guide aimed at the Head of IT or similar role. It will help you understand and document the technical dependencies of the information required by the business. As the Head of Information Technology (IT), you are ultimately responsible for this process but other members of your team, as well as information managers and change managers, are also likely to be involved in carrying it out (see section 4.4 for more on the roles and responsibilities).
## 2 Why Map Your Technical Dependencies?
Digital information is complex. You need to fully understand its associated business needs and how these needs are met. If you do not know how your technology supports your information you are at risk of losing the ability to find, open, work with, understand and trust your information, which could have considerable impact on your ability to carry out your business.
The usability of digital information depends on the technology that is used to create, manage and provide access to it - and it is sensitive to any changes in that technology. System upgrades, changes in file formats, data migration, the introduction of new software and the disposal of old technology can all affect the ability of the business to use its digital information in the way it requires. If you do not understand the impact of these changes on your ability to use information assets, you risk losing digital continuity.
Mapping the technical dependencies of your information enables you to relate your technical environment and your information assets directly to your business needs. This will help you to understand and manage the risks to the continuity of your digital information, manage the impact of change, protect your information appropriately and exploit it fully.
## 2.1 What Does It Involve?
Managing digital continuity starts with understanding the value of information (recognising information as an 'asset') and understanding how it is used to deliver business needs (defining 'usability requirements'). If your information and technology support the way the business needs to use information, you have digital continuity (see Figure 1 below). If they don't, you're at risk of losing digital continuity.
Although your current needs may be met, both your technical environment and your business requirements are subject to change. You can apply an understanding of the technical dependencies of your information assets to manage such change effectively.
There are three key steps in understanding and mapping the technical dependencies of information assets:
i.
Identify your technical environment
ii.
Capture and document technical dependencies
iii.
Monitor and review your outputs
Working through these steps in sequence offers the additional benefit of enabling you to build a cycle of continuous improvement.
## 2.2 What Are The Benefits?
Understanding which elements of your technical environment support essential information, and which do not, can allow you to streamline your technical environment to remove redundant technology. This can increase IT efficiency and make operational processes more efficient and cost-effective.
It will allow you to:
make informed decisions about where to prioritise investment to ensure the continued usability of your information
reveal information or technology you no longer need and highlight where you can make savings by reducing data volumes and streamlining your technologies
understand whether your technology allows you to use information in the way you need and identify opportunities to improve the service, e.g. where existing technology can improve information management or deliver additional functionality
identify technical risks relating to managing information assets. The next stage in managing
digital continuity is to undertake a full risk and impact assessment to identify specific risks to your digital continuity
understand the potential impact of change on the continuity of your digital assets
## 3 Identify The Technical Environment Supporting Your Information Assets
If you have already followed our guidance on *Identifying Information Assets* you will have identified your information assets and your detailed requirements for using them. You may have documented this in the form of an *Information Asset Register* (IAR).
The IAR provides an ideal starting point for mapping the technical dependencies of your information assets. You now need to document how your technology will support the usability requirements which the business has defined for each information asset.
If you do not have a list of assets, or their usability requirements have not been specified, you should now liaise with your information managers and individual Information Asset Owners (IAOs) and encourage them to produce a comprehensive information asset register. Your information managers can use our Information Asset Template as a guide with suggested fields to complete. Your other data repositories may also contain information about your information assets which you can use to create an IAR (see Section 4.1 for more information on how you can use these existing repositories).
## 3.1 What Technical Dependencies Should You Record?
You will need to identify all of the technical systems, platforms and processes which the information requires in order to be fully usable. The easiest way to do this is to start from the list of usability requirements and identify what technical support is needed for each requirement.
In previous guidance on creating an Information Asset Register, we suggested considering usability requirements under five broad categories:
i.
How will you find the information?
ii.
Who can access the information and how?
iii.
What do you need to be able to do with the information?
iv.
What do you need to be able to understand about your information?
v.
To what extent do you need to trust that your information is what it claims to be?
If your organisation has defined its information requirements in this way, your technology mappings will be similar. Your technical mapping - the information you record, and how you record it - should be tailored to the business needs of your organisation and the processes you use within your department. Below are the five key usability requirements and some suggested questions you should ask when documenting the associated technical dependencies.
## Defining Usability Requirement Mapping Technical Dependencies How Do You Need To Find The Information?
What technical tools and services enable users to
find the information in the way they need?
Consider both granularity and depth of the search
required for each type of information asset. Users Include both the technology your users work with may need to find the asset itself, files within the directly, and the underlying technology that is used asset, or specific pieces of data within the files to store, index and retrieve the information.
Characteristics of the information assets themselves Consider whether users have different permissions may also affect find-ability for searching content
–What is it? Is your data in formats that can be indexed? Is the required descriptive metadata available?
–Where is it? Can storage media and storage locations be crawled or indexed by your search technology? Do you require selective indexing? –What applications does the user require to search each information asset? –What indexing services are required? How often are indexes refreshed? –Can the search service manage the required volumes
and
respond
within
the
required
timeframes?
Who needs to access or open the information? How
What technical tools and services are required to
and when do they need to access it?
meet access requirements?
Consider access restrictions and sensitivity. Consider
–How is your technical environment protected from
granularity of access controls - do you need to
unauthorised access or disclosure?
control access to the asset as a whole? To specific
–How are access controls implemented, maintained,
files or folders? Or to particular (meta)data
reported on?
elements within the asset?
–How are protective markings recorded? How is
sensitive or personal data identified and protected?
Consider requirements for sharing internally and
–How are passwords or encryption keys managed?
more widely
–How is information transferred or shared?
–What storage media are used? How quickly can
Consider availability levels and the speed of access
off-line information be retrieved?
required.
–What hardware or software allows information to
be opened or viewed?
Consider file formats, encoding or encryption and
–Is supporting documentation available?
data structures
–Can access controls be applied at the required levels?
Are
they
inherited
or
transferred
appropriately when information is created or shared?
How do you need to be able to work with your What technical tools and services enable users to information?
work with the information?
Define the functionality that each group of users
–What file formats or data structures is the
requires from your information assets: how they are
information held in? Can these be worked with
used and what you need them to do?
(viewed,
edited,
combined,
saved)?
What
interoperability is needed? –What supporting documentation is needed for information held in databases? –Are there specific hardware requirements? e.g. image manipulation may require desktop machines with large amounts of memory –What software is required to use the information in the required ways?
What do you need to understand about the What technical tools and services maintain the information?
'context' required to understand the information?
You need to understand both the content and
–How is metadata associated with the content?
context of your information asset. Context may not
–How is context captured within filing structures?
be recorded as part of the asset itself but is vital to
–How are links and relationships managed?
making the asset usable
–Can
contextual
information
be
moved
or
transferred with the content?
Context is often stored digitally as metadata, but it may also be in linked information, captured within filing structures, or in specific knowledge held by individuals To what extent do you need to trust your What technical tools and services support you in information?
protecting your information adequately and deliver
the required level of trust?
The level of trust required of an information asset
varies. Most do not require additional validation -
–How do you maintain audit trails which record
they speak for themselves. However, for some uses, when information was accessed or changed and by you may need to demonstrate the confidentiality or whom?
integrity of information assets, or to certify their
–How do you assure that your security measures are
history and provenance
adequate? How do you report on access rights?
–How do you capture who created the information
Note: You also only need to map information that
and when? How are versions controlled?
provides your defined level of usability - you will
–How do you manage data quality, accuracy and
not have to do this if you have very low level 'trust'
frequency of updates?
requirements
This initial stage of technical mapping involves recording the technologies that directly contribute to the delivery of each usability requirement. When defining requirements, you should also consider:
how information moves around your organisation
how work flows within your organisation
Note: each piece of technology will in turn have its own support requirements and technical dependencies and may also rely on particular documentation, business processes or skills and expertise. It is vital to manage change across the full range of dependencies. Many of these will be captured in separate documentation maintained by your IT department or service provider as part of their configuration management activities. Once you have all these documents in place you will have a full map of your information and the technology it depends upon.
## 3.2 Where Should You Record This Information?
If your organisation has an existing IAR (or similar spreadsheet or database) we recommend that you record your technical dependencies within this.
Alternatively, you could incorporate this information into an existing Configuration Management Database (CMDB), if your technology organisation has one. With this approach, you should treat each information asset as a Configuration Item (CI), then add attributes to each information CI detailing the technical dependencies.
The principle is to be flexible and practical. The choice of whether to use a CMDB, the IAR or another existing database or spreadsheet will depend on the complexity of your requirements and on the systems that are available to you. The important thing is to make it fit for purpose, and make it work for you. See Section 4.1 for more on how to use existing data repositories to support this work.
## 4 Capture And Document Your Technical Dependencies
In documenting the technical environment which supports your information assets, you should first examine existing sources of data as these can provide you with valuable information. As discussed above, they may also provide a logical place to record dependencies (for instance, in an IAR or CMDB).
To understand the technical dependencies of your information, you will also need to know how this relates to the flow of information around the organisation and the related work processes. You should also consider:
the range of tools that can help you understand your technical environment
who can help you find information and what their responsibilities are
## 4.1 Key Data Repositories
The table below lists key repositories which may contain some of the information you require.
| Repository | May provide information about |
|-----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
| Information Asset Register (IAR) | If you have an IAR it will provide valuable |
| information about information assets and the | |
| technology that supports them. Check with your IT | |
| support and IAOs that this information | is |
| comprehensive and up to date | |
| | |
| –A description of the information asset | |
| –The Information Asset Owner | |
| –Technical or systems owners | |
| –The date the asset was created or updated | |
| –The business value of the information asset | |
| –The | protective |
| information asset | |
| - Retention schedule and disposal schedules | |
| - Risks | |
| –Locations and systems: storage, hardware, software | |
| applications, vendor and platform | |
| Configuration Management Database (CMDB) | A CMDB can be invaluable for discovering the full |
| support system required by an asset and mapping | |
how changes to any component may impact upon the information asset
–Components of the IT Infrastructure –The IT services supported by that infrastructure –Information about entire services or systems; hardware; software; supporting staff –Documentation
Software registers
–Supported software, versions, product roadmaps, migration schedules
–Warranties, support contracts, business ownership, licensing and renewal dates (where appropriate) –Unit cost
For example, this information can be found within the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement and the Select Agreement
| Hardware registers | This can help you decide the importance of |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
| hardware or software to the business, enabling you | |
| to manage disposal more effectively. It can also help | |
| identify technology approaching end-of-life, or | |
| obsolescence | |
| | |
| –Age | |
| –Warranties | |
| –Capacity | |
| –Spare or replacement stock | |
| –Spare or replacement parts | |
| –Other dependencies (e.g. disks, power supply) | |
| IT helpdesk data | Primarily for incident management, but can cover |
| problem management, release management and | |
| service management - which may relate to | |
| information assets (e.g. risks, business impact, | |
| locations, dependencies, stakeholders) | |
| Facilities and estates management database | The wider technical and physical infrastructure |
| supporting and securing information assets. | |
## 4.2 Key Information Flows And Work Flows
Information assets do not remain static, they continuously move around both within organisations and between different ones, so it is important you understand the flow of information and related work processes. This will help you to understand your technical dependencies, as well as informing the development of your organisation's information strategy.
## 4.2.1 Data Flow
As with any other form of inventory, new information is added, moves in and out of central data warehouses, and is eventually decommissioned. Mapping the migration and flow of information around an organisation enables you to identify the network environment and all hardware and software storing or accessing the information, including staging areas where information can be intercepted or restored.
IT management professionals (e.g. network managers, systems managers and database administrators) and IT change managers can track the flow of information assets and identify technical staging areas. Your technical mapping exercise should identify access rights, the location of information assets and catalogue the network environment supporting the information asset.
## 4.2.2 Work Flow
A work flow is a virtual representation of the work an individual or organisational unit actually carries out. It differs from the data flow in that it is designed to identify roles, responsibilities, functions, teams, projects and organisational structures.
Examining work flow can provide you with the opportunity to measure, analyse, identify, standardise, correct, enhance, match and consolidate information assets. It will also enable you to identify weaknesses such as organisational silos and single points of failure.
## 4.3 Software Tools
You will almost certainly have software tools that can help you, even if you don't realise it. Software discovery tools are quite common within organisations and can help locate the software that supports information assets and identify dependencies. This usually falls within the remit of system administrators or system integrators. You should talk to whoever implements your software patching and updates.
Another tool which can help you is DROID, a free file characterisation tool which The National Archives has developed. Through identifying file formats and versions, DROID can help you establish the software dependencies of your information.
A range of related services and solutions are available for procurement via the Digital Continuity Framework.
## 4.4 Roles And Responsibilities
You now need to identify and talk to the right people within your organisation - this will include representatives of information management, IT as well as any external providers or contractors. These individuals will be able to clarify key information and work processes, important management activities and core components of the technical infrastructure, including data repositories. See the Appendix for a full list of roles and responsibilities.
## What Do You Need To Do?
As Head of IT, it is your responsibility to maintain an understanding of the way your organisation needs
to use its information assets, so that you can ensure that you deliver an adequate level of technical
support. You will need to work closely with your information management team to achieve this.
Your understanding of the technical dependencies of information assets will be vital in ensuring that the
impact of technical change is understood and managed. It will also enable you to reduce unnecessary
support and excess capacity - supporting you in delivering a cost-efficient service.
Communication is vital between everyone involved in looking after information assets and their technical environments. Sharing your findings with other teams will prevent multiple people undertaking the same investigations and improve understanding of how everything fits together.
If your IT service is delivered by external providers, you will still need to ensure that dependencies are captured, documented, reviewed, managed and reported. It is vital to develop good working relationships, establish communication and build a shared understanding of objectives.
## 5 Monitor And Review Your Outputs 5.1 Understanding How The Mapping Helps Deliver Your Usability Requirements
The real value of the technical mapping is that it allows you to understand how your technical environment supports your key business information. In addition, it provides a number of important management controls over your environment:
| Mapping provides: | How it helps deliver your requirements: |
|-------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Risk controls | Enables you to identify risks to the technology |
| supporting your information asset and prepares you | |
| to take mitigating action that is proportionate to | |
| the business value of that information | |
| | |
| For example, gaps such as: absence of software | |
| maintenance arrangements, lack of off-site backups, | |
| undefined technical ownership, single points of | |
| failure will all become apparent as a result of this | |
| work. The risks can then be assessed, prioritised and | |
| managed | |
| Change controls | Enables |
| documentation, | people, |
| software and hardware that impact upon the | |
| information asset. This understanding enables | |
| effective impact assessment and contingency | |
| planning as part of your change process. It enables | |
| you to schedule changes and plan upgrades in line | |
| with business priorities | |
| Security controls | Enables you to clearly identify security measures in |
| place and to ensure you have a layered solution in | |
| keeping with current legislation or international | |
| standards | |
| Usability controls | Allows you to understand how your technical |
| environment provides the usability you need (see | |
| Section 3.1 above). Allows you to identify excess | |
| capacity, unnecessary support, or duplication of | |
| functionality | |
## 5.2 Measuring Against Business Objectives
Developing an understanding of your information assets and their technical dependencies will enable you to effectively support your information assets over time and through change to maintain their usability -
therefore helping you to meet your business objectives.
You should consider how to measure your success in supporting business objectives and set processes in place for reviewing this.
Measurements such as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) tie in business need with operational change. You can measure the success of your new understanding and against digital continuity-focussed business objectives, such as KPIs based on the availability of information. For instance, this could be the percentage of successful downloads of an information asset within an agreed time frame, or the percentage of relevant search results found by users when looking for specific information.
Be clear about your targets and make sure they are achievable. You will need to work with your information assurance and business managers in order to agree meaningful targets.
## 5.3 Reviewing And Auditing Processes
It is important that you continually review your technical environment and information assets, tracking changes that may have wide-reaching impacts. A defined change process should be followed for every change, with impact assessments performed against the IAR. It is also vital to carry out regular audits and compliance checks to ensure that policies and contractual agreements are being followed efficiently and effectively.
You should track your KPI targets to make sure that technical components support the assets appropriately, and take action to improve service levels at all opportunities.
## 5.4 Reviewing Documentation And Processes
Related documentation will need to be reviewed on an ongoing basis. This includes:
Change control documentation - to check that information assets are included in all risk and impact assessments conducted as part of your change management process
Management documentation, e.g. service level agreements, business plans
Server documentation and configuration documentation
Contracts and service levels with external service providers
## 6 Next Steps
Mapping your information assets and their business requirements to your technical environment will help you to manage digital continuity effectively. The next steps are to embed your understanding in operational management, and also to use this mapping to identify risks, exploit opportunities and manage change.
## Undertake A Risk Assessment
With an understanding of your information assets, their business requirements and technical dependencies and how these three elements are aligned, you will be able to identify gaps in the alignment and assess risk to digital continuity. The recommended next stage in the process of managing digital continuity is to conduct a risk assessment, as outlined in our guidance Stage 3: Assess and manage risks to digital continuity.
Read our *Risk Assessment Handbook* for practical information and support to help you assess and manage risks to digital continuity.
## Exploit Opportunities
Knowing how your current technology supports the information your business values (and needs to support in the future), can enable you to identify redundant or out-of-date technology/technology assets and identify savings and efficiencies for your organisation.
## Assess The Impact Of Change
Now that you have a comprehensive understanding of your current information assets, their requirements and technical dependencies, you are well-positioned to assess how change can affect the continuity of your digital information.
You will be able to identify the impact of technology change on the usability of your information assets - ensuring that you manage these changes effectively and reducing the risk of losing access to business critical information. You should improve your change management processes, embedding management of digital continuity into operational practice. See our Machinery of Government (MoG) change guidance suite for more information on how to achieve this.
## Appendix
| Role | Responsibility |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
| Head of IT | The Head of IT is ultimately responsible for the |
| implementation | of |
| | |
| technical | dependencies |
| manage the information required by the business. | |
| However, other members of your team, as well as | |
| information managers and change managers, are also | |
| likely to be involved in carrying it out | |
| Head of Knowledge and Information Management | The Head of KIM will be able to provide you with |
| (KIM) | information about the organisation's information |
| assets and their business value. The head of KIM will | |
| detail | all |
| associated with information assets, especially those | |
| of the information assurance managers and IAOs | |
| Information Asset Owners (IAOs) | IAOs are responsible for information assets identified |
| in the IAR. Information management representatives | |
| such as IAOs should be included in relevant | |
| technology meetings, including on change advisory | |
| boards | |
| IT Change Manager | Change managers link the work of the IA managers |
| and IAOs with changes to the IT infrastructure | |
| | |
| –Manage risk and safeguard availability | |
| –May own configuration management processes and | |
| the CMDB if they exist | |
| –Work as information asset champions with ICT and | |
| can track and manage all technical risks and impacts | |
| upon the IAR | |
| –Will work with external service delivery partners to | |
| ensure all changes follow an agreed process in order | |
| to meet agreed availability and KPI targets | |
| Configuration Manager | Manages the Configuration Management System |
| (CMS) and the Configuration Management process. | |
| Many government departments do not have a CMS, | |
| or they might not realise it, as the CMS could be part | |
| of an outsourced service delivery. If there is a | |
Configuration Manager this person will be working closely with the Change Manager
Service Level Managers
Work alongside Heads of KIM to attach an
appropriate service level to information assets and continuously monitor and report to maintain availability and security targets. This is best achieved by establishing a service level for the IAR. Service Level Managers will manage external service delivery partners along with the Change Manager, and ensure all relevant availability and KPI targets are being met
Operational IT professionals
Regardless of whether an organisation has contracted
out its IT services there will be technical support roles managing key technical components. These include:
–System managers –Database and application managers –Database administrators –Network managers –Network administrators
External providers/contractors
Maintaining and managing the IAR should be included
in the procurement requirements for external providers and included in any subsequent contracts. Changes impacting upon the IAR should follow defined operational change management procedures.
Technical points of contact are should be identified in all contracts | en |
4382-pdf |
Graham Russell Chief Executive
£90,000-£94,999
Grade D: Analyst £30,700-£36,900
Grade C: Officer £26,400-£30,300 | en |
2152-pdf |
RESULTS
PEOPLE
Whole Department Family - Workforce Size
£million
Budget
Common Areas of Spend
Q3 2011-12
Q2 2011-12
Input Indicators
Current
Previous
Current
Previous
Q3 2011-12
Q3 2010-11
Total office estate (m2)
255,959
255,959
1: Cost per single Payment Scheme (SPS) claim (£, current = 2011-12 (preliminary), previous = 2010-11)
760
818
Department and Agencies
8,305
8,433
Total Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL)
588
632
Total cost of office estate (£million)
76
76
2: Unit cost of delivery of Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) schemes (£, current = 2010-11)
3,694
.
Non-departmental public bodies
14,709
14,619
Estate Costs
of which Resource DEL (excl. Depreciation)
488
512
Cost per FTE (£)
4,156
4,156
3: Total government funding to the Environment Agency for management of environmental quality of surface water bodies (£million, current = 2011-12 preliminary)
78.7
.
Department Family
23,014
23,052
69
79
Cost per m2 (£)
298
298
4: Cost of local authority waste management per household (£, current = 2010-11, previous = 2009-10)
149
144
39,261
39,597
Landscape and Outdoor Recreation Ongoing Activity
57
77
Total Procurement Spend (£million)
319.91
275.37
5: Total cost to government of bovine TB control in animals in England (£million, current = 2011-12 preliminary)
86.75
.
Department and Agencies
223
193
Floods - Managing Flood & Erosion Risk Sustainability
Up to top 5 contributory elements
Procurement
Environment Agency Sponsorship - EP, Water,
59
77
Price of standard box of A4 white copier paper (£/2500 sheets)
11.29
11.29
6:Total government capital investment in flood and coastal erosion risk management (£million, current = 2010-11, previous = 2009-10)
396.3
387
Non-departmental public bodies
714
548
Rural Payments Agency
41
58
Average price of energy (£/KWH)
0.0592
0.0494
Impact Indicators
Current
Previous
Department Family
937
741
37
68
Total 3rd Party ICT Cost (£million)
73.2
60.2
1 Farmland birds index (smoothed index, base year = 1970, current = 2009, previous = 2004)
46.6
51.7
Current
Previous
Rural Development Programme England
IT
Purchase of goods and services within Resource DEL
282
213
Cost of desktop provision per FTE (£)
110.19
110.19
2 Agricultural soils nitrogen balance (kg N / year, current = 2010, previous = 2009)
92.8
85.7
Administrative Assistants and Administrative Officers
32.7
33.3
Payroll within Resource DEL
243
304
Human Resources (£million)
0.85
1.20
3 Productivity of the UK agricultural industry (volume index, base year = 2005, current = 2010, previous = base year = 2005)
99.9
100
Executive Officers
23.6
23.8
Grants within Resource DEL
118
92
Finance (£million)
3.10
3.20
4 Proportion of eligible land protected by the Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) scheme (England) (% of Utilisable Agricultural Area, current = Q2 2011-12, previous = Q1 2011-12)
9.9
9.67
Higher and Senior Executive Officers
28.7
28.3
of which Capital DEL
Corporate Service Cost
100
120
Procurement (£million)
0.80
1.20
5 Net change in status indicators of surface water quality (England) (% net improvement in status indicators, current = 2010, previous 2009)
0.5
1.8
Grade 7/6
13.4
12.9
79
90
Legal (£million)
1.90
1.90
6 Household recycling rates (%, current = Q1 2011-12, previous = Q1 2010-11)
45.2
43.3
Senior Civil Servants
1.6
1.6
2011)
Floods - Managing Flood & Erosion Risk Sustainability
1
4
Communications (£million)
0.80
1.00
7 Cattle herds that are officially TB free (OTF) (%, current = 2010, previous = 2009)
89.2
89.2
Part Time
18.6
18.8
Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency
Up to top 5 contributory elements
Green Economy and Strategy Programme
0
4
Total Identified Fraud (£million)
QDS4 2012-13
QDS4 2012-13
8 Number of households where the risk of damage from flooding and coastal erosion has been markedly reduced (cumulative number of households, current = Q2 2011-12, previous = Q1 2011-12)
27,661
24,860
Recruitment Exceptions (current = Q3 2011-12, previous = Q2 2011-12)
221
152
Environment Agency Sponsorship - EP, Water,
7
12
Total known Errors (£million)
QDS4 2012-13
QDS4 2012-13
Other Data Sets
Current
Previous
Annual Turnover Rate (%, current = at 31 Dec 2011, previous = at 30 Sep 2011
12.7
13.3
Fraud, Error, Debt
Landscape Recreation and Waterways Sponsorship
0
3
Total Debt (£million)
QDS4 2012-13
QDS4 2012-13
1 Net cost to business of Defra's regulations (where monetised) (£m per annum, based on stock in stated year, current = 2011 (preliminary), previous = not available)
3,578
.
Black and Minority Ethnic
6.7
6.8
Total Annually Managed Expenditure (AME)
-105
8
Debtor Days
QDS4 2012-13
QDS4 2012-13
2 Benefit to Cost ratio of Defra's regulations (where available) (ratio based on stock in stated years, current = 2011 (preliminary), previous = not available)
2.4 : 1
53.3 13.2
Financial Indicators
Net Book Value (% variance of Actual v Forecast)
£m whole life cost of ALL major projects
| 0.10 | 0.07 | QDS2 2012-13 | 52 | 54 |
|--------|--------|----------------|------|------|
Notes: (1) For more information on time periods, please refer to measurement annex; (2) Numbers may not sum to totals due to rounding; (3) For cells that are marked as 'not applicable' please refer to measurement annex for specific reasons; (4) For cells that are marked with a QDS number and a year (e.g. QDS4 2011-12) refers to the future QDS publication that the department will be able to provide the missing data. Please refer to measurement annex for specific reasons for this missing data; (5) Cells coloured 'white' indicate missing data cells; (6) Cells coloured "light grey" indicate where data does not conform to the technical definition requested, please refer to the measurement annex for specific reasons; (7) Further information on input and impact indicators visit: [insert weblink];
Payroll Staff
[Total full-time equivalent
by]
(current = at 31 Dec 2011,
previous = at 30 Sept 2011)
Average Staff Costs
(£, current = at 31 Dec 2011, previous = at 30 Sept 2011)
Contingent Labour
[Total full-time equivalent
by]
(current = at 31 Dec 2011,
previous = at 30 Sept 2011)
Department and Agencies Only
Workforce Shape
[Total full-time equivalent
by]
(%, current = at 31 Dec
2011, previous = at 30 Sept
Workforce Dynamics
Workforce Diversity
[Total]
(%, current = at 31 Dec
| Leadership and Managing Change | 33 | 37 |
|----------------------------------|------|------|
| My Work | 74 | 75 | | My Line Manager | 64 | 65 |
|-------------------------------------|------|------|
| Organisational Objectives & Purpose | 74 | 75 |
Contact details: Public enquires: Members of the public should contact Customer Contact Unit on 0845 933 5577 (0845 300 1998 for people with impaired hearing). Alternatively, email defra.helpline@defra.gsi.gov.uk Press enquiries: Members of the media should contact the News Desk on 0207 238 5456. | en |
4693-pdf |
## Procurement Policy Note - Prompt Payment Policy And Reporting Of Performance Action Note 05/15 27 March 2015 Issue 1. This Ppn Restates The Policy On Prompt Payment For Central Government (Ppn 08/10) And
sets out new reporting requirements on prompt payment announced in the Budget 2015.
2. Government is committed to creating a supportive environment in which ambitious
businesses can flourish. Late payment is a key issue for business, especially smaller businesses as it can adversely affect their cash flow and jeopardises their ability to trade. The Government recognises that the public sector should set a strong example by paying promptly.
## Dissemination And Scope
3. The contents of this Action Note apply to all Central Government Departments including
their Executive Agencies and Non Departmental Public Bodies (in-scope organisations). Please circulate this document within your organisation, drawing it to the attention of those with a payment role.
## Timing 4. The Provisions Of This Action Note Will Take Effect From 1 April 2015. Action
5. The Government announced the following reporting requirements in the
Budget 2015:
From April 2015, all in-scope organisations will publish the percentage of their invoices
paid within i) 5 days and ii) 30-days, on a quarterly basis.
From April 2016, all in-scope organisations will publish all interest liable, under the late
payment legislation, on a quarterly basis.
6.
As with existing reporting requirements, in-scope organisations should report their
performance on their own pages on GOV.UK using this template.
Percentage of invoices paid within 5 days.
Percentage of invoices paid within 30 days.
Financial year
2015/2016
Total amount of liability to pay [From April 2016]
1st quarter
80%
20%
Background 7. Central government policy on prompt payment remains unchanged: In Scope
Organisations pay 80% of all undisputed invoices within five days, with the remaining undisputed invoices being paid within 30 days or interest becomes liable as set out in the
late payment1 legislation.
8. The Public Contract Regulations 2015 require all public sector organisations to pay
undisputed invoices in 30 days and ensure this payment term is passed down the supply chain. Further guidance is available here. 9. The Mystery Shopper service will assist in ensuring the contracting authorities comply with
these new measures and will "name and shame" poor payers through the fortnightly
publication of Mystery Shopper cases on GOV.UK. The service will also proactively ensure that 30-day payment terms are being passed down the supply chain by carrying out spot checks on contracting authorities. Contact
10. Enquiries about this PPN should be addressed to the Service Desk 0345 410 2222 or
info@ccs.gsi.gov.uk.
| en |
0837-pdf | info@darwentarchitecture.co.uk Date: 16th June 2020 Peak District National Park Authority Aldern House, Baslow Rd, Bakewell DE45 1AE Application Site:
Bradwell Scout Hut / Former Chapel, Charlotte Lane, Bradwell Client:
Mr Scott Meakin Subject:
Specification Information for Listed Building Consent Application Revision E (3rd September 2020)
## Mortar For Proposed Re-Pointing Existing Stonework: Mortar Mix And Colour To Match Existing
Product: NHL 3.5 Hydraulic Lime Mortar Colour: 'Ravenfell' A medium coarse lime mortar, straw blond with a lightly peppered finish. Finish: Brushed out to suit original stonework joints Mortar mix: 1 part lime; 1 part limestone dust; 2 part yellow sand ("Scooby Grey" sand)
www.lime-mortars.co.uk Gutters Existing timber gutters and support brackets to be retained. Gutters to be bitmuen lined and re-painted. Products for Painting: Knotting solution (a.k.a knotting pale) 2 no. coats of Dulux Weathershield Exterior Preservative Primer 2 no. coats of Dulux Weathershield Quick Dry Undercoat 2 no. coats of Dulux Weathershiled Exterior High Gloss to finish Colour: Black New Downpipes Material: Black cast iron to replace existing white Shape: Round Size: 68mm diameter
© darwent architecture Ltd The Island, Castleton, Hope Valley Derbyshire, S33 8WN
(01433) 695560
Slate Vents New internal SVPs and extracts to terminate through new slate vents in roof as per drawing PL011. Product: 'Manthorpe Thin Leading Edge Tile Vent (GTV-TE) Size: 330x418mm, 19mm edge thickness (Suitable for 110mm circular outlet) Material: PVC top, polypropylene base Colour: Slate Grey Supplier: Ashbrook Roofing Photograph of tile vent installed in Hardrow roof. Please note that the Hardrow tiles at the application site are darker grey shade and would match better with the grey colour of the tile vent. Wall Extracts 1. New gas balanced boiler flue to extract through external wall on north elevation as per drawing PL006. 2. New WC extract to terminate through external wall on north elevation as per drawing PL006. 3. New kitchen extract to terminate through external wall on north elevation as per drawing PL006. 4. New gas balanced stove flue to extract through external wall on south elevation as per drawing PL006. Exterior Extract Cover (Kitchen) Size: Minimum 150x150mm Material: Cast iron Colour: Black Exterior Extract Cover (WC / Stove air vents) Size: 215 x 65mm Material: Cast iron Colour: Black Interior Wall Extract Covers Product: Frankische Starline Design Grille range Size: 160x160mm Material: TBC Colour: White 9016 Ventilated Ridge Tiles Product: Marley Plain Angle (No Collar) Concrete Ridge Tile Supplier: Ashbrook Roofing Type: 110 degree (shallow pitch) Size: 450mm length Fixing: Manthorpe Ridge Fixing Screw - screw and clamp are corrosion resistant, 304 grade stainless steel. Concrete Padstones Specified by SE to support new steel beams (refer to drawings for sizes). N.B. These would sit within the wall and would be plastered over. They will not therefore be visible.
## Proposed Woodwork Treatment
It is proposed to soda-blast 2 out of 3 of the existing trusses to remove the existing dark stain and return them to their original colour. Soda-blasting is a non-harmful process that cleans and strips wooden timbers. The process uses sodium bicarbonate which completely fragments on impact without any surface damage, as baking soda is an extremely powdery material. Carpenters marks, initial, names etc will not be removed by this method. The above text is paraphrased from the website of a company that specialises in non-abrasive soda-blasting of timbers. Please see the following links for details:
•
https://www.beamcleanrestore.com/beam-cleaning/]
•
http://sw-sodablast.co.uk/listed-buildings/
## Proposed Paint For Pods
The proposed heritage colour for the pods is Farrow and Ball's Plummet. The below images show the paint in the context of actual rooms and its interaction with light. This colour will create a distinct contrast between the historic fabric from the new proposed structures.
## Proposed Ironmongery For Front Door
Below Left: From the Anvil - Black Regency Mortice / Rim Knob Set (code 92068) Below Right: From the Anvil - Black 6" Straight Monkeytail Bolt (for inward opening doors) (code 73133)
## Proposed Ironmongery For External Windows
1. From the Anvil - Slim Monkeytail Espag Window Handle - matt black (code 33243) For casement window. 2. From the Anvil - Monkeytail Stay in matt black (code 33283). For casement window. 3. From the Anvil - Fanlight Catch & Two Keeps - Black (code 83844) . For inward opening top windows. 4. From the Anvil - Black on SS 3" Ball Bearing Butt Hinge (pair) (Code 90022) 5. From the Anvil - 6" Roller Arm Stay - Black (code 83849) For inward opening top windows.
## Proposed Gas Balanced Flues (External Appearance)
The below images show the proposed external appearance of the gas balanced flues and flue guards in matt black finish. Products shown:
•
Matt black Gas Fire Horizontal Terminal
•
PC28X165 Flue Guard 280x150mm
## Proposed Bathroom Glazing
It is proposed that the bathroom windows will be obscureglazed with plain sand-blasted glass to an opacity level equivalent to Pilkington Privacy Level 5. | en |
2933-pdf | Explaining devolution for Greater Manchester
## Explaining Devolution For Greater Manchester Cue Cards For A Speech - One Minute Per Card
The central thrust of the speech, whoever the audience, emphasises before and after. It shows why this is a meaningful change, not a pipe-dream, an abstract process change, or a piece of window dressing. To bring the content of each card to life, you can provide a tangible before and after example. Which example you choose may depend on your area. So, if you print this out double-sided, it's designed so that so there's a blank space on the back of each card for you to write these examples in.
If you've got access to a projector then the slide deck that comes with this pack should help visualise some of the cue cards.
## Introduction 1
• BRINGS control closer to
residents - more influence for councillors, more say for
citizens
• UNITES the ten parts of
Greater Manchester and makes us more independent
• INFLUENCE over our own
destiny across key policy areas
• PART of Greater Manchester's
journey to being one of the best places in the world
## How It Works 3 4
• TEN areas represented,
uniting with a common purpose - as the Greater Manchester Combined Authority
• NEW MAYOR - but much
more than that
• GROUND-BREAKING
partnership between GMCA, the Mayor, the NHS, transport, police and fire service
## Closer To Power 2
• LESS reliant on
Westminster - a level of government removed
• MORE freedom and
flexibility - to come up with our own solutions
• MORE say for local people
## Real Autonomy
• MORE cohesive, coherent
place, thanks to uniting of the areas behind shared goals all can control
• NOT just a ceremonial
change, but a whole layer of bureaucracy removed
• NEW powers and a wider
remit
Before & after examples
Cut along the dashed line
Before & after examples
4
Before & after examples
Before & after examples
## More Control 5
• KEY POWERS include health
and care, public services, transport, planning and
housing, sustainability, fire, police and crime, skills and employment, investment and business development
• MORE control of money and
access to new funds to help growth and reform
• THIS means growth, choice,
better planning across public services
## Joining Up Support Systems 7 8
• TRANSFORMING our public
services through integration at a local level
• LOOKING AT NEW WAYS to
support people with ill health/ difficult or complex lives
- Identifying problems early - Helping tackle those
problems
- Learning from their
experiences to support others
## Starting Well, Living Well, Aging Well 6
• FOUR key areas in health
and care:
- Preventing ill health
byhelping people at every stage in life
- Local community NHS,
care and support services working better together
- Hospitals working better
together
- Sharing our assets -
buildings, roles, ideas and ways of working
## Making Travel Easier
• DEVELOPING a high quality,
fully integrated transport
system for Greater Manchester
• SUPPORTING our growth plans • BUILDING ON THE SUCCESS
of the Metrolink
- Transforming the bus network - Being bike and pedestrian
friendly
- Ensuring roads are safe
Before & after examples
6
5
Cut along the dashed line
Before & after examples
8
7
Before & after examples
Before & after examples
## Right Places For Living And Working 9
• BUILDING 9,000 more homes
every year from now until 2020
• TURNING empty houses into
new homes
• A JOINT PLAN to manage the
supply of land for the industry, jobs and new homes we need across the region up to 2035
## Making Our Area Safer 11 12
• Police, fire and community
safety WORKING TOGETHER
• JOINTLY IDENTIFYING and
dealing with likely risks to the community
• FOCUS ON PREVENTION
or early intervention, before problems become difficult to reverse
## A Cleaner, Greener Region 10
• REDUCING Greater
Manchester's carbon footprint to make the most of the
region's energy and resources
• HELPING businesses,
residents and the public sector be more energy efficient
• INVESTING in our natural
environment to respond to climate change and improve quality of life
## Skills That Employers Want
• ECONOMIC INVESTMENT
has already created 8,500 new jobs
• A FURTHER 100,000 will be
created by 2023
• WORKING with employers
collegues and agencies to give people the skills and qualifications that businesses really want
Before & after examples
10
9
Cut along the dashed line
Before & after examples
12
11
Before & after examples
Before & after examples
## Investing In Our Future 13
• SUPPORTING GROWTH
across the region by removing barriers to investment,
making it easier to set up new enterprises and helping existing business grow
• ALREADY HELPED more than
90 companies across Greater Manchester with around £165m though our core investment fund
## The Journey Has Begun... 14
• MAKING Greater
Manchester one of the best places in the world to live,
work and learn
• LOTS already happening,
lots to do
• CULMINATION of a long
history of working together
• ELECTION of a new Mayor
in 2017
## Before & After Examples Before & After Examples 14
| en |
3542-pdf |
## Local Authority Request For Information From Hmrc Details Of Claimant About Whom Information Is Requested Details Of Third Party About Whom Information Is Requested
(Please note that the exchange of information is not mandatory.
Only information that is proportionate to the nature of your enquiry will be provided.)
request:
(State details of the investigation or enquiry to which the request relates. These details must
show how the individual or company are linked to the enquiry and state what they are
suspected of doing.)
| en |
1265-pdf |
Helyntion Beca
Beth a ddigwyddodd yn ystod
Introduction Digwyddodd helyntion Beca yn ardaloedd gwledig gorllewin Cymru, gan gynnwys Sir
Benfro, Ceredigion a Sir Gaerfyrddin, rhwng 1839-43. Yr oeddent yn gyfres o
brotestiadau gan ffermwyr-denantiaid yn erbyn talu tollau a godwyd am ddefnyddio'r ffyrdd. Ymddiriedolaethau'r Tollbyrth neu grwpiau o ddynion busnes oedd piau y rhan fwyaf o'r ffyrdd mawr. Y dynion hyn oedd yn penderfynu pa dâl i'w godi a faint o dollbyrth i'w hadeiladu. Yn ystod yr helyntion, ymosodau dynion mewn gwisg merched ar y tollbyrth. Galwent eu
hunain yn "Ferched Beca". Mae hyn yn fwy tebygol o fod yn seiliedig ar hanes yn y
Beibl lle mae Beca yn dweud bod angen "etifeddu pyrth eu gelynion" (Genesis XXIV,
pennod 60). Yr oedd pobl bryd hynny yn adnabod eu Beibl yn dda. Yr oedd tollau yn gost aruthrol i ffermwyr bach, a ddefnyddiai'r ffyrdd i fynd â'u cnydau
â'u hanifeiliaid i'r farchnad, a hefyd i nôl calch. Arferid defnyddio calch i wella ansawdd y
pridd fel y gallai ffermwyr dyfu cnydau gwell. Gallai gostio gymaint â phum swllt (25c)
mewn tollau i gludo trol o galch wyth milltir. Nid oedd pobl gorllewin Cymru eisiau talu am defnyddio eu ffyrdd.
Tasks Darllenwch Ffynhonnell 1 ac atebwch y cwestiynau. 1. Yr oedd y llythyr hwn wedi'i gyfeirio at drigolion Sanclêr ac eraill yn Sir Gaerfyrddin
ym 1842.
I.
Pam y mae awdur y llythyr yn ei lofnodi "Beca a'i Phlant" yn lle rhoi ei enw
ei hun?
II.
Pam y caiff y cwnstabliaid rhanamser ("y rhai a dyngodd lw i fod yn
gwnstabliaid") eu rhybuddio i gymryd sylw o'r llythyr hwn?
III.
Pam y mae'r llythyr yn gwrthwynebu "Bowlin & Company"?
IV.
Beth yw agwedd yr awdur tuag at yr heddlu?
V.
Sut y gallwn ni ddweud nad oedd y person a ysgrifennodd y llythyr hwn
wedi derbyn addysg dda?
VI.
Sut y mae iaith y llythyr yn gwneud iddo ymddangos yn fygythiol? Darllenwch Ffynhonnell 2 ac atebwch y cwestiynau. 2. Mae'r casglwr tollau yn disgrifio ymosodiad ar Dollborth Trefychan yn Awst 1843.
I.
Pryd y digwyddodd yr ymosodiad ar y dollborth?
II.
A ydych yn credu bod hwn yn debygol o fod yn dystiolaeth ddibynadwy?
Rhowch eich rhesymau.
III.
Pam tybiwch bod cefnogwyr Beca eisiau cael gafael ar lyfrau cyfrifon
ceidwad y tolldy?
IV.
Pa bethau sy'n awgrymu bod yr ymosodiad wedi'i drefnu'n dda?
V.
Sut y tybiwch y byddai William Rees wedi teimlo yn ystod yr ymosodiad
hwn?
Darllenwch Ffynhonnell 3 ac atebwch y cwestiynau. 3. Edward Crompton Lloyd Hall, Uchel Siryf Ceredigion, yn cynnig cyngor i Beca a'i merched ym 1843.
I.
Pam y mae Hall yn dweud wrth Beca a'i merched am beidio â chyfarfod â'i gilydd nos Fercher?
II.
Pa gyngor y mae Hall yn ei roi i'r Cymry i gael pobl i wrando arnynt?
III.
Sut y mae'r hysbyslen yn ceisio perswadio pobl i wrando? (Soniwch am:
maint y testun, enwau ac ansoddeiriol cryf; arddull ysgrifennu Hall.)
IV.
Pa wybodaeth y mae'r Ffynhonnell hon yn ei roi am agwedd yr awdurdodau tuag at Beca a'i merched?
V.
Pam wnaeth Hall sicrhau bod yr hysbyslen yn cael ei hargraffu yn y Gymraeg a'r Saesneg? Darllenwch Ffynhonnell 4 ac atebwch y cwestiynau 4. Yr oedd George H. Ellis yn un o'r rhai a fu'n casglu tystiolaeth ar ddechrau'r ymchwiliad i gyflwr Ymddiriedolaethau'r Tollbyrth yng Nghymru, ac achosion yr helynt.
Darllenwch y darnau isod. Sut y byddai ffermwyr yn teimlo am y pwyntiau a wneir gan Ellis I.
Pa bwynt y mae Ellis yn ei wneud?
II.
Ymateb y ffermwyr?
Background
Cafwyd y digwyddiad cyntaf yn Sir Benfro ym mis Mai 1839 pan ddinistriwyd tollborth newydd yn Efailwen. Yr oedd y gât hon yn darged amlwg, am ei bod ar y ffordd a ddefnyddiwyd gan rai a gludai galch o'r arfordir. Ailgodwyd y gât gan Ymddiriedolaeth Tollbyrth Hendy-Gwyn, ond fe'i dinistriwyd drachefn ym mis Mehefin. Ymosodwyd ar ail dollborth newydd yn Llanboidy. Tawelodd yr helynt pan gytunodd yr awdurdodau i beidio ag ailgodi'r tollbyrth. Dechreuodd yr helyntion eto ym 1842 pan gododd Ymddiriedolaeth Hendy-Gwyn borth newydd wrth y Mermaid, ar y ffordd galch Sanclêr yn Sir Gaerfyrddin. Dinistriwyd y gât ym mis Tachwedd, a'r tollbyrth ym Mhwll-trap a Threfychan hefyd. Ailgodwyd y gatiau, ond dinistriwyd yr holl byrth yn Sanclêr erbyn 12 Rhagfyr. Yr oedd y llywodraeth yn gwrthod anfon milwyr, felly penderfynodd yr ynadon alw ar longwyr o Ddoc Penfro a Marchfilwyr o Gastellmartin. Parhaodd yr helynt. Ym mis Mai 1843, dinistriwyd y tollbyrth yn Nghaerfyrddin ac, ym mis Mehefin, ceisiodd torf o 2000 losgi'r wyrcws yno yn ulw. Galwyd ar y milwyr wrth i'r helynt waethygu a dod yn fwy treisgar. Ym mis Awst, cafwyd helyntion am y tro cyntaf ym Morgannwg yn Llanelli. Ymosodwyd ar y tollbyrth ym Mhontarddulais a Llangyfelach. Ym mis Hydref, yn ystod helynt yn Nhollborth Hendy ger Abertawe, lladdwyd ceidwad y tolldy. Cafwyd ymosodiadau yng Ngheredigion ac yn Sir Faesyfed hefyd.
Un o'r rhesymau dros helyntion Beca oedd y gorfodiaeth i dalu treth am ddefnyddio'r ffyrdd, ond yr oedd rhesymau eraill dros eu hanfodlonrwydd. Yr oedd poblogaeth Cymru wedi cynyddu ers dechrau'r 19eg ganrif. O ganlyniad bu cystadlu chwyrn am dir a gwaith, yr oedd diweithdra a thlodi wedi gwaethygu. Tyddynwyr oedd y rhan fwyaf o'r ffermwyr yn yr ardaloedd hyn, a dyfai ond digon i gynnal eu teuluoedd. Yr oeddent yn rhentu eu tir gan landlordiaid cefnog. Yr oedd y landlordiaid eisiau gwneud mwy o arian ac wedi dechrau lleihau nifer y tyddynnod a oedd ar gael i'w rhentu. Drwy wneud hyn, yr oeddent yn creu ffermydd llawer mwy ac yn gallu codi rhent llawer uwch amdanynt. Yr oedd incwm ffermwyr-denantiaid yn cael ei wasgu ymhellach drwy orfod talu'r degwm. Talwyd y degwm i gynnal eglwys y plwyf. Gwnaed y taliadau hyn mewn nwyddau, er enghraifft mewn cnydau neu wlân. Talwyd y degwm i Eglwys Loegr ym mhob plwyf yng Nghymru bron, unwaith y flwyddyn. Ym 1836, pasiwyd Deddf yn disodli'r taliad nwyddau gyda thaliad ariannol a gawsai ei benderfynu gan y ficer neu, weithiau, gan y landlord lleol. Gan fod 80% o boblogaeth gorllewin Cymru yn Anghydffurfwyr, yr oedd yn gas iawn ganddynt orfod talu degwm i eglwys nad oeddent yn perthyn iddi. Un o'r rhesymau eraill dros yr anghydfod oedd Deddf newydd y Tlodion a gyflwynwyd yng Nghymru a Lloegr ym 1834. Yr oedd y terfysgwyr yn ymosod ar dai wyrcws yn ogystal â thollbyrth. Golygai'r Ddeddf nad oedd cymorth (ariannol) mwyach yn cael ei roi i dlodion a oedd yn iach. Yn hytrach, yr oeddent yn cael eu gorfodi i fyw mewn wyrcws lle'r oedd yr amodau yn cael eu gwneud yn fwriadol galetach na'r amodau gwaethaf y tu allan (barn y llywodraeth oedd bod tlodi yn ganlyniad diogi neu gymeriad gwael). O ganlyniad i ddau gynhaeaf drwg ym 1837 a 1838, gwaethygodd y prinder a'r tlodi.
Cafwyd cynhaeaf da ym 1842, ond collwyd y manteision gan ei bod yn flwyddyn o ddirwasgiad economaidd, felly ni allai gweithwyr diwydiannol fforddio â phrynu nwyddau amaethyddol.
Ac yn olaf, yr oedd rhaniadau cymdeithasol aruthrol rhwng y dosbarth bonhedd (y tirfeddianwyr mawr) a'r tyddynwyr bach a'r gweision fferm a weithiai ar y tir. Yr oedd y boneddigion yn tueddu i fod yn perthyn i Eglwys Loegr ac yn siarad Saesneg. Yn aml iawn, yr oeddent yn ynadon lleol neu'n swyddogion Deddf y Tlodion neu'n perthyn i Ymddiriedolaethau'r Tollbyrth. Nhw oedd yn penderfynu ar dreth y tlodion, y tollau a'r degwm. Nid oedd ganddynt fawr ddim yn gyffredin â'r rhai a weithiai ar y tir ac yn aml yn gwneud penderfyniadau a oedd o fudd iddyn nhw yn unig. Yr oedd gweddill y boblogaeth yn siarad Cymraeg ac yn Anghydffurfwyr. Yn y diwedd, llwyddodd yr awdurdodau i drechu helyntion Beca, drwy ddefnyddio milwyr a grym llawn y gyfraith. Daliwyd rhai o'r terfysgwyr a'u dedfrydu i alltudiaeth. Newidiodd amodau cymdeithasol yn ystod y degawd hefyd. Llwyddwyd i wella'r cyfreithiau a reolai Ymddiriedolaethau'r Tollbyrth a, gyda dyfodiad y rheilffordd, esmwythwyd llawer ar y trafferthion cludo yng ngorllewin Cymru. Gallai pobl symud o gwmpas yn haws er mwyn dod o hyd i waith a helpodd hyn i leihau'r cystadlu am waith mewn ardaloedd gwledig. Pan ddaeth y Deddfau Yd i ben ym 1846, a gwnaed ymdrechion ym 1847 i wneud Deddf y Tlodion yn llai creulon, gwellodd y sefyllfa ymhellach.
Teachers Notes Y Cwricwlwm Hanes Cenedlaethol - Lloegr Gellir defnyddio'r llun hwn gyda disgyblion cyfnod allweddol 3 ym mlwyddyn 8. Mae'n edrych ar hanes helyntion Beca drwy gyfrwng tystiolaeth ar natur y Mudiad, profiad rhai o'r bobl a oedd yn rhan ohonynt ac ymateb yr awdurdodau. Cynlluniau Gwaith yr Awdurdod Cymwysterau a Chwricwlwm: Cyfnod allweddol 3 uned 11: Newidiadau diwydiannol, gweithredu ac ymateb Adran 3: A oedd pawb yn cytuno gyda'r newidiadau diwydiannol? Gellir hefyd dilyn dolenni at:
Cyfnod Allweddol 3 uned 16: Yr etholfraint Adran 3: Pwy oedd yn brwydro i gyflwyno newid gwleidyddol rhwng 1815 a 1848? Y Cwricwlwm Hanes Cenedlaethol - Cymru Llun yw hwn sy'n addas ar gyfer disgyblion cyfnod allweddol 3 sy'n astudio "Cymru ym Mhrydain ddiwyddiannol, 1760 - 1914". Yr oedd trafnidiaeth yn rhan o'r chwyldro ddiwydiannol, ac arweiniodd at gyflwyno'r system tollbyrth ar y ffyrdd ac, yn y pen draw, at ddyfodiad y rheilffyrdd. Mae'r llun hwn yn edrych ar un ymateb i'r chwyldro cymdeithasol, economaidd a thechnolegol a weddnewidiodd Cymru yn y cyfnod hwn. Gellir hefyd dilyn dolenni at: Cyfnod Allweddol 4, Manyleb TGAU A & B Cydbwyllgor Addysg Cymru, sy'n golygu dewis opsiwn astudio manwl ar "Mudiadau Poblogaidd yng Nghymru a Lloegr, 1815- 1845". Mae'r llun yn rhoi sylw i Adran C: Protestiadau Gwledig. Ffynonellau Mae Ffynhonnell 1 yn rhoi tystiolaeth o amcanion a phryderon y Mudiad. Mae hefyd yn dangos y diffyg cyfle oedd yn bod i bobl a ddymunai brotestio - bu'n rhaid iddynt gelu pwy oeddent i osgoi cael eu dal. Mae'r dulliau a ddefnyddiai'r awdurdodau i reoli cymdeithas yn amlwg yn y Ffynhonnell hon. Mae Ffynhonnell 2 yn dangos yr hyn a ddigwyddodd yn ystod ymosodiad ar dollborth - a pham fod angen iddynt gelu pwy oeddent. Mae Ffynhonnell 3 yn datguddio llawer mwy am agwedd yr awdurdodau ac yn dangos eu bod yn cosbi pobl a ddaliwyd yn dinistrio tollbyrth a thai yn llym iawn (drwy eu halltudio). Mae Ffynhonnell 4 yn dangos tystiolaeth o gomisiwn yr ymchwiliad i gyflwr y ffyrdd yn ne Cymru ac, a arweiniodd at newid y gyfraith. Mwy o weithgareddau Trafodwch ar y rhesymau dros ac yn erbyn helyntion Beca. Perfformio drama / ymarfer rolau ar roi tystiolaeth i'r ymchwiliad i achosion helyntion Beca. Gellir cymryd y cymeriadau o'r Ffynonellau. Ysgrifennwch gerdd neu gân brotest am helyntion Beca.
# Source 1 : Llythyr Gan Beca, Rhagfyr 1842 (Ho 45/265 F.1)
Source 1 : Llythyr gan Beca, Rhagfyr 1842 (HO 45/265 f.1)
Adysgrif Syml Rhybudd Hoffwn eich rhybuddio, yn enwedig y rhai a dyngodd lw i fod yn gwnstabliaid er mwyn dal Beca a'i phlant. Gallaf eich sicrhau y bydd yn rhy anodd i Bullin a'i gwmni orffen y gwaith a ddechreuasant - sef cadw'r pyrth yn Llanfihangel a [?] yn sefyll. Cymerwch yn awr yr ychydig linellau hyn fel gwybodaeth ichi wylio eich hunain, chwychwi a gawsoch unrhyw gysylltiad â Bullin, Y Meistri M.C Lics, Mr Thomas Blue Boar. Bydd eich holl eiddo yn cael ei losgi mewn un noson os na ufuddheir i'r rhybudd hwn. Anfonwch ymaith y crwydriaid hynny yr ydych yn rhoi ffafriaeth iddynt. Yr wyf bob amser yn dymuno bod yn onest yn fy holl ymwneud â phobl. Ai rhesymol yw eu bod yn trethu gymaint ar y wlad, ac yn dwyn o bocedi ffermwyr a gweision tlawd? Bydd yr holl byrth a saif ar y ffyrdd bychain hyn yn cael eu dinistrio. Yr wyf yn fodlon i'r pyrth ar Ffordd y Frenhines aros. Mae'n gywilydd i ni Gymry fod â meibion Hengist yn ein rheoli. Onid ydych yn cofio'r Cyllyll Hirion a ddyfeisiwyd gan Hengist i ladd ein cyndadau? Gallwch fod yn sicr o un peth, bydd yr un dynged yn dod ichwi os na ildiwch pan ddof atoch, a bydd hynny yn o fuan. Yr wyf yn awr yn eich gorchymyn i adael y lle cyn imi ddod, oherwydd yr wyf yn benderfynol o gael fy ffordd. O ran y cwnstabl a'r plismyn, nid yw Beca a'i phlant yn talu mwy o sylw iddynt nag i'r ceiliogod rhedyn sy'n hedfan yn yr haf. Mae rhywrai eraill sydd wedi eu nodi gan Beca. Ni chant eu henwi yn awr, ond, os nad ydynt yn ufuddhau i'r rhybudd hwn, byddaf yn galw i'w gweld yn fuan iawn. Yn ffyddlon hyd at farwolaeth gyda'r sir Beca a'i phlant Trwn [?] Rhagfyr 16 1842 Geirfa Y rhai a dyngodd lw i fod yn gwnstabliaid : Dynion lleol a dyngodd lw o flaen ynadon i helpu i orfodi'r gyfraith; yr oeddent yn cael eu galw'n gwnstabliaid gwirfoddol
Bullin : Thomas Bullin, y prif gasglwr tollau ac adeiladwr tollbyrth yn yr ardal; Sais oedd yn cael ei gasáyng Nghymru Crwydriaid : Pobl heb gartref parhaol sy'n symud o le i le, yn aml yn chwilio am fwyd neu waith. Henegust : Hengist, arweinydd y Sacsoniaid ym Mhrydain ar ddechrau'r 5ed ganrif AD Cyllyll hirion : Digwyddodd brad y cyllyll hirion yn ystod y rhyfeloedd rhwng y Sacsoniaid a'r Prydeinwyr cynnar. Yn ystod cynhadledd heddwch wedi'i threfnu gan Hengist, tynnodd y Sacsoniaid gyllyll hirion o'u hesgidiau llaes a lladd y boneddigion Prydeinig. Y Plismyn : George Martin, arolygydd o Heddlu'r Metropolitan yn Llundain, a'i ddau heddwas (nid oedd gan orllewin Cymru heddlu)
## Source 2 : Datganiad William Rees, Awst1843 (Ho 45/454 F.415)
Source 2 : Datganiad William Rees, Awst1843 (HO 45/454 f.415) Adysgrif Datganiad William Rees, Casglwr Tollau yn Nhollborth Trefychan Rhwng un a dau o'r gloch ar fore dydd Sul diwethaf, yr aflonyddwyd arno gan wr yn curo ar ei ddrws yn holi'r ffordd i Bont Llanfallteg, a dywedodd wrtho, a chwedyn yn syth clywodd swn meirch, a daeth tua phump neu ddeg ar hugain o ddynion wedi cuddwisgo,
(mewn gwisgoedd gwynion a hancesi lliw ynghlwm wrth eu pennau o dan eu genau) at ei dy a'i gymell drwy fygythiadau, gan anelu ar yr un pryd dri Dryll at ei frest, i ildio ei Lyfrau, a chludwyd hwynt ymaith ganddynt. Yr oedd y Llyfrau yn cynnwys ymhlith cyfrifon eraill, enwau sawl un a wrthododd dalu'r doll wrth y Porth dywededig, ni lwyddodd i adnabod yr un ohonynt, ond yr oedd y person agosaf at ffenestr ei dy ar gefn ceffyl llwyd. William Rees
# Source 3A : Hysbyslen, Mehefin 1843 (Ho 45/454 F.107) Source 3B : Hysbyslen, Mehefin (Ho 45/454 F.108)
Source 3 : Hysbyslen, Mehefin (HO 45/454 f.108) Adysgrif Cymraeg AT REBECCA A'I MHERCHED. GYMRY, .. A YDYCH CHWI YN MEDDWL Y GALLAF GEFNOGI, NEU UNO YN, EICH
GWEITHREDOEDD AFREOLUS? Yr wyf yn dywedyd wrthych, NA WNAF. A pheth sydd fwy, er fy mod wedi ymladd, yn ymladd, ac yn bwriadu etto i ymladd eich brwydrau, hyd oni enniller perffaith gyfiawnder, ac adffurfiad gwladwriaethol, i chwi ac i'ch plant, yr wyf, a byddaf yn wastadol, y blaenaf i gadw heddwch i'r Frenines a'i deiliaid, ac i rwystro pob afreolaeth a therfysg. Y mae digon wedi ei wneyd yn barod, i ddangos i'r Llywodraeth, y fath anfoddlonrwydd cyffredinol sydd yn eich plith, o herwydd gormes. Y meant wedi danfon milwyr i'r wlad i gadw heddwch: YR YDWYF, GAN HYNY YN DYMUNO YN DAER ARNOCH BEIDIO CYFARFOD A'CH GILYDD NOS FERCHER. Yr ydwyf wedi ysgrifenu am y Milwyr, i ddyfod yma i'ch rhwystro i gyflawni unrhyw ddrygioni, os byddwch mor annoeth ag ymgasglu ynghyd. Paham y rhwystrwch fi i ymladd eich brwydrau yn yr unig ffoordd y gallwn lwyddo; a thrwy eich trais a'ch afredymoldeb, yr hyn yn sier ni thyccia, fy nhroi o fod yn gyfaill, i fod yn wrthwynebwr i chwi? Y mae eich ymddygiad yn blentynaidd ac yn ddireswm, ac yn annhebyg iawn i ddynion a chanddynt ddybenion pwysig i'w Cyrheadd. Pa ham y dangoswch ffolineb pan y mae doethined yn ofynedig? Y gosp am dynu ty Turnpike i lawr yw ALLTUDIAD DROS FYWYD. Pa ddaioni a ellwch ei gael wrth redeg i'r fath berygl, pan y gallech gyrhaedd pob peth a ddylech fwynhau, drwy lwybr heddychlon ac esmwyth, ac heb fyned i unrhyw enbydrwydd. Nis gallaf gyfrif hyn ond i'ch anwybodaeth, drwy yr hyn yr ydych yn nalluog, i gadw o fewn ei gylch priodol, y grym anwrthwynebol sydd yn eich meddiant. Y ganfed ran o'ch nerth chwi, wedi ei gyffeu yn briodol, a wnelai fwy drosoch, a hyny yn ddiberygl, nag a wnelai maint eich grym fil o weithiau, wrth ei wastraffu mewn gorchwylion afresymol, fel y gwnaethoch yn ddiweddar. Cymmerwch eich arwain genyf. Gwnewch yr hyn yr wyf yn ei erchi i chwi, a rhaid y BYDDWCH YN ORCHFYGWYR YN
Y DIWEDD. Eled pob un o honoch i'w artref ei hun, yn heddychol ac yn dawel, now Fercher; a bore dydd lau, bydded i bob plwyf ddewis dau Gennadwr, i ddyfod ataf fi, (fel y gwnaeth y plwyfi yn Hwndrwd Elfed,) i'm gwneyd yn hysbys o'r gorthrymderau sydd yn eich gwasgu, ac yna dilynwch y cynghor a roddnf iddynt. Os gwnewch, heddwch a Ilwyddiant a adferir i chwi; ac os na wnewch, gadawaf chwi i fwynhau canlyniadau eich anwybodaeth a'ch ynfydrwydd. EDW. CR. LLOYD HALL. Adysgrif Syml AT BECA A'I MERCHED. GYMRY, ......
A ydych yn meddwl y gallwn gymeradwyo neu ymuno â'ch cynulliad terfysglyd? Yr wyf yn dywedyd wrthych NA. Ac ymhellach at hynny, er fy mod wedi ymladd, yn ymladd o hyd, ac yn parhau i ymladd eich brwydrau, hyd nes y gallaf sicrhau cyfiawnder perffaith a gwelliannau gwleidyddol i chwi a'ch plant, yr wyf a byddaf o hyd y cyntaf i gadw heddwch y Frenhines, gan atal unrhyw helyntion neu derfysg. Gwnaed digon eisoes i ddarbwyllo'r Llywodraeth ynghylch yr anfodlonrwydd mawr ac eang y mae eich cwynion wedi'i greu yn eich plith. Y maent wedi anfon milwyr i gadw'r heddwch. Erfyniaf arnoch felly i beidio â chyfarfod eich gilydd ar nos Fercher. Yr wyf wedi anfon am y milwyr i ddod yma ac i'ch rhwystro rhag gwneud drygioni os mynnwch wneud hynny. Pam y rhwystrwch fi rhag ymladd eich brwydrau yn yr unig ffordd a fydd yn llwyddo; a thrwy eich trais a'ch hurtrwydd, a wna ddim daioni o gwbl, yn fy nhroi o fod yn gyfaill i fod yn elyn? Mae eich ymddygiad yn blentynnaidd ac yn wrthun, ac yn annheilwng o ddynion sy'n cyrchu at nodau clodwiw. Paham y dangoswch ffolineb pan fo angen doethineb? Y
gosb am chwalu Tolldy yw ALLTUDIAETH AM OES. Pa ddaioni a ddaw o fentro'r fath dynged, pan y gallwch gael popeth y dylech fod yn ei gael, yn heddychlon a thawel, heb wynebu unrhyw berygl? Ni allaf ond priodoli hyn i'ch anwybodaeth, sy'n eich atal rhag gallu tywys y grym mawr ac anorchfygol yr ydych yn meddu arno yn y cyfeiriad iawn.
Bydd canfed rhan o'ch cryfder, o'i gymhwyso'n gywir, yn gwneud mwy drosoch, a heb unrhyw berygl, na'r mil gwaith yr ydych wedi gwastraffu eich hegni yn yr hurtrwydd diweddar. Gwrandewch arnaf. Gwnewch yr hyn a ofynnaf, a byddwch chwi yn fuddugoliaethus yn y diwedd. Ewch bob un ohonoch i'ch cartrefi eich hunain ar nos Ferched, yn heddychlon a thawel. Ar fore dydd Iau gadewch i bob Plwyf ddewis dau Ddirprwy i ddod ataf (fel y mae'r Plwyfi yng Nghantref Elfed Uchaf wedi'i wneud), i'm hysbysu ynghylch eich cwynion, ac yna i ddilyn yn llwyr y cyngor a roddaf iddynt. Os gwnewch hynny, bydd heddwch a llewyrch yn dychwelyd atoch yn ddiamheuaeth. Os na wnewch, gadawaf chwi i fwynhau ffrwyth eich ffolineb a'ch anwybodaeth. EDW. CR. LLOYD HALL. Geirfa cymeradwyo cefnogi cynulliad grwp o bobl yn dod at ei gilydd terfysg helynt darbwyllo perswadio hurtrwydd ymddwyn yn ffol clodwiw sy'n haeddu parch a chanmoliaeth alltudiaeth cael eu hanfon i ffwrdd o Brydain anorchfygol ni all neb ei drechu cymhwyso defnyddio i bwrpas buddugoliaethus ennill, curo diamheuaeth heb gwestiwn
# Source 4 : Memo George Ellis, Tachwedd 1843 (Ho 45/454B F.980)
Source 4 : Memo George Ellis, Tachwedd 1843 (HO 45/454B f.980)
Adysgrif Nid yw holl ffyrdd yr un ymddiriedolaeth yn cael eu cadw mewn cyflwr da o hyd. Mae hyn yn destun cryn genfigen ymhlith y Ffermwyr ac mae cymhellion personol yn cael eu priodoli'n hawdd i'r Ymddiriedolwyr. ...
Mae'r angen i archwilio'r cyfrifon refeniw a gwariant yn fanwl yn siarad drosto'i hun -
Bydd Cyfrifon pob ymddiriedolaeth yn cyflenwi ei hymchwiliad ei hun. Mae'r nifer fawr o byrth atal bellach yn gamgymeriad cydnabyddedig, ond deallaf fod yn rhaid ymchwilio i'r graddau y gwnaed hynny. Ar wahân i effaith ormesol yr holl byrth, rhaid imi ychwanegu fy mod wedi clywed am honiadau o ffafriaeth ac anghyfiawnder yn erbyn Ymddiriedolwyr am osod y pyrth fel yr eithrir eu Tenantiaid eu hunain rhag gorfod talu'r Doll. Os bydd o fewn ymchwiliad y Comisiwn, tybiaf y byddai'n werth chweil ystyried graddfeydd y tollau gogyfer â'r gwahanol bersonau sydd yn defnyddio cerbydau a rhai sydd yn defnyddio troliau. Cedwir mewn cof ba fath o geffyl a ddefnyddir gan y ffermwr - a sawl un y mae'n rhaid iddo eu defnyddio er gwaetha'r gwelliannau i'r ffyrdd trol dros y mynyddoedd. Hefyd, hoffwn dynnu sylw at faint a phwysau'r troliau sy'n rhwymedig i dalu toll fwy yng nghyswllt olwynion culach, ac at y modd y trethir cludiant calch a glo.
Geirfa priodoli beio cymhellion pwrpas rhywun dros wneud rhywbeth cyfrifon refeniw a gwariant y cofnodion ar gyfer incwm a gwariant cyflenwi darparu ar gyfer ymchwiliad yr ymholiadau a wnaed i'r helyntion cydnabyddedig sy'n cael ei gydnabod, ei dderbyn gormesol sy'n effeithio'n wael ar rywun, yn cadw rhywun i lawr anghyfiawnder annhegwch comisiwn sefydlwyd hwn ym mis Hydref 1843 gan yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol, Syr James Graham, i adrodd ar gyflwr Ymddiriedolaethau'r Tollbyrth yng Nghymru ac i ymchwilio i achosion yr helyntion. Arweiniodd at newid y gyfraith y flwyddyn ddilynol a llwyddwyd felly i wneud i ffwrdd ag effeithiau gwaethaf yr Ymddiriedolaethau hyn.
ffyrdd trol ffyrdd neu lonydd ar gyfer ceffyl a throl / cart rhwymedig sy'n gorfod gwneud rhywbeth fel arfer
## Gorllewinol Cymru Map
| cy |
2043-pdf |
## Cumulative Impacts Of Regulations On House Builders And Landowners Research Paper
# Cumulative Impacts Of Regulations On House Builders And Landowners
## Research Paper
Chris Hill, Turner Morum
Department for Communities and Local Government
This research was commissioned by the previous government. The views and analysis expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Communities and Local Government. This document is being published in the interests of transparency. Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London
SW1E 5DU Telephone: 030 3444 0000 Website: www.communities.gov.uk
© Queen's Printer and Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2011
Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.
This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified.
You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-governmentlicence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. If you require this publication in an alternative format please email alternativeformats@communities.gsi.gov.uk DCLG Publications Tel: 030 0123 1124 Fax: 030 0123 1125
Email: product@communities.gsi.gov.uk Online via the website: www.communities.gov.uk ISBN: 978 1 4098 2909 6
Page
1. Background to study
4
2. Current market overview
4
3. Typical incentives required to bring land forward for development
5
4. Likely costs and effects of increasing environmental regulation
8
5. Potential for costs trade-offs
8
6. Impact of regulatory and taxation changes
9
7. How can the house building industry cope and adapt?
9
1. Background to study Turner Morum was appointed by the Department for Communities and Local Government in late June 2008 to undertake case study and expertise research to support internal analysis of the cumulative impacts of regulations on house builders and landowners. This report summarises our conclusions and comprises a brief commentary and various supporting case studies or viability assessments. 2. Current market overview The current state of the UK housing market is well publicised, although the longer term prognosis is not yet entirely understood. Our view is that the downturn has not been evident for long enough for an accurate assessment to be made of how much further, if at all, the market will fall and for how long current negative market conditions will remain. While house prices are said to have fallen generally with average prices down 6.3 per cent compared with this time last year (Source: Nationwide), there appear to be significant regional and local variations. It is also self evident that economic conditions, while not being positive, do not reflect the raft of problems that directly affected the market in late 1989. Although inflation is becoming a concern, the only new negative factor that has and still is directly affecting the housing market at this point is the prevailing crisis in the financial markets. It seems fair to conclude that the current housing market decline has been brought about almost entirely as a result of this problem. Affordability in the first time buyer sector is a problem, but this has been the case for a long time without it causing a reverse in the previous upward trend in the market. In short, it seems reasonable to conclude that the current market strongly favours neither sellers nor buyers, since, whilst prices and sales rates are under pressure, many potential sellers are holding back from marketing property until conditions start to improve. Most, if not all, of this is a direct result of lack of availability of credit - i.e., if anything it seems to be a "lenders' market". Once financial markets have recaptured something approaching stability, it seems quite possible that, unless other problems such as far greater fears over unemployment emerge, the UK house buying public could be back in force. This seems especially so given that the factors that created underlying levels of excess demand (demographics, consistently low new-build rates etc) appear to be unchanged and are to some extent being exacerbated by the current crisis. Conversely, there are always plenty of economists ready to predict a far deeper crisis in the UK housing market, on this occasion it appears, largely because this is what has already happened in certain other parts of the world, such as USA and Spain. In fact, we already seem to have entered the 'second phase', namely, "who can predict the worst and most extreme outcome?". Whatever the medium/longer term prognosis, the short term effects of the financial crisis are similar to those arising in any sudden housing market downturn, for example:
- Non-availability of mortgages to buyers with little equity, even at prices
that are genuinely affordable.
- House builders fearing further falls in value increase require profit
margins to reflect greater risk.
- Lenders instruct surveyors to value at cautious levels and especially to
avoid the usual premium for new build compared with second hand stock.
- Surveyors valuing at lower levels for fear of being sued.
- Incredibly slow sales rates that erode Return on Capital Employed
levels to a point where interest on the funds employed is greater than
the revenues being produced.
- The need for house builders (eventually) to supplement their (minimal)
sales revenue by selling land if they can, often at "distressed" prices.
What is clear by now, however, is the effect that small falls in house prices can have, and indeed once again have had, on the market for residential development land. Our experience is that few transactions are taking place, especially in respect of larger projects/tranches, and that where they do proceed, achievable prices appear to have fallen by up to around 40 per cent.
This apparent imbalance between house and land prices is because, while developers buying land do not overtly build house price inflation into their land acquisition models, they are certainly prepared to take higher risks in a rising market, mainly because they can rely upon inflation helping to 'cover up' any mistakes that eventually emerge in their land bid assumptions. Once house prices flatten (let alone fall), this dynamic shifts dramatically resulting in a far more cautious approach to most inputs such as costs and values, but also in an attempt to protect further against market risks, profit (gross margin) hurdle rates tend to rise from previous averages of circa 20 per cent to current required levels that we are often now seeing in the 25 per cent - 30 per cent range. It is only fair to mention that bearing the cost of increasing regulatory measures is difficult enough when the market is buoyant (as is demonstrated by Appendix 5), but these difficulties are significantly increased by current levels of market turmoil when developers in particular are often having their work cut out simply to survive. 3. Typical incentives required to bring land forward for development i)
Brownfield land or redevelopment The method we have normally adopted to assess the likelihood of land being brought forward for redevelopment is a residual form of valuation that identifies the net sum available for land purchase after all development costs and a reasonable level of developer's profit have been deducted. We have then tested if it is financially viable for a site to come forward for redevelopment by comparing the site's residual land value for development with its value for Existing Use - or Current Use Value. In a situation where a property is occupied and used for a particular purpose, for it then to be realised as a new development its residual development value must exceed it's Current Use Value by a certain margin. This "Surplus of Value" must be of sufficient magnitude to induce the current owner to, for example, shut the business or relocate. Either way, substantial relocation/close down costs and/or tax implications are likely to arise hence there needs to be a significant enhanced value over and above Current Use Value to make it feasible and worthwhile for an owner occupier to sell/relocate. In previous analyses our experience is that a surplus residual development value of at least 20 per cent over Current Use Value is required. We are of the opinion that such a surplus comprises the minimum amount for which an owner such as this would be prepared to sell up or relocate and this guide minimum appears broadly to apply in respect of existing commercial or residential uses. In arriving at these conclusions in certain cases we have compared the situation to a claim in compensation including disturbance. The compensation code recognises that the payment of market value for land in its Existing Use will not adequately compensate a landowner and this is referred to as the principle of 'equivalence'. It is difficult to put an exact figure on the disturbance and other costs a landowner is likely to face, but we have listed below some of the more obvious costs an operational business is likely to face if it decides to stop trading completely or to reopen elsewhere.
- Capital gains tax. - Stamp duty on replacement property. - Redundancy costs. - Relocation costs including losses on stock. - Legal and other professional fees.
- Double overheads (during relocation). - Marketing material including client change of location notifications.
We believe it would not be reasonable to assume that a landowner would willingly close a business or relocate unless the surplus, before tax, was an absolute minimum of 20 per cent higher than the value of the property for Existing Use. In the attached case example (Appendix 1), the Council accepted the principle of at least a 20 per cent uplift in existing use value as a necessary incentive to the landowner in the original valuation exercise, however, our experience shows that the required uplift is more likely to be around 25 per cent. See Appendix 1 - Viability Exercise on Sandy Lane, Teddington. This approach has also been upheld by the Planning Inspectorate; see Appendix 2 - Appeal Decision notice in respect of land at Gordon Court, Hampton Hill. We refer, in particular, to points 7 to 22 on pages 3,4 and 5, where it will be noted that the inspector upholds the appellants view, which is supported by financial viability evidence, that a premium of 25 per cent over current use value is required in order to persuade the existing owners to sell their properties. Note also Appendix 3, extract from the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Development Framework Core Strategy, comments in paragraph 4.2. In summary, we would recommend that a premium hurdle rate uplift of 25 per cent on Current Use Value is assumed to realise redevelopment of 'brown' land. It should also be borne in mind that, while the examples of Valuation Office Agency data provided to us for Richmond and Windsor and Maidenhead seem not unreasonable for clean serviced land in late 2007, current market conditions will render such land value assumptions effectively meaningless. ii)
Greenfield, or previously undeveloped, sites Under these circumstances, rather different factors apply. One is most often dealing with agricultural land with a low base existing use value, but the costs normally associated with realising new development on such unserviced
'greenfield' land tend to be considerable. These include both high costs of infrastructure and servicing and a level of s106/planning gain costs that will at least need to reflect the impact of major new development on the local community and its services and amenity. In many cases, we also find that such developments are expected to bear a disproportionately high planning gain burden simply because the base land cost is assumed to be low, perhaps forgetting the high cost of bringing such land into the desired use. See Appendix 4 - Schedule of Typical Infrastructure/s106 Costs on (a sample of 5)
Major Projects. Despite low base values, landowners still need to be enticed to bring their land forward for development and similar principles to those in 3.i above will still apply. In this case, however, required levels of premium are routinely protected by way of minimum land price provisions, usually contained within option or collaboration agreements and long-term conditional contracts. We are regularly involved in matters relating to such agreements and in our experience it is now usual to find such protection by way of a minimum price threshold for landowners. Levels vary, but typically, we expect to see figures of circa £100,000 to £150,000 per gross acre. Note that this usually applies per gross acre and referring to the schedule in Appendix 3, it will be noted that the average net to gross percentage across the five fairly typical examples used is 56 per cent. By applying the above minimum prices to net areas, it can be seen that development proposals will normally need to support land values of £200,000 to £300,000 per net developable acre if the land is to come forward for development. We should emphasise that this 'gross to net' figure tends only to apply to larger more strategic 'greenfield' sites, whereas for smaller sites, say within urban areas the difference between gross and net can be minimal.
Additionally, most option style agreements also provide for promoters/developers to receive a discount, typically 10 per cent to 20 per cent, to Open Market Value and the above minimum land prices are after the application of such discounts (and other deductible promotional costs). Consequently, we would recommend that minimum land value requirements of at least £200,000 per gross, and £400,000 per net, acre are assumed for release of 'greenfield' land. Note that all land value figures within the appendices are net and therefore take account of all abnormals, s106 costs, affordable provision etc. They are also in most cases based upon values being achieved before the effects of the current financial crisis were being felt. 4. Likely costs and effects of increasing environmental regulation In many cases the industry still does not have an accurate feel for just how much various measures, such as zero carbon, Code for Sustainable Homes, levels 3 to 6 etc., will cost, therefore quantity surveyors and house builders are having to make forecasts that tend to err on the cautious side and assume the worst case in order to identify and attempt to minimise their risks. Some work has, however, been done on this and in Appendix 5 we provide an example of a case study in respect of one large site where we have applied a build up of the various Code levels, each from their anticipated introduction dates, (in tab 1) in order to measure the cumulative effect upon current net land value (in tab 2). For this example, it should be noted that the main 'value-determining' factors (house price levels, infrastructure costs etc) are reasonably typical for this type/size of project and we do have examples of infrastructure costs per acre being considerably higher, particularly on projects that are rather smaller, say
1000 to 3000 dwellings (note again the schedule in Appendix 4). In short, the result of applying this test in this case is a significantly negative land value, implying that, unless considerable mitigation can be found, the owner of this site will clearly not be induced to make his land available for development. 5. Potential for costs 'trade-off' to avoid adverse land value impact of regulations The trade-off potential for reducing (other) costs elsewhere so as to enable cost of new measures/regulations to be affordable is, in our view, limited. The whole business of developing and selling homes (as with any other product) is a trade off between cost and value. It is crucial, therefore, to avoid trying to make savings in any areas that will, as a result, adversely affect achievable revenues, such as specification reduction (e.g. "less bathrooms"), where such value reductions are likely to more than offset any savings. Some pundits suggest that house buyers may be prepared to pay a supplement for a dwelling that has been built with sustainability in mind, but in our experience this is not the case. Most buyers shop around in their location or locations of choice and then, in simple terms, purchase the largest dwelling they can afford at the lowest possible price. Examples of where costs trade-off may be effective should be limited to expenditure that does not affect end sales, either rates or prices, such as lower/less costly (flexible affordable tenure etc) affordable provision, reduced s106 contributions/costs/tariff levels. It is worth noting that where this issue has arisen before, such as in the proposed London Thames Gateway tariff, the Development Corporation has openly stated that the affordable housing provision is seen as the "pressure release valve". 6. Mitigating the impact of regulatory and taxation changes Most urban extensions are on farmland and most farmers own such land as a "business asset". Until recently, a sale of such business assets would have attracted business taper relief at a rate of 75 per cent. This would mean a farmer would pay Capital Gains Tax at a rate of 40 per cent less 75 per cent, i.e., 10 per cent. The Chancellor recently changed Capital Gains Tax rates to a uniform figure of 18 per cent, which resulted in the tax payable by most farmers selling land for development rising by 80 per cent. This, along with the effects that Stamp Duty Land Tax has on net achievable land price, can provide a significant disincentive to the release of potential development land, unless high net payable values can be achieved.
Opportunities for possible mitigation need to be focussed on the combined effects of taxation and of s106/planning gain/tariff levels with possible relief for 'difficult' sites. This could include reduced Stamp Duty Land Tax, mitigation of the negative effects of other taxation measures, such as the removal of taper relief, and lower tariff/s106 burdens for land that is costly to being forward. 7. How can the house building industry cope and adapt? Whilst we might hope for some element of adaptation as a result of improving business efficiencies within the house building sector, effective adaptation (i.e. maintained long term profit capability as demanded by the city and resultant increased new housing production) is likely to be limited to either i) reducing effective land prices (with the consequential effects in terms of land release discussed here) or ii) through reduced planning/s106 costs, taxation etc. Some sites/areas with high abnormal or infrastructure costs will not cope as sites are barely viable even under current regulations, let alone once further measures are cumulatively imposed (see 4. above). | en |
2488-pdf |
##
We set annual objectives and targets to achieve this, and we publish a sustainability progress report within our Annual Report and Accounts. We strive to prevent pollution and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and waste streams associated with our activities. We recognise the importance of an Environmental Management System, and understand that its success is dependent on the involvement of employees and contractors. Accordingly, we provide appropriate environmental awareness training and information to all colleagues and contractors. The National Archives will:
-
comply with legal and other requirements that apply to the aspects of our business that impact on
the environment
-
publish our Sustainable Procurement Policy and raise awareness amongst our key suppliers and purchasing staff
-
promote recycling and the use of recycled materials, while reducing our consumption of all
materials wherever possible
-
continually strive to reduce our energy consumption and, where practical, incorporate measures to increase energy efficiency into any new building projects
-
aim to do business with suppliers and subcontractors who minimise the impact of their activities on
the environment
-
promote environmental awareness and responsibilities to all employees and to anyone engaged in activities on behalf of our organisation
-
document, monitor, review and continually improve our Environmental Management System
-
make a copy of our Environmental Policy and a description of the significant aspects of our business that impact on the environment available to internal and external stakeholders
-
maintain contingency plans to deal with any foreseeable environmental incident
-
consider the impact we have on the local community and respond promptly to their concerns.
This policy statement will be reviewed periodically to ensure that it remains relevant and appropriate to the organisation.
Jeff James
| en |
1252-pdf |
## Managing Attendance At Work (Sickness Absence) Procedure
| | Contents | Page |
|---------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|---------|
| 1. Introduction | | 3 |
| 2. General | | |
| Advice and support | | |
| 3 | | |
| Confidentiality | | |
| 3 | | |
| Fairness and objectivity | | |
| 3 | | |
| Managing sickness absence | | |
| 4 | | |
| Representation | | |
| 4 | | |
| Records | | |
| 4 | | |
| Monitoring | | |
| 4 | | |
| 3. Roles and | | |
| Employee's responsibility | | |
| 5 | | |
| Responsibilities | | |
| Manager's responsibility | | |
| 5 | | |
| Employee supervision | | |
| 6 | | |
| Absence Reviews | | |
| 6 | | |
| Absence Hearings | | |
| 7 | | |
| Occupational Health | | |
| 7 | | |
| Reasonable adjustments and Access to Work (ATW) | | |
| 7 | | |
| Human Resources | | |
| 8 | | |
| Head of Human Resources | | |
| 8 | | |
| 4. Absence Process | | |
| 4.1 Managing attendance and sickness absence | | |
| 8 | | |
| 4.2 "Trigger points" | | |
| 9 | | |
| 4.3 Absence Review | | |
| 10 | | |
| 4.4 Absence Hearing | | |
| 12 | | |
| 4.5 Appeals | | |
| 14 | | |
| 15 | Appendices | |
| Appendix 1: Managing Attendance at Work (Sickness | | |
| Absence) Procedure - Flowchart | | |
| | | |
| Appendix 2: Details of support arrangements | | |
| 16 | | |
| | Appendix 3: Absence Hearing - Procedure | |
| 17 | | |
| | | |
| | | |
## 1. Introduction Council Policy
The Council is committed to providing a working environment where individuals are treated with fairness, dignity and respect; the Managing Attendance at Work (Sickness Absence) Procedure is designed to ensure that there are fair and objective arrangements for managing sickness absence and attendance. The Procedure follows the guidance in the ACAS statutory "Code of Practice for Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures" and "Managing attendance and employee turnover", as well as "Best Practice". It applies to employees directly employed by the Council only and is recommended to schools with delegated authority for staffing matters, as "Best Practice". The Procedure should be viewed primarily as a way of helping and encouraging employees to improve their attendance and/or to manage long-term sickness absence. It is intended to ensure that absence issues are dealt with promptly, fairly and consistently in accordance with the Council's policies, employment legislation and "Best Practice". 2. General
Advice and support Human Resources will support and advise managers dealing with unsatisfactory attendance and/or long-term sickness absence and monitor all formal cases to ensure that they are dealt with in accordance with the Procedure, employment and equalities legislation, and "best practice". Employees are entitled to be accompanied by a trade union representative or a fellow work colleague at any meetings under the "Formal Process". (See
"Representation").
Confidentiality All those involved in the process will be required to maintain confidentiality at all times.
## Fairness And Objectivity
It is important to ensure that the absence review process is conducted in a fair and unbiased manner. Advice must be sought from Human Resources where there any concerns as to the process being followed.
Managing sickness absence
The Council recognises that most sickness absence is genuine and will support employees who are genuinely ill and unable to attend work, but absence (both short-term and certificated) also needs to be managed effectively.
The Procedure is intended to help ensure that sickness absence is managed fairly and effectively, and appropriate support is provided to employees including those with a disability and/or long-term medical condition. This will help reduce the impact of absence on the employee, services and colleagues e.g.:
higher levels of stress and low morale
extra work for work colleagues, added pressure with impact on morale lost production, missed work targets and delays disruption to services and service users additional salary costs to cover sickness absence loss of competitive edge over other service providers failure to meet Best Value indicators and/or other performance targets
Any concerns as to employees abusing the sickness arrangements or failing to report absence may be dealt with under the Disciplinary Procedure. Representation
Employees may only be accompanied / represented at meetings during the formal process (at 4.3-4.5) by a work colleague or a trade union official.
It is the employee's responsibility to arrange their representation and to inform their representative of the arrangements (time and dates) of meetings.
## Records
Records should be kept of all Absence Reviews and Hearings, detailing the following:
the employee's absence record; the employee's response and/or explanation; action taken and the reasons for it; whether an appeal was lodged and it's outcome; and any subsequent developments
Records should be confidential and kept in accordance with the requirements of
the Procedure and the Data Protection Act 1998.
## Monitoring
The application of the Procedure will be monitored closely and reviewed annually in consultation with management and the trade unions.
## 3. Roles And Responsibilities Employee'S Responsibility
The Council, as part of the normal employment contract, expects the following from its employees:-
that they attend work on the days and times they are contracted to be
working and provide a satisfactory explanation for any absence from duty;
compliance with the Council's absence procedures as detailed in the
"Guidance on Sickness Absence and Reporting Arrangements";
compliance with reasonable orders, instructions, requirements, and
observance of Council practices, policies and procedures.
Employees must comply with arrangements detailed in this Procedure which are designed to ensure that concerns about sickness absence and/or attendance are dealt with fairly and objectively. Employees are required to:
Fully co-operate with the sickness absence and reporting arrangements;
Notify and speak to their line-manager/supervisor in person on the 1st and
each day of uncertified absence and keep them informed as to the reason(s) and likely duration of absence as required by their manager;
Provide medical certificates ("Statement of Fitness for Work") on the 8th
calendar day of sickness and to cover their absence from then or when they are hospitalised and/or as required by their manager;
Enter their sickness absence on Oracle HR Self Service (where they
have access to this) or complete a Return to Work (Self Certificate) Form;
Participate in "return to work" interviews; Notify their line-manager/supervisor of any issues that may affect their
attendance at work and of any reasonable adjustments to be considered;
Attend any medical appointments/examinations organised by the Council; Maintain confidentiality;
Attend meetings at the time and place designated; Give as much notice as possible when they or their representative cannot
attend formal meetings and be reasonable when suggesting alternatives, (which must be within 5 working days of the original date).
## Manager'S Responsibility
Managers must ensure that their employees are made aware of the standards expected and that:
Employees are aware of the sickness absence arrangements and for
reporting absence to their line manager/ supervisor;
Employees enter their sickness absence on Oracle HR Self Service
(where they have access to this);
Employees are aware of the support that is available including the
Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) and Access to Work (ATW);
Where appropriate, reasonable adjustments are made for employees
Managers must comply with arrangements detailed in this Procedure which are designed to ensure that concerns about sickness absence and/or attendance are dealt with fairly and objectively. Managers are required to:
Manage absence levels within their own service areas and take
appropriate action when the "trigger points" are reached;
Ensure that sickness absence is entered on Oracle HR Self Service, the
line manager is responsible for entering this where employees do not
have access to Oracle or on the 4th consecutive day of absence;
Carry out a "return to work" interview for every sickness absence and
record this on Oracle HR Self-service;
Ensure that medical certificates are provided as required and forward
copies to Payroll promptly to avoid any over/underpayments of salary;
Maintain regular contact with employees on sick leave, especially those
on long-term absence and ensure that the employee is aware of their responsibility to keep in touch and at what intervals;
Notify the employee of any concerns about their sickness absence and/or
attendance;
Maintain confidentiality; Try and resolve concerns about sickness absence and/or attendance or
as they arise with the employee through informal discussion and advice, (this may include referral to Occupational Health) before the "triggers" are reached:
Ensure that any actions and/or reasonable adjustments agreed following
referral to Occupational Health or Access to Work (ATW) are implemented;
Consult the Human Resources Employee Relations Team before
proceeding to the formal stages of the Procedure.
Employee supervision
Any concerns should be raised and investigated by the employee's immediate supervisor/manager at the "return to work" interview and as part of the normal supervision process. This includes identifying with the employee any issues that may affect the individual's attendance.
## Absence Reviews
The purpose of the Absence Review is to formally review with the employee their sickness absence and any underlying causes; why the absence is causing concern and the impact on the service and work colleagues; and how to reduce the level of absence. It is intended as a supportive not a "disciplinary" process and will be conducted by the employee's line-manager. HR will also attend the meeting and the employee may be represented. Advice should be sought from the Human Resources, Employee Relations Team if there are any concerns as to arrangements for the Absence Review.
## Absence Hearings
Hearings where sanctions e.g. warnings or dismissal may be considered will be conducted by a Corporate or Divisional Director or Group Manager with the authority to chair a hearing and to issue any sanctions.
In the case of JNC officers, a Member Panel consisting of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council (as Chair and Deputy Chair respectively), the relevant port-folio holder, plus at least two other councillors:
i) will make decisions in respect of the dismissal and consider disciplinary
action in respect of all JNC Officers with the exception of the Chief Executive (Head of Paid Service), Monitoring Officer and Chief Financial
Officer (Section 151 Officer), whose cases will additionally require the involvement of an independent person, and
ii) in the case of dismissal, be subject to recommendations to the Assembly.
## Occupational Health Employees Should Not Be Automatically Referred On Reaching The "Trigger Points" Unless There Is A Specific Need For Occupational Health Advice E.G. Is There Any Need To Refer An Employee Whose Absence Is Due To A Broken Limb?
Line managers may, after discussion with the Human Resources Employee Relation Team, refer employees to Occupational Health at any time when there is a concern as to the individual's health or reason(s) for absence. Where employees submit a medical statement giving stress, (including anxiety or depression), as the reason for absence, they should be automatically referred by the manager to Occupational Health after 2 weeks continuous absence. Occupational Health will seek the employee's consent if they need to contact the individual's doctor or an independent medical practitioner; if consent is refused, Occupational Health will advise managers on the information available to them.
Reasonable adjustments and Access to Work (ATW)
Under the Equality Act 2010, there is a duty to make "reasonable adjustments"
to enable disabled employees to remain in employment; examples may include:
Special equipment, aids and adaptations Altering working hours and times Making provision for additional absence for disability related treatment Adjustments to premises or changing the actual place of work Transfer of some duties to another post Transferring or redeploying the employee to a suitable alternative post
Guidance on reasonable adjustments and ATW is available on the HR Intranet site at: http://lbbdstaff/HR/Pages/equality.aspx
## Human Resources
Procedural advice must always be sought from Human Resources. A Human Resources Adviser will attend all formal Absence Reviews, Absence Hearings and Appeals (at 4.3-4.5), to ensure a thorough and fair process for all concerned in line with the Council's procedures and "Best Practice". Human Resources will be available to give appropriate support and advice during the process; this will include:-
talking through the process to be followed
where to go for further help and support
Head of Human Resources
The Head of Human Resources and his/her named representative, has the overriding authority to ensure that concerns about sickness absence and/or attendance are dealt with appropriately and in accordance with this Procedure, employment legislation and "Best Practice".
## 4. Absence Process
It is essential that any concerns as the employee's sickness absence and/or attendance are raised with the individual as soon as possible; this will normally be done through the "return to work" interview or regular supervision meetings. In accordance with the principles of natural justice, employees will be advised at each stage, by their manager of the precise nature of the concerns about their absence or attendance and given the opportunity to respond before any decision is made. The individual will also have the right of appeal against any action taken e.g. warnings or dismissal, after a Hearing.
Employees will not be dismissed before the matter has been discussed at an absence review meeting where the employee will be given an opportunity, to reduce their sickness absence and/or to return to work, and other alternatives considered e.g. reasonable adjustments or redeployment if appropriate.
## 4.1 Managing Attendance And Sickness Absence
The intention is to try and resolve concerns about the employee's sickness absence and/or attendance informally where possible, and to help them improve their attendance record and/or to return to work where possible. It is important to try and identify whether:
i) there are any underlying reasons for intermittent or short-term absence; ii) there is any support that may be provided to employees on long-term
sickness and to help them back into work (See Appendix 2);
iii) reasonable adjustments have been considered for employees including
those with a disability or long-term medical condition.
Managers also need to ensure that:
the employee has been made aware of the absence reporting
arrangements and support available to staff e.g. Staff Welfare Line;
the employee has had "return to work" interviews, and regular supervision
/ 1-1 meetings;
where appropriate reasonable adjustments have been made for
employees (and that these are being used and supportive);
the employee has been made aware of any concerns and given a
reasonable opportunity to reduce their absence and/or return to work.
The employee should be kept informed of the nature of the concerns, the level of improvement required and the time limit for achieving this. They should also
be advised that failure to reduce their sickness absence and improve their attendance may lead to formal action being taken.
In long-term sickness cases, managers should maintain regular contact with the employee and obtain medical advice as early as possible as to the prognosis and what support may help them return to work.
## 4.2 "Trigger Points"
The "trigger points" are those where managers are required to take appropriate action according to the circumstances of the case i.e.:
Meeting the employee to discuss
- their sickness absence and attendance and the impact at work - support that may be available e.g. Staff Welfare line or parental leave
see Appendix 2
Encourage the employee to contact Access to Work (ATW) or refer them
to Occupational Health (after discussion with the Human Resources Employee Relation Team
Progress to a formal Absence Review
Managers should take into account the reason(s) for sickness absence and the employee's attendance record i.e. if they have not taken any sickness during the previous three years and a certified period of absence e.g. for flu, then takes them past the "trigger points", it may not be appropriate to progress to a formal Absence Review on that occasion but it may be if there is any further absence. It is important to note that the "trigger points":
i.
are not for referrals to Occupational Health and managers should only refer employees where they need specific medical advice;
ii.
may exclude absence agreed as a reasonable adjustment for time-off taken to attend appointments or rehabilitation specifically related to disability, (or whilst waiting for agreed adjustments to be implemented).
The amount that may be allowed as a reasonable adjustment will depend on the individual circumstances of the case and the needs of the service.
iii.
will exclude absence specifically related to maternity or pregnancy but advice must be sought from the Human Resources, Employee Relations Team in these cases.
Managers should take advice from the Human Resources, Employees
Relations Team as to what absence may be excluded. Pregnancy related illness should not be included when using the trigger points.
The minimum "trigger points", (which will be reviewed annually), for entry to the formal stages as follows;
3 separate occasions of sickness within any 12 month rolling period; or 7 days sickness absence within any 12 month rolling period or
any absence or pattern of absence that causes concern * A points level (to be agreed) based on the number of days and periods of
absence, using the "Bradford factor"
* this includes sickness immediately before or after annual/flexi leave,
weekends or public holidays; or on days where requests for leave have not been approved; or during events e.g. Wimbledon or World Cup; or where
employees reached the sickness absence trigger points in previous years)
## 4.3 Absence Review
Managers must consult Human Resources before proceeding to an Absence Review. The Absence Review will be conducted by the employee's line manager and a Human Resources Adviser will attend to provide procedural advice. The manager may arrange for a note-taker to be present where they agree this is necessary, following discussion with Human Resources Employee Relation Team. (If notes are taken and the employee disagrees with these, they can ask for their version to be attached). The manager will write and give the employee a minimum of 5 working days notice of the date and arrangements for the Absence Review including:
a copy of their sickness record, including the dates and reasons given;
details of any reasonable adjustments agreed and provided;
their right to be represented; The employee may be accompanied by a fellow work colleague or a trade union official and is responsible for arranging their representation. If the employee's chosen representative is unable to attend, the Absence Review will be rescheduled to a mutually convenient time no more than 5 working days after the date originally proposed.
The employee will be notified in writing that if they fail to attend the re-arranged Absence Review without good reason, or to arrange representation, the review may be heard in their absence. The purpose of the Absence Review is to:
Confirm the dates and periods of sickness absence in the previous 12
month period and ensure that the records are accurate and up to date.
Review the employee's sickness absence and explore any underlying
causes.
Give the employee an opportunity to explain the circumstances of their
absence and to bring to their manager's attention any disability or any
other circumstances that may affect their health or attendance at work.
Explain and ensure that the employee understands the effects of any
period of sickness absence on the work of the team, group, department and the ability of the Council to meet its service delivery objectives.
Consider further options to help reduce the employee's level of absence.
These include referral to Occupational Health or Access to Work following discussion with the Human Resources Employee Relations Team.
Review the type of work that they do including exploring the option of
reasonable adjustments for a defined period and/or where appropriate, redeployment.
Explain why the absence levels are unacceptable and that formal action
and dismissal under the Procedure is likely to result if they continue to breach the "trigger" levels or are unable to return to their substantive post.
The manager will notify the employee in writing of the outcome of the Absence Review within 5 working days, and inform them that any further absence during the following monitoring/review period of up to 12 months may result in a further review meeting or the convening of an absence hearing. In long term sickness cases, a date should be agreed for another absence review meeting or an absence hearing depending on the circumstances of the case and likely date of return. The outcome letter will include:-
-
The period of absence(s)
-
The employee's reason(s) for absence.
-
The action plan, including arrangements for the monitoring/review period.
-
Where dismissal may be considered i.e, if they fail to meet the required improvement, or, are unlikely to return from long-term absence.
A copy of the letter should be passed to Human Resources Employee Relation Team to place on their personal file.
Monitoring/Review Period
The manager must continue to monitor the employee's sickness absence and/or attendance during the review period and ensure that any support and training agreed is provided.
Where at the end of the review period, the employee has achieved the required improvement no further action will be taken.
## 4.4 Absence Hearing
The arrangements for the Absence Hearing follow the same process as for a Absence Review but will be conducted by a Corporate or Divisional Director or Manager with the authority to chair a hearing and to issue any sanctions e.g. issue warnings or dismissal (or Member Panel for JNC Officers). The management case should normally be presented by the line manager who will arrange for the employee to be formally advised in writing of the date and arrangements for the Absence Hearing, including the right to be accompanied by a fellow work colleague or a trade union official.
The arrangements for the Absence Hearing are detailed at Appendix 3.
Outcome The purpose of the Absence Hearing is to:
Confirm the dates and periods of sickness absence and ensure that the
records are accurate and up to date.
Review the employee's absence record and the latest medical opinion. Give the employee an opportunity to explain the circumstances of their
absence and to bring to the Hearing Officer's attention any disability or
other relevant issues affecting their health or attendance at work and/or any mitigating circumstances.
Review the type of work that the employee does and the impact of
sickness absence on service delivery and work colleagues.
Review the support that has been provided and any previous efforts to
help the employee back to work and/or improve attendance, including reasonable adjustments.
Where appropriate, consider the availability of suitable alternative work if
requested by Occupational Health.
Each case will be considered on its merits and when considering an outcome the Hearing Officer should take into account:
The overall attendance record; The latest medical advice which may include Occupational Health reports; The likelihood of an improved attendance record being achieved by the
employee or the employee returning to work;
The effect of the employee's ill health or absence on the needs of the
service;
The employees explanation and any mitigating circumstances; Consideration of adaptations to the work and/or working environment,
including any further reasonable adjustments;
Options for redeployment if suggested by Occupational Health ; Whether the employee has previously been advised that there is a risk to
their continued employment and that they may be dismissed;
Whether the proposed decision is reasonable in all the circumstances
(talking into account the individual's service history and action taken in
similar cases). The Hearing Officer may decide from the following options:
i) Adjournment To adjourn the Hearing pending further consideration/ investigation of issues raised before reconvening to decide on the outcome. Where the employee wants to present additional medical reports, these must be submitted within 2 weeks of the date of the Hearing or the timescale agreed with the Hearing Officer and manager.
ii) No Further Action Where it is decided there is no need for further action at this time but the situation will be kept under review.
iii) Written warning - (Not for continuous long-term absence cases) The Hearing Officer should ensure that the employee is clear about
the reasons for the warning, and the consequences of failure to meet
and maintain the required attendance. The letter will set out the:
details of the sickness absence and/or unsatisfactory attendance employee's explanation and/or reasons attendance improvement plan and monitoring arrangements arrangements for any support during the Review Period timescale for the Review Period
The duration of the Review Period will depend on the circumstances of each case and is normally up to 12 months, starting from the date of the
letter notifying the employee of the outcome. The employee should be informed that any further absence during the review period will normally result in the matter being referred directly to an Absence Hearing where dismissal could be a possible outcome.
.
Note: Managers must ensure that any support agreed is provided as it will be unfair to progress the case back to an Absence Hearing if they themselves have not complied with the outcome.
iv) Dismissal
If it is considered that all agreed support mechanisms have been put in place and/or the employee cannot confirm a return to work date, the Hearing Officer may decide to dismiss; the employee will be paid in lieu of notice.
The Hearing Officer will notify the employee in writing of the outcome of the Hearing within 5 working days, including any recommendations, along with the right to appeal.
## 4.5 Appeals
Employees have the right to appeal against a warning or dismissal and if they wish to do so, they should write to HR Manager, Employee Relations within 10 working days of receiving the letter confirming the outcome of the Review or Hearing, stating the grounds for the appeal. Appeals against written warnings will be heard by a Corporate or Divisional Director. Appeals against dismissal will be heard by the Personnel Board. The Officer/Panel hearing the appeal may vary or confirm the decision made at an Absence Hearing but cannot increase the sanction.
## Note:
i)
A Director or Head of Service with the responsibility to chair an Appeal Hearing will hear appeals against sanctions against officers up to and including LSMR posts. Appeals against final warnings and dismissal will be heard by Members at a Personnel Board.
ii)
A Member Panel consisting of at least two Cabinet Members, one of
whom shall be appointed as Chair, plus two other councillors, subject to
none having participated in any previously appointed Panel relating to the case in question, to:
(i)
consider appeals in respect of dismissal and disciplinary action from JNC Officers;
(ii)
consider, with the involvement of a separate independent person, appeals in respect of disciplinary action against the Chief Executive (Head of Paid Service), Monitoring Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Section 151 Officer); and
(iii)
in the case of dismissal, this will be subject to recommendations to the Assembly
## This Is The Final Stage; There Is No Further Right Of Appeal. Appendix 1: Managing Attendance At Work (Sickness Absence) Procedure - Flowchart
Supervision (Informal)
## Employee Supervision
(Return to Work Interviews / Monthly supervision / "1-1's")
Line Manager carries out return to work interviews immediately after each absence and records this on Oracle Line Manager raises any concerns as to employee's attendance with them as soon as possible at the return to work interview or during the supervision process; managers should
-
ensure employees are aware of the EAP and other support arrangements
-
consider reasonable adjustments for disabled employees
Employee reaches the "Trigger Points"
Line-Manager must meet with the employee to discuss their absence and take action as follows:
i) Make sure that the employee knows what support is available; ii) Refer to Occupational Health if appropriate (after discussion with HR Employee Relation Teams); and iii) Decide that no further action is required at this time and record the reason(s) why; or
Progress to a formal Absence Review …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……
Absence Review (Formal)
Absence Review
Review / Monitoring Period
Line Manager explains concerns, including details of attempts to resolve these, with the employee and sets revised targets and timescale (up to 12 months) for improvement and/or review. In long-term sickness cases, a date should be set for another Absence Review (or an Absence Hearing) depending on the circumstances of the case and likely date of return.
Line Manager continues to monitor employee's sickness and/or attendance, and ensure that any support and/or training agreed is provided and being followed and/or used.
Note: The Line Manager does not have to wait to the end of the review period to reconvene an Absence Review or progress to an Absence Hearing where the employee is not meeting the targets or using the support provided.
No Further Action
where the employee reaches and
maintains required improvement
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Absence Hearing (Formal)
Absence Hearing
Where employee has not met and maintained the required
improvement or is unlikely to return to work
No Further Action
Written / Final Warning
(excluding long-term cases)
where the employee reaches and
maintains required improvement
with review period (up to 12 months)
Dismissal
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……
Appeal
Appeal
## Appendix 2: Details Of Support Arrangements
i) OHS&W support
http://lbbdstaff/HR/Pages/OHandHS.aspx
ii) Staff welfare line
http://lbbdstaff/HR/Pages/Employee-Welfare-Line.aspx
iii) Links to guidance on reasonable adjustments and the BDF practical
guides
**http://lbbdstaff/HR/Pages/**equality.aspx
## Iv) Access To Work
Further information
www.gov.uk/access-to-work
Access to Work Factsheet
Employer's Guide to Access to Work
Contact:
Telephone: **020 8426 3110**
Textphone: **020 8426 3133** Email: atwosu.london@jobcentreplus.gsi.gov.uk
## V) Special Leave And Time-Off Arrangements
http://lbbdstaff/HR/Pages/Holidayleave.aspx
## Appendix 3: Absence Hearing - Procedure 1. Introduction
The person hearing the case at the Hearing (the "Hearing Officer") will;
clarify the roles of those present; check both sides have copies of the documentation (and where appropriate, details of any witnesses to be presented); and outline the process to be followed.
The Hearing Officer will not normally allow any further documentation, (or
witnesses), to be presented unless both sides agree.
The manager presenting the case, the employee and their representative
will be present throughout the Hearing except for any adjournment and when the Hearing Officer is considering their decision.
Any witnesses will only be present when they are called to give their
evidence and to be questioned by the Hearing Officer, the management and staff sides.
The Hearing Officer and HR Adviser can ask questions of the manager,
the employee and/or their representative (and witnesses) at any time.
2. Management case
Management will present their case and call witnesses and refer to
documents as appropriate
After the presentation, the employee and/or their representative can ask
the management questions
Management will then have the opportunity to clarify any points raised
during questioning.
## 3. Employee Case
The employee and/or their representative will present their case and call
witnesses and refer to documents as appropriate.
After the presentation, management can ask the employee and/or their
representative questions.
The employee and/or their representative will then have the opportunity to
clarify any points raised during the questioning.
## 4. Summaries
Both sides, starting with management, will have the opportunity to
summarise their case if they wish. This is not a rehearing of the whole
case and neither side will be allowed to ask any further questions.
Both sides will then withdraw whilst the Hearing Officer considers their
decision. If it is necessary to recall the employee, manager or a witness to clarify points of uncertainty as to the evidence presented, this must be done in the presence of both parties who will be called back together.
## 5. Outcome
The Hearing Officer will recall both sides together to notify them of the
outcome. If further time is needed to consider the matter, both sides will be recalled and given an indication as to when a decision is to be made and allowed to leave.
The Hearing Officer will confirm the decision and any recommendation(s)
in writing within 5 working days and arrange for the notes of the meeting to be issued to both parties and the Human Resources Adviser as soon as possible afterwards.
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Call direct on 020 8215 3000
Out of hours emergencies only Phone: 020 8594 8356 Fax: 020 8227 3470 Email: 3000direct@lbbd.gov.uk Web: www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk We have tried to make sure that this information is correct at the time of going to print. However, information may change from time to time.
You must not copy this document without our permission © 2011 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham.
Date: Version 1B - 23 October 2013
Review Date: 31 March 2014 | en |
4336-pdf |
## Offender Management Statistics Bulletin, England And Wales Quarterly October To December 2015 Annual January To December 2015 Ministry Of Justice Statistical Bulletin 28 April 2016 Introduction
This bulletin provides the latest statistics relating to offenders who are in prison or supervised in the community in England and Wales. The statistics are presented in detail, with commentary, and with reference to longer term trends. The bulletin covers the prison population as at 31 March 2016 and the probation caseload as at 31 December 2015, and compares them to the same time in the previous year. This bulletin also covers prison receptions and probation starts, as the flows into these services, and releases from prison and probation terminations, as the flows out of these services. For each of these topics the bulletin reports on the quarter October to December 2015, compared to the same period in the previous year. Further coverage is also provided for these topics on an annual basis for the year January to December 2015. Due to improvements in IT, statistics on prison receptions, releases and adjudications have changed to a new data source. As a result, this edition of the bulletin is accompanied by a statistical notice 'Changes to offender management statistics: quarterly and annual editions' which provides detail on the changes to the reporting of the affected statistics. Commentary in this bulletin for prison receptions and releases, unless otherwise stated, is based on the old data source. To support users in the transition to the new data source, statistics produced on both the old and new data source (for statistics from 1 January 2015 onwards) have been presented in the quarterly and annual prison receptions and releases tables. Future editions of quarterly prison receptions and releases tables will only present statistics produced from the new data source. Commentary in this bulletin for adjudications is based on the new data source and a singular table highlighting the differences between the old and new data sources has been provided in the adjudication tables. As a result of these changes, the accompanying documentation for this bulletin has been updated. Further information about background, data definitions and measurements and data quality issues can be found in the 'Guide to Offender Management Statistics'. The next edition of this bulletin, covering the period January to March 2016, with prison population figures as at 30 June 2016, will be published on 28 July 2016 at
9.30am.
## Key Findings
The total number of prisoners has remained relatively stable over the last twelve months to 31 March 2016 with a decrease of fewer than 250 prisoners. The composition of those on remand, sentenced and non-criminal population, however, has changed.
The sentenced prison population continues to shift towards to a population serving longer determinate sentences. Then number of prisoners serving determinate sentences of four years or more continued to increase. Prisoners serving a determinate sentence of ten years of more now account for 9% of the prison population.
Prison receptions and releases for determinate sentences decreased across all sentence lengths over the last year. Even admissions (previously called receptions) for determinate sentences of four years or more decreased slightly over the last year, rather than slightly increasing as has been the recent trend.
The total number of adjudication outcomes increased between 2013 and 2015. The number of proven adjudications in 2015 increased by 15% when compared to the previous year, which continues the increasing trend observed since 2013.
The number of releases on temporary licence in 2015 fell by 26% when compared to the previous year. In 2015 there was the lowest number of temporary release failures in a year since 2002. Furthermore, the temporary release failure rate has more than halved since 2002.
The Offender Rehabilitation Act (ORA) 2014 expanded licence supervision so that anyone sentenced to more than a day in prison will receive at least 12 months supervision on release. This continues to increase both the probation caseload and the number of offenders recalled to the end of December 2015.
The total annual probation caseload stood at around 241,000 at the end of December 2015, up 11% on the end of December 2014. The court order caseload (offenders on community orders (COs) and suspended sentence order (SSOs)) rose by 2%, with the CO caseload falling 1% but the SSO caseload rising by 8% between the quarters ending December 2014 and 2015.
A total of around 5,800 offenders were recalled to custody between October and December 2015. Almost 2,000 of these were serving a sentence of less than 12 months, which only become eligible for recall as a result of ORA and explain the entire 28% increase in licence recalls compared with the same period in 2014.
The proportion of offenders not retuned to custody by the end of December 2015, following a licence recall over the whole period 1999 to the end of December 2015, remained stable with only 6 in every 1,000 prisoners not being returned to custody.
## Prison Population
The total number of prisoners has remained relatively stable over the last twelve months to 31 March 2016 with an overall decrease of fewer than 250 prisoners. The composition of those on remand, sentenced and the non-criminal population, however, has changed. The sentenced population has increased by 3% compared to 31 March 2015. In contrast, the remand population decreased by 15% when compared to the same point in 2015. There has been a 19% decrease in the noncriminal population, which may reflect changes in the National Offender Management Service (NOMS)-operated Immigration Removal Centre estate, including the decommissioning of detention places at Haslar Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) from April 2015 and Dover IRC from November 2015. The demographics of the overall prison population are also changing. The 'Story of the Prison Population 1993 to 2012' provides an in-depth look at what happened to the prison population between 1993 and 2012 and the major factors contributing to the changes. Figure 1 presents an overview of the prison population since 1996, including the annual percentage change by quarter.
## Remand
Since early 2015, the remand population has steadily decreased to 10,066 prisoners as at 31 March 2016. This is consistent with the decreasing number of outstanding cases for the Crown Court (see Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly). The number of prisoners on remand for possession of weapons continues to follow the trend from last quarter and increased by 19% compared to 31 March 2015. This may be due to changes in the volume and nature of prosecutions for knife crime or linked to the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Under the 2015 Act, offenders aged 18 or over convicted of a second offence of possession of a blade or offensive weapon sentenced on or after 17 July 2015 now face a minimum custodial sentence of six months or four months if the offender is aged between 16 or 17. In contrast, prisoners remanded in custody for miscellaneous crimes against society and theft offences decreased by 20% and 22% respectively compared to the same point in 2015.
Sentenced In line with the long term trend, the sentenced population increased slightly (3%), however its composition continues to change. The number of prisoners serving sentences of less than four years decreased slightly (1%) whereas those serving determinate sentences of four years or more continued to increase, by 5% over the twelve months to 31 March 2016. Much of this is attributable to the expanding population serving an extended determinate sentence (EDS) and as at 31 March 2016, 4% of the sentenced prison population (2,689 prisoners) were serving an EDS. A small part of this increase is also due to legislative change implemented by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 which saw a new type of determinate sentence, the Special Custodial Sentence for Certain Offenders of Particular Concern (Section 236A), introduced for the most serious violent and sexual offenders. This was made available for courts to impose from 13 April 2015 and as at 31 March 2016, 52 prisoners were serving such sentences.
Over a third (35%) of the total prison population was serving a determinate sentence of four years or more, excluding indeterminate sentences, on 31 March 2016. 7,916 prisoners, representing 9% of the total prison population, were serving determinate sentences of ten years or more, excluding EDSs, as at 31 March 2016.
The rise in the long determinate sentenced population is in line with the increasing number of sentenced sex offenders. At the end of March 2016, there were 12,240 sentenced sex offenders in the prison population, which is 10% higher than twelve months before. The number of prisoners serving immediate custodial sentences for sexual offences is now at its highest level. This is consistent with the recent 'Crime in England and Wales' bulletin from the Office for National Statistics that reported the highest number of sexual offences recorded by the police since 2002/03, for the year ending December 2015.
In contrast, the sentenced population for violence against the person offences remains the largest sentenced population by offence group and has increased by 3% over the last year to March 2016. Sentenced offenders for possession of weapons also showed an increase of 25% compared to the same time last year. These substantial increases can be attributed to a range of factors, including targeted police operations against knife crime in February 2015 and the same changes outlined earlier that may have led to increases in the number of prisoners on remand for the same offence group.
The number of prisoners serving indeterminate sentences, which consist of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences and life sentences, was down 6% on the previous year, to 11,505. As a result of the abolition of the IPP sentence in 2012, offenders are no longer receiving these sentences and prisoners are only being released or recalled. Consequently, the decrease in the indeterminate sentenced population can be explained almost entirely by the declining IPP population. In the longer term, the IPP population has fallen by 31% from 6,017 as at the end of March 2012 to 4,133 as at the end of March 2016. Over the last twelve months alone, the IPP population has fallen by 13% from 4,756 to 4,133. The number of IPP prisoners who are post-tariff has decreased slightly in the last twelve months (down 7%), however the proportion of the population post-tariff continues to increase; 81% of IPP prisoners are now post-tariff compared to 75% this time last year. The number of life sentenced prisoners remained stable at just under 7,400. There were 54 whole-life prisoners at the end of March 2016, with five additional life prisoners being treated in secure hospitals. As at 31 March 2016, there were 11,145 male prisoners serving IPP and Life sentences (4,062 and 7,083 respectively), whilst there were 360 female prisoners serving IPP and Life sentences (71 and 289 respectively).
Recall to Custody The prison population who have been recalled to custody continues to rise; by 15% over the year to 6,564 prisoners. This may be one of the reasons behind the slight increase in the sentenced prison population. A combination of factors may be driving this growth in the recalled population. The Offender Rehabilitation Act (ORA) 2014 expanded licence supervision so that anyone sentenced to more than a day in prison will receive at least 12 months supervision on release. These individuals are therefore eligible to be recalled to custody, whereas previously this was not the case.
As at 31 March 2016, there were 620 prisoners recorded as being recalled to custody from licence as a result of ORA, which represents 9% of the total recall population. Over time, the numbers of released IPP prisoners recalled to custody has also increased slightly, which may also be a contributing factor.
Foreign National Offenders The foreign national population held in custody and NOMS-operated IRCs remained just below 10,000 offenders; 9,971 as at 31 March 2016. This represents a decrease of 5% compared to 31 March 2015. This is due mainly to the withdrawal of Home Office commissioned places at Haslar IRC in April 2015 and Dover IRC in November 2015. The foreign national population, however, still represents just under 12% of the total prison population. The five most common nationalities after British Nationals in prisons in England and Wales are Polish, Irish, Romanian, Jamaican and Albanian, accounting for approximately one third of the foreign national population and one in twenty of the prison population overall.
## Prison Receptions
In this and subsequent editions of Offender Management Statistics, to aid users with the understanding of prison receptions data, the term "first reception" will be reserved for describing unique individuals that are first received into prison custody from court for a particular set of offences committed. This will give the best indication of the number of new prisoners in the reporting period. The term "admission" will be used to describe counts of individuals that either enter custody or who have a change in their custody status in the reporting period. A prisoner's admission type is counted as untried, convicted unsentenced, and sentenced each time they are first classified according to their custody status following a court hearing. This means that prisoners can be counted in more than one of these admission categories if their custody status changes as they progress through the Criminal Justice System in the reporting period. Due to improvements in IT systems, a new breakdown of recall admissions which count every instance a prisoner is first received into custody following a licence recall issued from a probation supervising body will be reported from 2015 onwards. Further details of the terminology and counting procedures used to report prison receptions can be found in the 'Guide to Offender Management Statistics' published alongside this bulletin.
Summary of annual statistics
Over the latest year ending 31 December 2015 the overall volume of sentenced admissions remained stable at 77,240, however the length of the custodial sentences were affected in different manners.
A 4% decrease was observed in the number of determinate sentences of less than or equal to six months. In contrast, the number of sentenced admissions of longer determinate sentences of four year or more increased by 7%. This continues the trend for decreased numbers of short determinate sentences and increased numbers of longer determinate sentences over the last five years.
Part of the increase in sentenced admissions on to longer determinate sentences can be attributed to legislative changes in 2012 which abolished the IPP (Imprisonment for Public Protection) sentence and replaced it with a new Extended Determinate Sentence (EDS).
There were increases in the number of sentenced admissions for violence against the person (3%) and sexual offences (10%), with the number of sentenced admissions for sexual offences being at its highest level since 1990 (based on years for which figures are available). In contrast, there were large decreases in the number of sentenced admissions for robbery (14%) and theft and handling (9%) continuing the falling trend observed for these offence groups in recent years.
The number of adult untried admissions fell by 4% when compared to the previous year in contrast to a decrease of less than 0.5% in adult sentenced admissions. However the demographic composition of the adults admitted have shown discernible trends with a continued fall in the number of admissions of younger adults aged 21 to 24 (28% decrease) and steeper
rises seen in the number of admission for adults over the age of 60 (28% increase) when compared to 2011.
Juvenile (15-17 year olds) and young adult (18-20 years olds) remand
(untried or convicted unsentenced) and sentenced admissions saw a larger decline than adults over the previous year. In particular, for 18 to 20 year olds, untried admissions fell by 13% and sentenced admissions fell by 14% when compared to the previous year. The fall in sentenced admissions is largely attributable to the fall in sentenced admissions on to determinate sentences of less than 4 years. The recent pattern of steep decreases for the prison admissions in this age group has continued and also can be observed in the lower proportion of the prison population being attributed to young adults.
## Summary Of Quarterly Statistics
A total of 23,595 offenders were received into custody as first receptions in the quarter ending December 2015 and a fall of 6% on the same quarter in the previous year.
There was a 6% fall in untried admissions and a 4% fall in convicted unsentenced admissions when compared to the same quarter last year. The fall in the number of sentenced admissions was less pronounced with a 2% decrease. This continues the trend of decreases in all categories of admissions observed in the previous quarters.
The decline in sentenced admissions has been driven by a fall in admissions of immediate custodial sentences across all sentence length categories when compared to the same quarter last year.
There were moderate increases observed in the number of sentenced admissions for sexual offences (6%) and drug offences (5%) when compared to the same quarter in the previous year. This trend can also be observed in the number of individuals serving immediate custodial sentences for these
offences in the prison population.
## Experimental Statistics: Former Members Of The Armed Forces
In December 2014, the Government published a response to the review of ex-armed forces in the criminal justice system. In line with recommendation 2, NOMS have been recording whether remand and newly sentenced prisoners self-report as a member of the armed services on first reception into prison through the Basic Custody Screening Tool (BCST). Those individuals who are matched in both the BCST and appear as a first prison reception through the Prison-NOMIS system are taken forward as a cohort for these statistics. Figures presented in this publication are still in an exploratory stage and may be revised in subsequent releases according to developments in methodology and improvements in data quality. Former members of the armed forces accounted for 756 of the matched first receptions for the period October to December 2015. This accounts for approximately 5% of offenders who responded to the question asked.
## Adjudications
An adjudication is a formal disciplinary process within the prison estate and applies when a prisoner is suspected of committing an offence. Once an offence has been committed, an adjudication hearing must be opened for a decision to be made before a Governor or an Independent Adjudicator (depending on the seriousness of the offence). As in criminal courts, the standard of proof that must be met before a prisoner can be found guilty is "beyond reasonable doubt". If the charge against the prisoner is proved, the adjudicator should consider the appropriate punishment(s) taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the local punishment guidelines and any mitigation the prisoner may offer. This process will result in recording the outcome of the adjudication as *proven*. As a result of improvements to IT and resultant changes in methodology, statistics on adjudications have changed. For this edition of Offender Management Statistics this means that more detailed information about adjudications are available covering the years 2010 to 2015. The total number of adjudication outcomes increased between 2013 and 2015. Over the latest year ending 31 December 2015 the number of adjudication outcomes stood at 148,023, a rise of 16% on the number one year earlier. Of these, proven adjudications increased from 89,474 to 102,531, a rise of 15%, which continues the increasing trend observed since 2013. The total number of proven adjudications for the offence of disobedience or disrespect increased from 35,556 to 38,938 between 2014 and 2015, an increase of 10%. Similarly, the number of proven adjudications for violence increased by 10% over the same period. This is consistent with the recent 'Safety in Custody Statistics' bulletin that reported a sharp rise in the number of assault incidents. In terms of punishments, additional days added stood at 13,000 at the end of 2015, an increase of 27% compared with the end of 2014. The average number of punishments per offence increased from 1.29 to 1.78 in this one year period.
## Prison Releases Prison Releases From Custodial Sentences
For the purposes of Offender Management Statistics, the figures described for prison releases are a specific type of release which provide the best indication of the number of prisoners that have finished serving the custodial terms of their sentence. Further details of the counting procedures used to report prison releases can be found in the 'Guide to Offender Management Statistics' published alongside this bulletin.
Summary of annual statistics
In 2015, a total of 68,879 offenders were released from determinate sentences, a fall of 5% from 2014. This continues the trend of a falling number of releases observed since 2008. Much of this fall can be attributed to a falling number of prison receptions for shorter determinate sentences (less than 12 months) throughout the period.
Further, 831 offenders were released from indeterminate sentences in 2015, which is 163 more than the number released in 2014 and up 693 from its lowest value in 2006. The longer term increases are mainly due to a rise in the number of offenders released from Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences which were introduced in 2005 and abolished in 2012.
## Summary Of Quarterly Statistics
A total of 17,822 offenders were released from custody in the quarter ending December 2015, a fall of 4% compared with the same quarter last year. This is largely attributable to decreases in releases across all determinate sentence length bands.
There were 131 prisoners released from an IPP sentence and a further 57 from a life sentence, which when taken together, have increased
indeterminate releases by 19% compared to the same quarter last year.
In addition, 10 indeterminate sentenced prisoners were removed under the Tariff Expired Removal Scheme (TERS) in the latest quarter. This scheme allows indeterminate sentenced foreign national prisoners, who are liable to removal from the UK, to be deported from the country on or after the date of their tariff expiry without referral to the Parole Board. The scheme began in May 2012, and there had been 348 removals in total by the end of 2015.
## Home Detention Curfew
The number of releases on Home Detention Curfew (HDC) in 2015 fell by 3% to 8,319 when compared to the number of releases in 2014. To be considered for release under HDC an offender must be serving a sentence of between 3 months and less than 4 years, and the number of offenders in the prison population serving such sentences has been slowly falling (4% decrease
between December 2014 and December 2015).
The transition to a new data has allowed more accurate reporting of the number of offenders recalled during the HDC period. In the new data source, of those released on HDC in 2015, 565 (7%) were recalled to custody during their HDC period by 31 March 2016. Those serving sentence lengths of 2
years to less than 4 years (50%) were the largest proportion of individuals recalled.
## Release On Temporary Licence
Release on temporary licence (ROTL) is a mechanism that enables prisoners to participate in necessary activities, outside of the prison establishment, that directly contribute to their resettlement into the community and their development of a purposeful, law-abiding life.
In 2015, there were 333,286 incidences of prisoners being released on temporary licence; this is a fall of 26% compared to 2014, and is the lowest number of incidences since 2003.
This continues the trend of significantly falling numbers of incidences of ROTL since 2013, where the number of incidences recorded was at its highest level. This continuous fall can likely be attributed to remedial action to tighten ROTL processes following serious failures in 2013.
In 2015, 6,758 *individuals* received ROTL, a fall of 30% when compared to the previous year. However, the average number of release incidences per individual remained at a broadly similar level with each prisoner receiving approximately 50 releases.
Between October and December 2015, there were 79,842 incidences of ROTL from prisons in England and Wales. This is a 19% reduction since the same period in 2014; all types of licence showed decreases. The number of ROTL incidences for females increased by 7%, compared to a 21% decrease for males over the same period.
The number of individuals given at least one instance of ROTL between October and December 2015 was 3,514, which represents a 15% decrease over the year. Of the individuals given at least one instance of ROTL, 21% were on an indeterminate sentence.
The number of recorded temporary release failures (TRFs) between October and December 2015 was 49, which is an increase of 15 since the same quarter on the previous year. TRFs as a proportion of temporary release incidences has increased compared to October to December 2014, from 35 failures per 100,000 incidences of release to 61 in October to December 2015. The increase in the rate of failures can be attributed to the implementation of improved recording of TRFs.
In total there were 162 TRFs in the year 2015, making this the lowest number of failures in a year since 2002. Furthermore, there were 49 failures per 100,000 incidences of release, meaning the failure rate has more than halved since 2002.
## Prisoner Transfers
The transition to the new data source has allowed the reporting of transfers of prisoners between establishments in England and Wales. A prisoner may be transferred to another establishment for a variety of reasons including overcrowding drafts necessitated by operational needs, or a change in the prisoners' security status which results in a movement to an alternative category prison. The new data shows that in 2015, there were a total of 95,631 incidences of prisoner transfer, with a substantial amount (69%) being recorded as routine inter-prison transfers whilst 2,043 (2%) incidences of transfer were a result of overcrowding drafts. Further, 60,896 prisoners had at least one incidence of transfer in 2015.
## Probation
Transforming Rehabilitation is a reform programme that is changing the way offenders are managed in the community. Since the 1 June 2014, Probation Trusts have been replaced by the National Probation Service (NPS), which manages the most high-risk offenders across seven divisions; and 21 new Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), who manage medium and low-risk offenders.
Summary of annual statistics The total annual probation caseload (court orders and pre and post release supervision) increased by 39% between 2000 and 2008 to 243,434. Since then the probation caseload fell year on year, reaching 217,359 at the end of 2014. However, at the end of December 2015, the total caseload stood at 241,144, up 11% on the number one year earlier. This recent rise is mainly due to statutory supervision on release from prison for all offenders given custodial sentences of more than one day.
The total court order caseload (offenders on community orders (COs) and suspended sentence orders (SSOs)) fell 17% between 2010 and 2015, largely reflecting the fall in the community order. This reflects a similar trend in those starting supervision, where the number of court order starts fell by 18% between 2010 and 2015, also reflecting the fall in community orders. These falls further reflect those seen in community orders given as sentences by the courts in England and Wales over the past five years.
The number of court reports prepared by the Probation Service fell by 25% between 2010 and 2015 to 159,278. After a downward trend to the end of 2014 the number of court reports increased in the last year. The volume of court reports increased by 10% between the quarters ending December 2014 and 2015, rising from 36,159 to 39,801. In general, courts follow the sentences proposed in pre-sentence reports (PSRs), particularly where an immediate custodial sentence has been recommended. In 2015 around 81% of such proposed sentences in PSRs resulted in immediate custody.
## Summary Of Quarterly Statistics
Looking at the most recent quarterly trends, the court order caseload rose by 2%, with the CO caseload falling by 1% but the SSO caseload rising by 8% between the quarters ending December 2014 and 2015. The increase in SSOs is likely to be related to changes under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012, which provided for custodial sentences of two years or less to be suspended where previously only custodial sentences of 12 months or less could be suspended. The number of offenders starting COs fell by 1% over this period, while starts of SSOs with requirements increased by 6%. In addition, in the quarter ending December 2015 there were 2,904 (an increase of 35%) starts of SSOs without requirements attached. This brings the total number of stand-alone SSO starts to more than 21,000 since they were introduced under the LASPO Act 2012 (see Guide to Offender Management Statistics).
The caseload of offenders supervised before or after release from prison increased by 23% between the quarters ending December 2014 and 2015, whilst the number of pre-release supervision starts has more than doubled, rising from 10,264 to 25,109. This is due to the introduction of the Offender Rehabilitation Act (ORA) 2014 on 1 February 2015, where all offenders given custodial sentences of more than one day are now subject to statutory supervision on release from prison. Previously only adults sentenced to over 12 months in custody and all young offenders were subject to statutory supervision. ORA also made provision for those sentenced to under 2 years in custody to receive a period of 'post sentence' supervision after their licence expires to make sure they get 12 months supervision in the community. If this period is breached, the offender can be taken back to court and given a supervision default order to be served in the community or committed to prison for up to 14 days. In the quarter ending December 2015, 90 offenders were given a supervision default order and 56 were committed to prison for such a breach. With regards to the number of requirements started under court orders, there has again been a marked rise in standalone curfews, and in standalone unpaid work given under SSOs. This may reflect the continuing impact of a mandatory punitive requirement in every court order, introduced from December 2013 under the Crime and Courts Act 2013. There have generally been falls across the other requirements, with the supervision requirement in particular being replaced by the rehabilitation requirement introduced under ORA. Of the court orders terminated in the quarter ending December 2015, 71% of community orders were terminated successfully; they either ran their full course or were terminated early for good progress. For the supervision periods of suspended sentence orders, 71% were also terminated successfully over this period.
## Licence Recalls
A key element of public protection is that offenders released on licence should be effectively supervised in the community and swiftly recalled to custody if they breach their licence or if their behaviour gives cause for concern. It is explained to offenders at the outset that they are liable to be recalled to custody if they breach any of the conditions of their licence. There are various reasons why offenders are recalled to custody for breaching their licence conditions besides committing a further offence. For example, an offender may be recalled if there is any deterioration in behaviour which leads NOMS to conclude that there is an increased risk of the offender committing further offences.
Summary of quarterly and annual statistics
In the period between October and December 2015, 5,813 offenders were recalled for breaching the conditions of their licence, representing an increase of 28% compared to the same period in 2014.
This is entirely due to the implementation of the Offender Rehabilitation Act (ORA) 2014, which expanded licence supervision so that anyone sentenced to more than a day in prison will receive at least 12 months supervision on release. This came into effect for those sentenced from 1 February 2015.
Of these 5,813 licence recalls, 1,965 were for offenders serving a sentence of less than 12 months. Without these, recalls would have fallen by 15% compared with October to December 2014.
The most common reason for offenders being recalled in this period was as a result of being charged with a further offence, with 45% of recalls between October and December 2015 having a further charge recorded as one of the reasons for recall.
Over the whole of 2015, 21,467 offenders were recalled for breaching the
conditions of their licence. This is an increase of 22% compared to 2014 which is again entirely due to the implementation of ORA. Excluding those with a sentence of under 12 months, recalls would have fallen by 7% between 2014 and 2015.
Taking the whole of 2015, the most common reason for offenders being recalled was as a result of being charged with a further offence, with 42% of recalls having a further charge attributed as one of the reasons for their recall.
## Summary Of Licence Recall Time Series
Between April 1999 and December 2015, 207,941 of those released on licence were recalled to custody for breaching the conditions of their licence, e.g. failing to report to their probation officer. Of all those recalled over this period, 99.4% were returned by the end of March 2016. Of all those released on licence and recalled to custody due to breaching the conditions of their licence between April 1999 and December 2015, there were 1,275 who had not been returned to custody by the end of March 2016. This means the proportion of prisoners not returned to custody over this period is 0.6%, which is
constant compared to previous years. A further 18 offenders had not been returned to custody as of 31 March 2016 after recall between 1984 and April 1999, meaning the total number of offenders not returned to custody at the end of March 2016 was 1,293. These figures include some offenders believed to be dead or living abroad but who have not been confirmed as dead or deported. Of the 1,293 not returned to custody by 31 March 2016, 176 had originally been serving a prison sentence for violence against the person offences and a further 42 for sexual offences.
## Contact Points
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Tel: 020 3334 3536
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to: Nick Mavron Ministry of Justice Justice Statistics Analytical Services 7th Floor
102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice, or requests for alternative formats of this publication can be e-mailed to: statistics.enquiries@justice.gsi.gov.uk General information about the official statistics system of the UK is available from: statisticsauthority.gov.uk/about-the-authority/uk-statistical-system Ministry of Justice publishes data relating to offender management in England and Wales. Equivalent statistics for Scotland and Northern Ireland can be found at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Crime-Justice www.dojni.gov.uk/index/statistics-research/stats-research-publications.htm
This publication and associated spreadsheet files of the tables contained in this document and detailed information of definitions, sources and key legislative changes are available for download at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-statistics-quarterly
## © Crown Copyright 2016
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. | en |
1204-pdf |
## Archivist As Interpreter Programme - British Library Conference Centre 4Th March 2016
| Time, session | Speakers and notes | |
|-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| | | 09:30-09:50 - Registration |
| | | |
| | 10:00 - 10.15 - Welcome and | |
| introduction | | |
| | | |
| Jamie Andrews, Head of Culture and | | |
| Learning, British Library | | |
| | | |
| | 10.15 - 11.15 Keynote speaker | |
| | | |
| Paul Cornish, Senior Curator, First World | | |
| War Galleries Project, Imperial War | | |
| Museum | | |
| | | |
| Foyer | | 11:15 - 11.45 Teas and Coffee |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Victoria Northridge, Collections | | |
| Manager, Black Cultural Archives | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Kevin Bolton, Citywide Services | | |
| Manager, Archives +, Manchester | | |
| 11.45 - 13.00 Panel 1 Auditorium | | |
| Reaching out beyond the search | | |
| room: | how interpreting archives can | |
| attract new audiences and spark new | | |
| interactions | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Melissa Addey, Leverhulme Artist | | |
| in Residence, British Library | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Chaired by Rachel Foss, Head of | | |
| Contemporary Archives and Manuscripts, | | |
| British Library | | |
| | | |
| Stalls and posters: | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Dr Stephen Muir, Performing the | | |
| Jewish Archive | | |
| 13:00-14:00 networking | | |
| lunch | | |
| | | |
| Foyer | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Association of Performing Arts | | |
| Collections | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Design and Artists Copyright | | |
| Society, Art 360 | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Art Libraries Society Committee on | | |
| Art and Design Archives | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Museum Games: The Lost Index | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Meeting rooms | | |
| 14:00-15:00 | | |
| Afternoon seminars | | |
| | | |
| 1. | | |
| | | |
| Working with archives: | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Eliot room | | |
| | | |
| Sarah Kogan, Artist, Changing the | | |
| Landscape; Vicky Iglikowski, The National | | |
| Archives: | Working with a major institution | |
| as an artist and selecting new narratives | | |
| to explore | | |
| | 2. |
|-------------------------------------------|------------------------|
| | |
| Facilitating interest: | |
| | |
| Chaucer room | |
| | |
| Alan Crookham, Research Centre Manager, | |
| The National Gallery, and Michael Takeo | |
| Magruder (Artist): | producing engaging |
| exhibitions with archives at their heart | |
| | 3. |
| | |
| Archives for all: | |
| | |
| Bronte room | |
| Sarah Cole, Creative Entrepreneur-in- | |
| Residence, The British Library | |
| Using archives to reach and develop | |
| audiences: How can digital inspire those | |
| who don't have a relationship with the | |
| original material? | |
| | 4. |
| | |
| The role of the new: | |
| | |
| Dickens room | |
| Emer Gillespie, Catherine Smith and Ian | |
| Duhig, | Ekphrasis |
| to inspire new insights into | |
| cultural objects | (including the British |
| Library's Alice in Wonderland exhibition) | |
| Foyer | |
| | |
| Interpreting the Outsider | |
| | |
| | |
| Sarah Jaffray, Visitor Experience, | |
| Wellcome Collection: The role of | |
| archives in a major - and | |
| controversial exhibition | |
| 15:30-16:45 Panel 2 Auditorium | |
| Challenging the audience: | how |
| archive projects can offer audiences | |
| challenges to expectations, deal with | |
| difficult subject matter and encourage | |
| new ways of seeing. | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Lisa Peschel, Performing the Jewish | |
| Archive: The scope and the limits | |
| of re-performance of archival | |
| material | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Stefan Dickers, Library and | |
| Archives Manager, Bishopsgate | |
| Institute: Collecting and | |
| interpreting alternative histories in | |
| the Special Collections and | |
| Archives at Bishopsgate Institute | |
| | |
| Chaired by Val Johnson, Director, | |
| Research and Collections, The National | |
| Archives | |
| | 16:45-17:00 Wrap Up |
| | |
| Wrap Up | |
| Rachel Foss | |
| Val Johnson | |
| With Kate Wheeler, Head of Collections | |
| Knowledge | |
| Fleur Soper, Collections Knowledge | |
| Manager | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Wifi: | @BL-GUEST-CONF |
| Password: | BLgue5T23 |
Twitter #ArchivistasInterpreter An *Archiving the Arts* working group event by The National Archives, kindly hosted by The British Library. With many thanks to all speakers, chair persons, facilitators, hosts and delegates. nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector/archiving-the-arts bl.uk/reshelp/findhelprestype/manuscripts/msscollect/manuscriptscollections | en |
1643-pdf |
##
# Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly, England And Wales
April to June 2016 Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin Published 29 September 2016
## Contents
| Introduction | | 2 |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----|-----|
| | | |
| Changes and revisions in this publication | | 4 |
| | | |
| Key Findings | | 5 |
| | | |
| Criminal Courts | | 6 |
| | | |
| 1. | | |
| | | |
| Criminal cases in the magistrates' courts | | 6 |
| | | |
| 2. | | |
| | | |
| Criminal cases in the Crown Court | | 7 |
| | | |
| 3. | | |
| | | |
| Timeliness | | 11 |
| | | |
| Annex A: Enforcement of financial impositions | | 14 |
| | | |
| Annex B: End to End Timeliness | | 17 |
| | | |
| Annex C: List of Accompanying Tables and CSV | | 17 |
| | | |
| Annex D: Explanatory notes | | 20 |
| | | |
| Previous editions | | 21 |
| | | |
| Contacts | | 21 |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
The statistical bulletin This publication presents statistics relating to activity in criminal cases in magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales. It provides provisional figures for the latest quarter (April to June 2016), with accompanying commentary and analysis. The figures themselves give a summary overview of the volume of cases dealt with by these courts over time. The statistics are used to monitor court workloads, to assist in the development of policy, and their subsequent monitoring and evaluation.
Information on the enforcement of financial impositions can be found in Annex A. The annex provides updated management information on the collection of financial impositions through Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS).
Criminal Courts; an overview Magistrates' courts
Virtually all criminal court cases start in the magistrates' courts. The less serious offences are handled entirely in magistrates' courts, with over 90% of all cases being dealt with in this way. The more serious offences are passed on to the Crown Court, either for sentencing after the defendant has been found guilty in the magistrates'
court, or for trial with a judge and jury. As part of wider measures in the justice system, committal hearings were abolished nationally1 at the end of May 2013. As a result of the change, triable-either-way cases can now be sent straight to the Crown Court as soon as it is clear the matter is serious enough, rather than having to await a committal hearing.
The Crown Court
The Crown Court deals with cases received from the magistrates' courts for sentencing, trial or appeal against magistrates' courts' decision. Of those proceeded against in the magistrates' courts, around 6% of defendants go on to the Crown Court for trial. Triable-either-way cases can be sent to the Crown Court for trial if the magistrates' courts decide the matter is serious enough or if a defendant elects to be tried by judge and jury. Indictable only cases can only be tried on indictment in the Crown Court as they cannot be heard summarily at the magistrates' courts.
Committed for sentence cases are transferred to the Crown Court for sentencing only after a defendant has been convicted in a magistrates' court. This would occur where a magistrate believes that their sentencing powers are insufficient to apply an appropriate sanction to the defendant.
In its appellate jurisdiction the Crown Court deals mainly with appeals against conviction and/or sentence in respect of criminal offences, including consequential orders, e.g. disqualification from driving, and against the making of certain standalone orders, e.g. Anti-Social Behaviour Orders. The Crown Court may dismiss or allow the appeal and vary all or any part of the sentence. Appeals are usually heard by a Circuit Judge sitting with no more than four lay magistrates (normally two). Average waiting time at the Crown Court
'Average waiting time' is the time between sending a case to the Crown Court and the start of the substantive hearing. Average hearing time at the Crown Court
The 'average hearing time' relates to the average duration of all hearings heard in the Crown Court, including preliminary hearings, main hearings, and hearings where a sentence is given to a defendant.
Data and court processes Information about the systems and data included in this publication can be found in the '**A guide to criminal court statistics'** which is published alongside this report. It also includes a **glossary** which provides brief definitions for the terms used in this report. www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-guide-to-criminal-court-statistics
## Changes And Revisions In This Publication
Changes to timeliness methodology to remove 10 year threshold - published as "experimental statistics" Following a consultation in early 2015, a proposal was agreed to make changes to the end-to-end case timeliness methodology applied within this publication. The proposed change was to remove the 10 year threshold from the validation scripts applied to published estimates. We confirmed our intention in our most recent bulletin released in June 2016 to implement the changes within this release. Tables based on both the existing and new methodologies have been produced, along with a separate annex document providing users with a detailed explanation of the change in approach and comparisons between statistics produced under the two methodologies. Within this document, however, commentary on the latest trends in the timeliness section is based on the existing methodology. The statistics produced using the new methodology are badged as "experimental statistics" and do not display the National Statistics logo, as data are still being evaluated and remain subject to further testing in terms of their reliability and ability to meet customer needs. Subject to user feedback on these experimental statistics, the intention is to produce both methodologies for this release only, after which we will only present statistics and commentary based solely on the new methodology.
## Changes To Timeliness Tables - Inclusion Of Single Justice Procedure (Sjp) Cases
In all the timeliness tables produced within this publication, for both existing and new methodologies, Single Justice Procedure cases have been included within the statistics for the first time. These cases were introduced in June 2015 and apply to adult only summary non imprisonable offences which can only be dealt with by magistrates' courts.
Additional magistrates' courts timeliness tables - excluding cases committed to the Crown Court Published timeliness tables at a national level for magistrates' court cases (tables T2 and T3) include cases committed to the Crown Court. The timeliness transparency file, however, only includes cases fully dealt with in the magistrates' courts, thereby excluding cases committed to the Crown Court. For completeness, additional national level magistrates' court tables have been produced (new tables T2b, T3b) to present national timeliness statistics in the same way as the transparency file. These additional tables therefore only include cases fully dealt with at magistrates' courts and exclude cases committed to the Crown Court; they will become part of the set of timeliness tables produced each quarter.
## Key Findings
This report presents statistics relating to activity in criminal cases in the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales in the second quarter of 2016 (April to June).
Disposals in magistrates' courts remain higher than receipts, resulting in the
outstanding magistrates' court caseload dropping to 291,700 at the end of Q2 2016, the lowest level since Q4 2013.
Outstanding cases in the Crown Court have been gradually decreasing since Q4
2014. Between Q1 2016 and Q2 2016 they declined by 9% to 43,200 cases, the lowest number of outstanding cases since Q2 2013. Over the last 12 months, for cases completing in the Crown Court, the average
number of days from first listing to completion in the Crown Court decreased overall from 204 days in Q2 2015 to 185 days in Q2 2016.
Hearing times for not guilty trials in the Crown Court has increased over the last
three quarters to a peak of 15.3 hours in Q2 2016. Hearing times for guilty plea trials have increased to 1.7 hours into Q2 2016.
## Criminal Courts
At the second quarter of 2016, there were around 240 magistrates' courts and approximately 80 Crown Court locations across England and Wales.
1. Criminal cases in the magistrates' courts
Figure 1 below shows the magistrates' courts caseload for England and Wales.
## Receipts In The Magistrates' Courts (Figure 1) The Number Of Receipts Fluctuated Throughout 2015, But Following A Decline Of 4% Between Q4 2015 And Q1 2016 They Have Remained Stable At Q2 2016. Disposals (Figure 1) Following A Peak Of 412,400 Disposals In Q1 2016, Disposals Decreased By 3% In Q2 2016 To 400,000, Although They Continued To Be Higher Than Receipts. Outstanding Cases (Figure 1) Outstanding Cases Dropped To 291,700 Cases At The End Of Q2 2016, The Lowest Level Since Q4 2013, And A 4% Decrease Compared To Q1 2016.
## 2. Criminal Cases In The Crown Court Figure 2 Below Shows The Quarterly Crown Court Caseload From Q1 2010 To Q2 2016.
Receipts
Receipts in Q2 2016 were 4% lower than in Q1 2016, and 10% lower than Q2 2015. This latest figure of 28,800 was the lowest of the quarterly time series.
Disposals
Disposals have fallen by 3% between Q1 2016 and Q2 2016 to 32,700, with a decrease of 2% since Q2 2015. Despite this, disposals have continued to be higher than receipts for the last 6 quarters, driving the falling trend in the number of outstanding cases.
Outstanding cases Outstanding cases in the Crown Court have been gradually decreasing since Q4 2014. Between Q1 2016 and Q2 2016 they declined by 9% to 43,200 cases, the lowest number of outstanding cases since Q2 2013.
##
Receipts by case type (figure 3)
Triable-either-way trial case receipts fell by 9% from Q1 2016. They have driven the overall downward trend in all receipts over the last twelve months, with a decrease of 20% between Q2 2015 and Q2 2016. Indictable only trial case receipts have remained fairly constant from Q1 2016 into Q2 2016, but have fallen by 5% since Q2 2015. Both committal for sentence and appeals receipts remained stable between Q1 2016 and Q2 2016. Over a longer period, however, the number of committal for sentence receipts has increased by 5% since Q2 2015, while appeals have decreased by 13% over the same time period.
Disposals by case type (figure 4) Overall, triable-either-way disposals have been higher than receipts since Q1 2015, although they decreased by 9% between Q1 2016 and Q2 2016. The number of indictable only disposals has continued to remain stable, at around 8,000 at Q2 2016. Committed for sentence disposals have increased by 10% since Q2 2015, whilst appeals have fluctuated since Q2 2015, with a small increase of 4% from Q1 2016.
Outstanding cases by case type (figure 5)
The trend in triable-either-way outstanding cases drives the trend in the overall number of outstanding cases, with a decrease of 11% in the latest quarter and 24% between Q2 2015 and Q2 2016. This follows the declining trend seen since Q1 2015, which has been driven by disposals for triable-either-way cases being greater than corresponding receipts over this time period. Indictable only cases have followed a similar pattern but to a lesser magnitude, decreasing by 6% in the latest quarter and by 14% between Q2 2015 and Q2 2016.
Committed for sentence outstanding cases had remained fairly steady since Q2 2014
but have since dropped by 5% in the latest quarter. Appeals have also declined in Q2 2016, by 8% compared to Q1 2016.
Receipts, disposals and outstanding cases by offence group (figure 6)
In Q2 2016, violence against the person had the highest volume of receipts, followed by miscellaneous crimes against society, sexual offences and drug offences. For disposals, violence against the person had the highest number in Q2 2016 followed by miscellaneous crimes against society, drug offences and theft offences. Outstanding cases followed a similar pattern, with violence against the person having the highest amount of cases, followed by sexual offences and miscellaneous crimes against society. Although the number of disposals for sexual offences is higher than receipts in Q2 2016, the high number of outstanding cases may be due to the length of time these cases take to complete in comparison to other offence groups. At Q2 2016, disposals were higher than receipts for each offence group, resulting in outstanding cases decreasing across each of the groups between Q1 and Q2 2016.
## 3. Timeliness Methodology Notes
The statistics below are based on the existing end-to-end timeliness methodology in line with previous publications, which excludes cases where the total duration from offence to completion is greater than 10 years. See the Changes and revisions in this publication section of this bulletin for more details on changes to timeliness methodology.
Offence to completion in the magistrates' courts For cases in the magistrates' courts, the (mean) average number of days from offence to completion increased from 155 days in Q2 2015 to 164 days in Q1 2016, but decreased to 162 days in Q2 2016.
##
Crown Court criminal cases - First listing in the magistrates' courts to completion in the Crown Court (figure 7) Over the last 12 months, for cases completing in the Crown Court, the average number of days from first listing to completion in the Crown Court decreased overall from 204 days in Q2 2015 to 185 days in Q2 2016. In the latest quarter, there was a small increase from 183 days in Q1 2016. The average time from first listing at the magistrates' court to receipt by the Crown Court has remained at a similar level of 5 days since late 2014. The average time from receipt by the Crown Court to completion decreased from 199 days in Q2 2015 to 180 days in Q2 2016, driving the overall decrease in the number of days from first listing to completion over the last 12 months. In the latest quarter, however, the average time from receipt by the Crown Court to completion increased by 3 days from 177 days in Q1 2016.
Average waiting times at the Crown Court (figure 8) Waiting times for triable-either-way cases have increased since the last quarter from 20.2 weeks in Q1 2016 to 20.5 weeks in Q2 2016, whilst indictable only cases have increased from 21.3 weeks to 21.8 weeks. For non-trial cases, there was a small decrease of 0.4 weeks for committed for sentence cases and also for appeals.
## Average Hearing Times At The Crown Court (Figure 9) Hearing Times For Not Guilty Trials In The Crown Court Has Increased Over The Last
three quarters to a peak of 15.3 hours in Q2 2016. Hearing times for guilty plea trials have increased to 1.7 hours into Q2 2016.
## Annex A: Enforcement Of Financial Impositions
The following section provides updated management information on the collection of financial impositions through Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS).
Impositions made in this time period are reported, and payment information will continue to be recorded. Financial impositions are ordered by the criminal courts for payment by offenders at sentencing and include financial penalties such as fines, prosecutors' costs, compensation orders and victim surcharge. Financial penalties are the most commonly used sentence and form a significant part of HMCTS' collection and enforcement business. Accounting centres also enforce penalty notices for disorder and fixed penalty notices registered as fines for enforcement. The financial imposition statistics presented here do not include confiscation orders. Figure 10 shows the financial impositions for each quarter split by imposition type.
| CCC | Other | Costs | Fines | Victims surcharge | Compensation |
|-------|---------|---------|---------|---------------------|----------------|
Note: The Criminal Court Charge (CCC) ceased to exist on 24 December 2015 but impositions still appear due to when the data are entered onto the system.
Financial impositions and amounts paid (Table A1)
Financial penalties can be imposed by the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court;
although they are all collected and enforced by the HMCTS National Compliance and Enforcement Service. The total value of financial penalties paid in Q2 2016, regardless of the age of the imposition, was £118 million, the highest figure since Q1 2009, when the time series began. This was a 37% increase when compared with the same quarter in 2015 and an 8% increase since Q1 2016.
Financial impositions and amounts paid by imposition type (Table A2, figure
10) Total financial impositions have increased by 30% between Q2 2015 and Q2 2016, driven by an increase to fines in earlier quarters and an increase in compensation impositions, of £11 million, in the latest quarter. This is predominantly due to a single high value figure imposed to one account. There have also been a number of other high value impositions for cases included within compensation, such as Health and Safety Executive cases. In Q2 2016, 21% (£33.6 million) of all financial impositions imposed by the criminal courts were paid within the imposition month. This proportion is the highest since Q2 2011, when this time series began, and is driven by an increase in compensation payments within the imposition month.
Financial impositions (£ million) for victim surcharge (Table A2, figure 11) Victim surcharge is an additional surcharge which is added to the fines that are imposed. The receipts obtained from the collection of these monies by HMCTS are passed to the Justice Policy Group of the MoJ to fund victims' services. The amount imposed has been increasing since its scope and amounts payable were extended in October 2012.
Following a period of stability between Q1 2015 and Q4 2015, impositions have increased at the start of 2016 and are 13% higher at Q2 2016 than at Q4 2015. While the amount imposed has increased, the proportion of impositions collected within the imposition month has decreased from 11% in Q2 2015 to 10% in Q2 2016.
Financial imposition accounts opened and closed (Table A3) An account is opened when a financial penalty is ordered in court and is closed when the imposition against the account has been paid or the imposition ceases. Where a defendant has more than one financial penalty and/or account, these can be consolidated into one account. There were 324,000 accounts opened in Q2 2016, remaining stable since Q1 2016, but decreasing by 2% when compared to the same period in the previous year. Of the accounts opened in Q1 2016, 9% (30,100) were closed within the imposition month.
Outstanding financial impositions (Table A4) The amount outstanding is irrespective of the age of the imposition or the payment terms, and excludes all impositions already paid as well as both legal and administrative cancellations. Payment terms may include arrangements for offenders to pay amounts owed over a period of time. In Q2 2016, the total value of financial impositions outstanding in England and Wales was £706 million. The amount of outstanding financial impositions has been increasing since Q1 2014, and show an increase of 29% between Q1 2014 and Q1 2016. The increase since Q2 2015 is partially due to owed criminal court charge payments.
Published as a separate document alongside this bulletin.
## Annex C: List Of Accompanying Tables And Csv
Accompanying this publication are the following tables:
| Table M1 | Receipts, disposals and outstanding criminal cases in the magistrates' |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| courts in England and Wales, annually 2012 - 2015, quarterly Q2 2012 - Q2 | |
| 2016 | |
| Table M2 | Effectiveness of magistrates' courts' trials in England and Wales, annually |
| 2003 - 2015, quarterly Q1 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table M3 | Key reasons for ineffective magistrates' courts' trials in England and Wales, |
| annually 2006 - 2015, quarterly Q1 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table M4 | Key reasons for cracked magistrates' courts' trials in England and Wales, |
| annually 2010 - 2015, quarterly Q1 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table C1 | Receipts, disposals and outstanding cases in the Crown Court in England |
| and Wales, annually 2000 - 2015, quarterly Q1 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table C1a | Receipts by offence group in the Crown Court in England and Wales, annual |
| 2014 - 2015, quarterly Q1 2014 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table C1b | Disposals by offence group in the Crown Court in England and Wales, |
| annual 2014 - 2015, quarterly Q1 2014 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table C1c | Outstanding cases by offence group in the Crown Court in England and |
| Wales, annual 2014 - 2015, quarterly Q1 2014 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table C2 | Effectiveness of Crown Court trials in England and Wales, annually 2007 - |
| 2015, quarterly Q1 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table C3 | Key reasons for ineffective Crown Court trials in England and Wales, |
| annually 2007 - 2015, quarterly Q1 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table C4 | Key reasons for cracked Crown Court trials in England and Wales, annually |
| 2007 - 2015, quarterly Q1 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table C5 | Defendants dealt with in trial cases in the Crown Court by plea in England |
| and Wales, annually 2001 - 2015, quarterly Q1 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table C6 | Defendants dealt with in trial cases by stage at which guilty plea was |
| entered and accepted in the Crown Court, by receipt type, England and | |
| Wales, annually 2010 - 2015, quarterly Q1 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table C7 | Defendants dealt with in trial cases where a guilty plea was entered before a |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| trial, during trial or at a cracked trial, and accepted in the Crown Court, by | |
| receipt type, England and Wales, annually 2010 - 2015, quarterly Q1 2010 - | |
| Q2 2016 | |
| Table C8 | Average waiting times in the Crown Court in England and Wales, annually |
| 2000 - 2015, quarterly Q1 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table C9 | Average waiting times (weeks) in the Crown Court for defendants dealt with |
| in trial cases, by plea and remand type, England and Wales, annually 2007 - | |
| 2015, quarterly Q1 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table C10 | Average hearing and waiting times for trial cases in the Crown Court by plea |
| in England and Wales, annually 2000 - 2015, quarterly Q1 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table C11 | Average hearing times (hours) in the Crown Court for cases disposed of, by |
| case type and plea, England and Wales, annually 2007 - 2015, quarterly Q1 | |
| 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table C12 | Appeals (against decisions of magistrates' courts) dealt with in the Crown |
| Court, by appeal type and result, England and Wales, annually 2007 - 2015, | |
| quarterly Q1 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table T1 | Average number of days from offence to completion, percentage of |
| proceedings completed at first listing and average number of hearings for | |
| criminal cases at the magistrates' courts by initial plea, England and Wales, | |
| annually 2010 - 2015, quarterly Q2 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table T2 | Average number of days taken from offence to completion for all criminal |
| cases at the magistrates' courts in England and Wales, annually 2010 - | |
| 2015, quarterly Q2 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table T3 | Average number of days taken from offence to completion for all summary |
| cases at the magistrates' courts in England and Wales, annually 2010 - | |
| 2015, quarterly Q2 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table T4 | Average number of days taken from offence to completion for Crown Court |
| criminal cases in England and Wales, annually 2010 - 2015, quarterly Q2 | |
| 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table T5 | Average number of days taken from offence to completion for criminal cases |
| in England and Wales, annually 2010 - 2015, quarterly Q2 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table T6a | Average number of days taken from offence to completion for all criminal |
| cases by offence group, in England and Wales, Q1 2015 and Q2 2016 | |
| Table T6b | Average number of days taken from offence to completion for all criminal |
| cases by offence group, in England and Wales, annually 2011 - 2015 | |
| Table A1 | Enforcement of financial penalties in the magistrates' courts, England and |
| Wales, annually 2004 - 2015, quarterly Q1 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table A2 | HMCTS management information: Financial impositions and amounts paid |
| by imposition type, England and Wales, annual 2011 - 2015, quarterly Q2 | |
| 2011 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table A3 | HMCTS management information: Number of financial imposition accounts |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| opened and closed, annually 2011 - 2015, quarterly Q2 2011 - Q2 2016 | |
| Table A4 | HMCTS management information: Total amount of financial impositions |
| outstanding, annually 2011 - 2015, quarterly Q2 2011 - Q2 2016 | |
| Annex T2a | Average number of days taken from offence to completion for all criminal |
| cases at the magistrates' courts including those committed to the Crown | |
| Court, quarterly Q2 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| | |
| Annex T2b | Average number of days taken from offence to completion for all criminal |
| cases at the magistrates' courts excluding those committed to the Crown | |
| Court, quarterly Q2 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| | |
| Annex T3a | Average number of days taken from offence to completion for all summary |
| cases at the magistrates' courts including those committed to the Crown | |
| Court, quarterly Q2 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| | |
| Annex T3b | Average number of days taken from offence to completion for all summary |
| cases at the magistrates' courts excluding those committed to the Crown | |
| Court, quarterly Q2 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| | |
| Annex T4 | Average number of days taken from offence to completion for Crown Court |
| criminal cases in England and Wales, quarterly Q2 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| | |
| Annex T5 | Average number of days taken from offence to completion for criminal |
| cases, quarterly Q2 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| | |
| Annex T6a | Average number of days taken from offence to completion for all criminal |
| cases by offence group, quarterly Q2 2010 - Q2 2016 | |
| | |
| Annex T6b | Average number of days taken from offence to completion for all criminal |
| cases by offence group, annually 2011 - 2015 | |
There are also a number of csv files that support this publication, these include:
National and court level workload activity and case progression data National and court level timeliness data
## Annex D: Explanatory Notes
The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics:
meet identified user needs; are well explained and readily accessible;
are produced according to sound methods, and are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest.
Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics, it is a statutory requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed.
The statistics in this bulletin relate to cases in the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales. Calendar year statistics are also provided. Breakdowns of many of the summary figures presented in this bulletin, such as split by court or by HMCTS area, are available in the Comma Separated Value (CSV) files that accompany this publication.
Revisions The statistics in the latest quarter are provisional, and are therefore liable to revision to take account of any late amendments to the administrative databases from which these statistics are sourced. The standard process for revising the published statistics to account for these late amendments is as follows:
An initial revision to the statistics for the latest quarter may be made when the
next edition of this bulletin is published. Further revisions may be made when the figures are reconciled at the end of the year. If revisions are needed in the subsequent year this will be clearly annotated in the tables.
For more information please see the **Guide to criminal court statistics**.
Symbols and conventions The following symbols have been used throughout the tables in this bulletin: ..
= Not applicable
-
= Not available
0
= Nil
(r)
= Revised data
(p)
= Provisional data
Previous editions Previous editions of Court Statistics Quarterly can be found at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/court-statistics-quarterly#court-statisticsquarterly-reports
Future publication The next publication of Criminal court statistics quarterly is scheduled to be published on 15 December 2016, covering the period July to September 2016.
Contacts
Press enquiries on the contents of this bulletin should be directed to the Ministry of Justice or Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) press offices:
Ministry of Justice News Desk
Tel: 020 3334 3536 Email: newsdesk@justice.gsi.gov.uk Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to the Justice Statistics Analytical Services division of the Ministry of Justice:
David Jagger Ministry of Justice 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Email: statistics.enquiries@justice.gsi.gov.uk General enquiries about the statistics work of the Ministry of Justice can be emailed to statistics.enquiries@justice.gsi.gov.uk General information about the official statistics system of the UK is available from www.statistics.gov.uk
## Feedback
The structure and content of this report is continually being reviewed to reflect user requirements. If you have any feedback about these changes, or the report more generally, please contact the production team through the Justice Statistics Analytical Services division of the Ministry of Justice: Email: statistics.enquiries@justice.gsi.gov.uk © Crown copyright Produced by the Ministry of Justice Alternative formats are available on request from statistics.enquiries@justice.gsi.gov.uk
| en |
4157-pdf |
## Appendix Aa Calculation Of Free Sugars And Aoac Fibre In The Ndns Rp Aa.1 The Ndns Nutrient Databank (Ndb)
Intakes of nutrients are calculated from the food consumption records using a Nutrient Databank (NDB) that has been specially adapted for the NDNS RP. The NDB was originally developed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) for the series of NDNS surveys of population age groups carried out from the late 1980s and 1990s, transferring to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in 2000. The NDB was updated for the start of the NDNS RP in 2007/08 and annually thereafter. Responsibility for the NDB transferred to Public Health England in 2013 alongside responsibility for management of the survey. Each food on the NDB has values assigned for over 50 nutrients including energy.
The nutrient values assigned to the food codes are based on data from PHE's nutrient analysis surveys as well as nutritional information provided on food labels. The vast majority of food codes are generic (covering a range of brands of a single product type) rather than brand-specific. For homemade recipes and some manufactured products, nutrients are calculated from their constituent foods using the automated computer recipe feature of the coding program that allows adjustments to be made for weight and vitamin losses on cooking. Each year of the NDNS RP is coded separately using a contemporaneous version of the NDB. During each survey year the NDB is updated which includes the addition of new foods as well as revision of the nutrient composition of existing foods based on product label data to take account of reformulation by manufacturers, for example to reduce salt or sugar content, and changes in fortification practices. Foods may also be updated with new analytical data from PHE's nutrient analysis surveys. Therefore the same food codes may have a different composition for some nutrients in one year of the NDNS RP compared to the next. Further details of the NDB can be found in appendix A. Prior to Year 8 (2015/16) of the NDNS RP, free sugars and AOAC fibre values were not included in the NDB as sugar and fibre were reported as non-milk extrinsic sugars (NMES) and non-starch polysaccharides (NSP) respectively. In 2015 the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) published its review of the latest evidence on carbohydrates and health.1 As part of this review SACN recommended that free sugars and AOAC fibre, as defined in their report, should be adopted in the UK, replacing NMES and NSP on which previous government recommendations were based. In order to populate the NDB with free sugars and AOAC fibre values for food codes consumed in NDNS RP Years 1 to 8, the following methods were applied.
## Aa.2 Definition Of Free Sugars
The definition of free sugars as described by SACN includes all monosaccharides and disaccharides added to foods by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, plus sugars naturally present in honey, syrups and unsweetened fruit juices. Under this definition, lactose (milk sugar) when naturally present in milk and milk products and sugars contained within the cellular structure of foods (particularly fruits and vegetables) are excluded. 1,2 Following further advice from SACN on processed fruit and vegetables,3 PHE expanded the broad definition set by SACN into a set of working principles for estimating the free sugar content of foods in a consistent, transparent way.4 PHE's definition of free sugars is given in table AA.1.
Included in the definition of free sugars
Excluded from the definition of free
sugars
All added sugar in whatever form, including honey, syrups and nectars whether added
to products during manufacture or by the consumer during cooking or at the table. This includes ingredients such as malt extract and glucose syrup
Ingredients not included in the definition of sugar as it appears on
the nutrition panel, such as maltodextrins, oligofructose and sugar substitutes such as polyols (sorbitol) Lactose and galactose when naturally present in milk and dairy products including milk powder
Lactose and galactose added as an ingredient to foods or drinks, including lactose in whey powder added as an ingredient All the sugars naturally present in fruit and vegetable juices, concentrates, smoothies, purees, pastes, powders and extruded fruit
All the sugars naturally present in fresh and most types of processed (dried, stewed, canned, frozen) fruit
| and vegetable products | and vegetables except for juices, |
|---------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| smoothies, purees, pastes and | |
| extruded products | |
| | |
| This includes pureed legumes (hummus), | |
| pureed dried fruits and juice or syrup | |
| present in canned fruits/vegetables | |
| Fruit and vegetables were defined | |
| in line with the definition used for 5 | |
| A Day so the sugars in powdered | |
| and pureed potatoes and other | |
| starchy staples were excluded from | |
| free sugars | |
| All sugars in drinks except for milk and | |
| other dairy-based drinks. Including: | |
| Lactose and galactose naturally | |
| present in milk and other dairy- | |
| based drinks | |
| - all sugars in unsweetened fruit and | |
| vegetable juices, fruit and vegetable juice | |
| concentrates and smoothies | |
| - all sugars in alcoholic drinks | |
| - all sugars naturally present in dairy- | |
| alternative drinks such as soya, rice, oat | |
| and nut-based drinks | |
| | All sugars naturally present in |
| cereal grains including rice, pasta | |
| and flour), regardless of processing | |
| (other than cereal-based drinks) | |
| | All sugars naturally present in nuts |
| and seeds regardless of processing | |
| (other than nut-based drinks). | |
| This includes coconut milk | |
| consumed as an ingredient and nut | |
| butters | |
## Aa.3 Methodology For Estimating Free Sugar Values In The Ndb
Given the variety of free sugar sources and complexity of their estimation, a recipe approach was used to calculate free sugars values in composite foods containing more than one source of sugars. This approach enabled a more accurate and flexible estimation of free sugars especially for complex foods which include a combination of free and non-free sugars derived from various ingredients. Furthermore, this approach enabled commonly used ingredients containing free sugars (e.g. table sugar) to be assigned only once.
Firstly, a free sugars database was created whereby every food code in the NDB was assigned a recipe giving a breakdown of ingredients and proportions as well as a set of nutrients, including total sugar. The proportions of ingredients were based on the FSA recipes database which includes recipes derived from foods consumed for all UK nutrition surveys from 1992.5 The nutrition information and the ingredient list taken from food packaging was used to guide the estimation of the proportion of ingredients for manufactured foods.5 Secondly, for each ingredient it was decided whether the total sugar should be assigned to free sugars based on the definition of free sugars (see table AA.1). If the ingredient fell within the definition of free sugars, the total sugar was assigned to the relevant free sugar components listed below:
- free sugars from added sugar (table sugar) - free sugars from other added sugars (e.g. sugar based sweeteners such as
fructose, lactose, maltodextrin, syrups)
- free sugars from honey - free sugars in fruit juice - free sugars in fruit puree - free sugars in vegetable puree and juice
For example, a sugar sweetened yogurt with strawberry has the ingredients "yogurt" (85%), "strawberry puree" (10%) and "table sugar" (5%). Strawberry puree has a total sugars content of 9.7g/100g, so 9.7g/100g was assigned to the "free sugars in fruit puree" component. Table sugar has a total sugars content of 100g/100g, so all of the sugar was assigned to the "free sugars from added sugar" component. Plain yogurt has no free sugars.
Thirdly, a calculation programme was run to generate the value of each free sugar component in the whole recipe based on the proportion of each ingredient. So for the strawberry fruit yogurt, if 10% of the product is strawberry puree, then 0.97g is "free sugars in fruit puree" in the recipe. If 5% of the product is table sugar, then 5g is "free sugars from added sugar" in the recipe. Ultimately, the individual free sugar components (0.97g and 5g) were summated to give an estimated overall free sugars content of 5.97g in 100g of sugar sweetened yogurt with strawberry. This calculation was applied to all recipes in the free sugars database and values were sense checked. Once a review of all codes had been completed, the free sugars value for each recipe in the free sugars database was transferred to the NDNS RP Year 8 NDB by a proportioning approach. For example, in the free sugars database if "yogurt with fruit" has a total sugar value of 10g/100g and a free sugar value of 5g/100g, 50% of the total sugar is free sugar (the other 50% is naturally occurring lactose and galactose). If the same code in the NDB has 15g/100g of total sugar, then 50% of this is assigned as free sugar. It was not practical in the time available to undertake separate calculations for the free sugar content of food codes for each previous year of the RP. Therefore the assumption was made that the free sugars content as a proportion of total sugars in any food code in Years 1 to 7 (2008/09- 2014/15) was the same as in Year 8. The free sugars content of foods consumed in Years 1 to 7 were calculated from total sugar using the same proportion of free sugar as in the Year 8 code. This means that the free sugar values assigned for Years 1 to 8 do not reflect changes in the proportion of free sugar in products which may have changed over time due to reformulation. For Year 9 onwards, free sugars have been incorporated into the regular programme of updates as described in appendix A.
## Aa.4 Assumptions Made To Estimate Free Sugars In The Ndns Rp
When using the methodology described above (section AA.3) to estimate free sugar values, a number of assumptions were made to keep the process manageable.
- All sugars in jams, marmalades and fruit spreads have been included in the
estimation of free sugars on the basis that the cellular structure of the fruit in such products is predominantly broken down and the proportion of sugars naturally present from the fruit is small in comparison to the amount of added sugar.
- Minor ingredients (less than 0.5% of the product) considered to have a low
free sugar content, were excluded from the calculation, for example a readyto-eat beef stew containing 0.2g of garlic puree.
- Sugars in herbs and spices were generally excluded from the free sugar
calculation as their contribution would be negligible. In products where herbs
were present in larger quantities such as pesto they were taken into account.
- For soups containing vegetables it was assumed that all the vegetables were
pureed or blended (as in a smooth soup) unless it was feasible to estimate the proportion of intact vegetables based on knowledge of the range of products available. The same approach was used for fruit yogurts and similar products.
## Aa.5 Definition Of Aoac Fibre
The definition of AOAC fibre is dietary fibre which is measured by analytical AOAC methods.6 AOAC methods capture resistant starch and lignin in the estimation of total fibre, as well as non-starch polysaccharides (NSP). PHE's nutrient analysis projects since 2007 have used method AOAC 985.29/45.4.07. More recent AOAC methods measure all resistant starches and low molecular weight dietary fibres such as non-digestible oligosaccharides and inulin.
## Aa.6 Methodology For Estimating Aoac Fibre Values In The Ndb
As the first step, analytical data for AOAC fibre from UK nutrient analysis projects were assigned to food codes where available. This included data available from 2 recent nutrient analysis projects on fruit and vegetables, analytical projects carried out since 2008 on processed foods, biscuits, buns, cakes and pastries and fish and fish products and earlier analytical projects including those on bread and morning goods, pasta and pasta sauces and flour, rice and other grains, carried out since the late 1990s.7 AOAC fibre data for foods that were similar to those derived from these analyses were extrapolated using the NSP ratios of the food code to be updated and the analysed food. To populate the food codes which had no analytical values, data was compiled by using a food group approach as described below.
- Food groups containing no NSP, such as fat spreads and soft drinks, were
assumed to contain no AOAC fibre.
- In addition to the analytical data described above, a limited number of other
AOAC fibre values were published in McCance and Widdowson's composition of foods integrated dataset (CoFID)8 and these were used as appropriate. Values were also derived from non-UK food composition databases such as the USDA database.9
- AOAC fibre values from food labels were used for packaged foods where
available.
- For the remaining food codes where neither analytical values nor nutrition
label values were available, AOAC values were calculated either from recipes in the FSA recipe database or using the standard conversion factor 1.33 to
convert NSP to AOAC fibre.10
The values derived from this process were used to calculate AOAC fibre values for complex foods (recipes) in the NDNS RP Year 8 NDB. The new AOAC fibre values were sense checked against a range of other data sources. The same AOAC fibre values were used in each survey year (NDNS RP Years 1 to 7 (2008/09- 2014/15)) of the NDB, so this does not take into account any changes in fibre content of foods over time due to reformulation. For Year 9 onwards, free sugars have been incorporated into the regular programme of updates as described in appendix A.
_The_Science_Behind_SACN.pdf
Health Nutrition, 28; 1-3.
5 MRC Human Nutrition Research (2017). Food Standards Agency Standard Recipes Database, 1992-2012. [data collection]. UK Data Service. SN: 8159. [Internet]. Available from: http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-8159-1 6 AOAC International & Horwitz W (1918-(2011)). Official methods of analysis of AOAC International (18th ed., 2005, 4th revision, 2011). Gaithersburg: AOAC International, 2011
7 Public Health England 2017 Nutrient Analysis of Fruit and Vegetables. [Internet]. Available from:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/nutrient-analysis-of-fruits-and-vegetables Department of Health 2013 Nutrient Analysis of Fruit and Vegetables. [Internet]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nutrient-analysis-of-fruit-and-vegetables
Department of Health 2011 Nutrient analysis of processed foods with particular reference to trans fatty acids. [Internet]. Available from: www.gov.uk/government/publications/nutrient-analysis-of-processed-foods-including-trans-fats Department of Health 2013 Nutrient Analysis of Fish. [Internet]. Available from: www.gov.uk/government/publications/nutrient-analysis-of-fish Department of Health 2011 Nutrient analysis survey of biscuits, buns, cakes and pastries. [Internet].
Available from: www.gov.uk/government/publications/nutrient-analysis-survey-of-biscuits-buns-cakes-and-pastries
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Nutrient analysis of bread and morning goods. [Internet]. Available from:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101209105201/http://archive.food.gov.uk/maff/archive/fo od/infsheet/2000/no194/194bred.htm
Food Standards Agency 2004 Nutrient analysis of pasta and pasta sauces. [Internet]. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101210064934/http://www.food.gov.uk/science/surveillan ce/fsis2004branch/fsis6504 Food Standards Agency 2005 Nutrient survey of flours and grains (available on request)
## National Diet And Nutrition Survey
| en |
0705-pdf | # The Rookery, Dukes Drive, Ashford In The Water, Bakewell, Derbyshire, De45 1Qq
ANDREW SHEPHERD, ARCHITECT
________________________________
453 GLOSSOP ROAD
SHEFFIELD S10 2PT
Telephone 0114 266 2458
Email info@andrewshepherdarchitect.co.uk HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
AND HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE ROOKERY, DUKES DRIVE, ASHFORD IN THE WATER, BAKEWELL, DERBYSHIRE DE45 1QQ 1.00
INSTRUCTIONS
1.01
A.D.W. Shepherd, Dip. Arch., Dip. Cons., R.I.B.A., F.R.S.A., I.H.B.C. of Andrew Shepherd, Architect is instructed by Mr. & Mrs. Richard Mayson, as householders of the Rookery, to develop the historical information they have already obtained about their home, and to utilise that information in providing a Heritage Impact Assessment of the proposed alterations to their home as designed by Lisa Shell Architects Ltd. of EG2 Norway Wharf, 24 Hertford Road, London N1 5QT.
1.02
Initial desk study took place in December 2015. A detailed inspection of the buildings was made on 6th June 2016, commencing around 10.00 a.m., when the weather was dry, bright and sunny.
1.03
Further archive study was carried out between July and November 2016 at Chatsworth House, and the Derbyshire County Council Archives in Matlock.
2.00
LOCATION
2.01
The Rookery is a substantial dwelling with various outbuildings located to the West of
the centre of the village of Ashford in the Water, which is approximately two miles to the West of Bakewell.
2.02
The building is located in the limestone area of the Peak District National Park.
2.03
The building is located on the former main trunk road from Bakewell to Buxton, but the
modern A6 trunk road now passes to the South of the property on land acquired from the Rookery's curtilage from the Chatsworth Estate during the 1930's. This is known as Dukes Drive. There was formerly a road on the North side of the house marked as being "To Sheldon" or "Buxton Road". 2.04
The River Wye passes through the curtilage, flowing from West to East. The location of the building is shown on the location plans attached.
3.00
DESIGNATION
3.01
The Rookery was designated at Grade 2 on 12th July 1967, reference UID80445. The designation reads:
"The Rookery GVII House. Late C18, probably with earlier core. Coursed limestone rubble with gritstone dressings. Stones laid to roof. Stone, tall gable end, ridge and side wall stacks. Stone coped gable with moulded kneeler to west. Two storeys, irregular plan, five bay front elevation. To west, advanced cross wing with full height canted bay window. Plain sashes on three sides in plain surrounds. To east lower wing with blocked central door case with bracketed stone hood. To west, glazing bar sash in plain surround and another flush door case with bracketed stone hood under wooden porch. C18 glazed and panelled door. To east, wide 3-light flush mullion window with plain sashes. Above, similar window with glazing bar sashes. To west three glazing bar sashes in plain surrounds. Beyond, to west, string course over plain sashes with canted Venetian bay window above. Glazing bar sashes. String course running from impost level of central light. To rear, 2-light, double transomed stair window. Interior - hall floor and stairs of Monyash marble. Various C18 fireplaces. Listing NGR: SK1923569684".
3.02
The access bridge over the River Wye flowing entirely within the curtilage of the property is also a designated heritage asset:
"Bridge at The Rookery GVII Bridge. C18. Coursed limestone rubble with gritstone dressings. Four arches with projecting keystones, two central segmental ones, with narrow, styled, semi-circular headed arches to either side. Rubble parapet walls over, splaying outwards to each end. Square sectioned copings. Wooden gate to south side.
Listing NGR: SK1922769630"
3.03
The adjacent Rookery Cottage is also designated in its own right:
"Rookery Cottage GII Cottage. C18. Coursed limestone rubble. Gritstone dressings. Stone slate roof to front, slate to rear. Short. Stone gable end stacks. Stone coped gable with moulded kneeler to west. Two storeys, double pile plan, three bays. Advanced, central, full height canted bay with pyramidal roof and central segmental headed door case with plank door. To east, formerly 3-light flush mullion window, now with horizontal sliding sashes. To west. 2-light flush mullion window with c20 leaded lights. Beyond, plank door in flush surround. Above, 2-light flush mullion windows with original leaded lights, either side of bay window. Glazing bar sashes to three sides of bay and plain sill band. To rear blocked 2-light mullion and transomed stair window. Various 2-light flush mullion windows. Listing NGR: SK1923569684".
3.04
There is also a substantial former Barn within the curtilage of the Rookery, subsequently
converted to a coach house, and converted to domestic accommodation in recent years, so this is also offered the same protection as the designated building.
3.05
In past times the Rookery Cottage has been in different ownership to the Rookery, but
the current owners have reacquired the building and its grounds to reinstate a substantial part of the original site.
4.00
SUMMARY STATEMENT
4.01
The historical and association interest of the building is recognized by there being a
written and limited photographic record of the building in the National Monuments Records, now subsumed into the Historic England Archive. A copy of this document is
attached at Appendix A.
4.02
The house and outbuildings are obviously of considerable historic and social interest.
The interest of the present owners has led them to commission the research which has informed the report. That takes the form of documentary study, and the use of map regression to give an understanding of the development of the building as a dwelling for the eighteenth to twenty first centuries.
4.03
As the former possession of one of the great aristocratic estates of the country there are
much better archives of that history than for most houses of this size.
4.04
The tithe and Chatsworth Estate maps show the extent of the original Rookery estate at
the time of the Sixth Duke of Devonshire, and its subsequent reduction.
4.05
These documents also show the development of the village of Ashford in the Water
along the former Buxton Road to the West of the village centre, though the Rookery remains the most Westerly house, except for the former Manger's House of the Ashford Marble Mill to the South and West.
4.06
Those documentary sources, and the photographic records available, show beyond
doubt that there was a substantial ancillary outbuilding to the North of the main house range, between that and the former Buxton Road.
The current owners of the Rookery have a young family and seek to provide more space
for their developing activities. The restoration or restitution of that former ancillary outbuilding would satisfy that need.
4.07
In September 2015 Pre-Application Advice was offered to the owners, architects, Lisa
Shell Architects Ltd., that the then current proposals would be unlikely to obtain the necessary consents. Advice as to how to possibly make the proposals acceptable was
offered, further to the acceptance of the principle of the proposal in general terms.
The applicants and their architects have now revised their proposals to accord with that
advice offered by the Local Planning Authority.
4.08
For historic interest, and to demonstrate the understanding of the significance of the
heritage asset and its constituent elements, this report includes a fully illustrated description of all of the spaces in the house and the external fabric. It is hoped that this amount of detail will show the Local Planning Authority that the applicants for the changes proposed and their agents fully understand the asset, and that understanding has informed the current revised proposals.
4.09
Section 11.00 sets out our understanding of the relevant Town and Country Planning
policies and guidance, from both national and local perspectives, and Section 12.00 tests the proposals against those policies and guidance and shows compliance.
4.10
The report concludes with a reiteration of the Applicants' needs for change at their
home, and the suggestion that their revised and reduced requirements can be achieved without affecting the special qualities which give this place its heritage significance.
| 5.00 | CONTENTS LIST |
|-----------|------------------|
| | |
| | 1.00 |
| | 2.00 |
| | 3.00 |
| | 4.00 |
| | 5.00 |
| | 6.00 |
| Copyright | |
| Page 8 | |
| | 7.00 |
| | 8.00 |
| | 9.00 |
| | 10.00 |
| | |
| | 11.00 |
| | 12.00 |
| | 13.00 |
Appendices
Appendix A
Report of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of
England: Building Report BF 08622 dated November 2016.
Appendix B
R. Mayson: " The Rookery at Ashford in the Water: a short history "
(Unpublished) dated 2016.
## 6.00 Acknowledgements, Bibliography/Sources And Copyright Mr. And Mrs. R. Mayson
Lisa Shell Architects Ltd.
The Chatsworth Estate retain copyright in all images supplied.
Derbyshire County Records Office retain copyright in all images supplied.
The National Library of Scotland retain copyright in all images supplied.
Historic England in succession to the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of
England retain copyright for the report included in Appendix A.
"Solar Design Tips: Your 10 point guide". London, undated.
T. Brighton:
"The Ashford Marble Works and Cavendish Patronage, 1748- 1905", Bulletin of the Peak District Mines Historical Society Vol.
12, Number 6, Winter 1995.
Campaign to Protect
Rural England:
"Design Guide", Bakewell, 2007.
English Heritage:
"Conservation
Principles:
Policies
and
Guidance
for
the
Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment", London,
2008.
Historic England:
"Making Changes to Heritage Assets: Advice Note 2", Swindon,
2016.
Historic England:
"The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Advice in Planning 3", Swindon, 2015.
Historic England:
"Understanding Historic Buildings: A Guide to Good Recording Practice", Swindon, 2016.
National Planning
Policy Framework:
Outline
Resource
and
Planning
Guidance
@www.planningportal.co.uk accessed at various times.
Peak District National
Park Authority:
I. Thomas:
"Strategic Stone Study: A Building Stone Atlas of Derbyshire and the Peak National Park", English Heritage, London, 2011.
I. Thomas & M.
Cooper:
"The Geology of Chatsworth House, Derbyshire", Mercian
Geologist, 2008, Vol. 17 (1).
Andrew Shepherd, Architect assert their right under the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 11988 to be identified as the author of this work, c. 2017.
7.00
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
7.01
Published Sources
The principal source is the report from 1992 of the Royal Commission for Historic
Monuments, now subsumed into the Historic England Archive. (ref. BF 086022 and 086022/1). That document is attached at Appendix A.
The historic buildings designation description is as stated previously.
The present owners' researches are attached at Appendix B.
There is no reference to the building in the recently revised Derbyshire volume of the
"Buildings of England" series originated by Nikolaus Pevsner.
7.02
History as Published Sources
The earliest history of the dwelling as found is the record of its purchase by the Duke of
Devonshire in 1821 when the 6th Duke of Devonshire bought the property for £3,000 from the Estate of John Bullock. In 1822 the Chatsworth Estate paid his Executors a further £21 8s 8d for "sundry fixtures". History records that the tenant was one of his mistresses, all as set out in the document appended at Appendix B.
After that relationship ended, the house was retained by the Chatsworth Estate and was
then tenanted. This continued until the Second World War, when the then cadet son of the then Duke of Devonshire lived there, or rather, his wife and young family lived there. Through a wartime tragedy they subsequently became the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire, as described in Appendix B. The house and grounds were subsequently sold into successive private ownerships after 1951.
7.03
Analysis of Historic Map Evidence (Regression)
01.
The Architect for the proposed restitution of a former outbuilding carried out initial maps
regression showing the existence of the outbuilding and her drawing is attached.
02.
In addition to the Ordnance Survey drawings of the locality after 1850, I have been able
to find various other maps in both the Derbyshire County Records Office, and the Chatsworth Estate Archive.
03.
The earliest is from 1752, being "A Survey Plan of Ashford Lordship, showing
demesnes, freehold and copyhold lands". The map is a little difficult to interpret, as the "Explanation" panel is very damaged. The map does show a house (all houses are represented by the same charming 3D symbol) on the present location of the Rookery. (Image Map A). To the North of the house there is a track marked, which subsequently became the Buxton Road. To the East of the Rookery site, along that road are further dwellings.
The Marble works site outside the North West corner of the present curtilage is marked
with two "Mill-type" building symbols. (Map B)
There is extensive woodland all around the housing, particularly to the North and South
sides.
03.
There exists an Enclosure Map Award of 1767, which is referred to in the Enclosure
Award of the same year of the three Commissioners, Wm. Wyatt, Sam Brailsford and Sam White.
The present site of the Rookery is marked as an 'Old Inclosure'. No buildings are
shown. The "Marble Machine Works" are denoted, as is the River Wye. (Map C).
04.
There is an Ashford Town Map of 1824. By this time the plan of the house as
represented is very much as it survives today, with the West crossing and the North East
offshot wing existing. (Map D).
The Barn and what is now known as Rookery Cottage are marked.
The bridge over the River Wye to the South is clearly marked, but the principal entrance
to the property appears to have been from the North, from what was then marked as the "Road to Sheldon".
The Chatsworth Estate map of 1824 is identical, except that there are presumed
proposed plots for development marked to the East and South sides of the house.
05.
There is a further Ashford Tithe Map of 1847, (Map E), and the Schedule. The
Commissioners F.T.(?)W. Bullen and Rd. Jones set out their apportionment of the rent charge to be paid by each property in lieu of tithes, for the Township of Ashford.
The map shows the main body of the house as extended, with the bay to the South front
of the West crossing quite clearly marked, and a further building on the site of the proposed reconstruction.
The paths through the Rookery grounds towards the West side of the curtilage are
clearly shown.
06.
Another Estate map of 1857 prepared for the Duke of Devonshire shows the same
curtilage and buildings. (Map F).
## Map G
Map G is an Estate map, prepared after the first Ordnance Survey in 1883 which shows the extent of the curtilage of the Rookery at the time which was very much more extensive than that today. It obviously included "pleasure grounds" and an extensive orchard with walks to the East side.
Map H shows the detail of the house and outbuildings. The two outbuildings to the North side of the house are quite clearly shown, including the building it is now proposed to reconstruct.
Map J seems to indicate that the Chatsworth Estate had sold off some of the original landholding, which seems to have been denoted as a further orchard with walks.
Map K shows the garden to the West of the house, but there is no indication of the Ice House or Grotto, which would have been built by this time.
Map L shows the very extensive scope of the Marble Works to the West of the overall
site, with a fairly complex system of goyts and buildings.
08.
The first Ordnance Survey of this area in Derbyshire was apparently not until 1878,
followed by the publication of the map in 1883 at the scale of 6" (inches) to 1 mile. This shows the layout of the buildings, as it remains today, except that the detached outbuilding that it is now proposed to reconstruct then still remained. This map seems to
have been used as the basis of a Chatsworth Estate map. (Map G).
09.
Presumably because of inaccurate cartography, the (presumed) outbuilding to the North
side of the house is not shown as a separate building from the Ordnance Survey maps after 1889, but as an attached part of the building. (Map N). This is continued/followed on the O.S. maps of 1923 (map P) and 1946 (map Q).
10.
The best evidence of the existence of the building which it is now proposed to
reconstruct is photographs. Two aerial view are shown below.
The first shows the outbuilding set into a wall against the bank and the modern trunk
road behind/above.
The other shows very much more tree cover than today on the bank behind the building.
From the view of the rear roof slope of the main range of the house, this would seem to
predate the alterations to the roof known to have been carried out in the mid 1970's.
7.04
Primary Research
As stated previously, principal primary research had been in the Archives of the
Chatsworth Estate and the Derbyshire County Records Office.
What might be described as the "social history" has already been researched by the
present building owners. (Appendix B).
01.
Sadly, most of the earliest records, such as the Account of the Tithes of Ashford of **1799**,
the lists of Copyholders in Ashford in the Water of **1830**, and the Copyhold Tenants list
of 1849, do not describe the names of the properties reported, merely the names. There are no references to any of the names of the tenants, or the Rookery itself.
02.
The survey and valuation of the Duke of Devonshire's Chatsworth Estate carried out by
John Cottingham in **1829** states what is assumed to be the Marble Works were then let to Richard Brown from 25th March 1830 (the quarter day) at £70 per annum:
There is, also, in that **1829** survey a reference to the Rookery. This states it to have
been purchased "of Bullock", with an annual rental of £3 - 2 - 11, and a value of £40 - 0 - 0.
By the time of the **1844** (anonymous) survey and valuation, the property was not
described as being "in hand" to the Duke, though the property remained within the
Chatsworth Estate until it was sold in the 1950's as the Estate liquidated assets so as to raise death duties for the Revenue.
03.
By the time of the **1858** valuation of the Duke's estates at Ashford, Sheldon, Holme,
Bakewell and Over Haddon the property was let to Edmund Howarth at a yearly value (rent to the Duke?) of £60 - 2 - 0.
The Rookery is described:
"60
The Rookery. Stone and Slated. Dining Room, Drawing Room, Study, Butler's
Pantry, Servants' Hall, Kitchen, Pantry, Larder, four principal Bedrooms and Coach House, Stable and Servants' cottages - al in order".
Edmund Howarth was also the tenant of :
"59
Garden
61
Croft
62
Pleasure Grounds".
These plots are noted on the map below, held in The Chatsworth Archive and thought to
date from 1857:
By this time it would seem that the Marble Works, described as the "Magpie Mine" was
let by the Chatsworth Estate to "The Proprieters of Magpie Mine", including a house and yard at a combined yearly value (to the Duke) of £60 - 2. - 0.
The first mention of Edmund Howarth as the tenant of the Rookery was in 1852, with a
rental of £50 - 0 - 0 per annum. This was a high value, as the Duke's lime kilns in Stoney Middleton only had a rental value of £30 - 0 - 0 and the Marble Works at Ashford of £40 - 0 - 0!
It obviously took some time for the initial arrangements to be settled, as Mr. Howarth
was stated to be £123 - 16 - ½ in arrears at the Quarter Day in 1852.
The rent appears to have been paid regularly until 1858, when the property was said to
be unoccupied at Michaelmas. In the following year's accounts Mr. Howarth appears to have paid half the previous year's rent with £52, and the property now being let first to "Brigg's widow" and then Alfred Morewood.
04.
By 1896 the property was again unoccupied, and was advertised for lease by the
Chatsworth Steward or Agent, Gilson Martin.
At first a seven and a half year lease was offered, and subsequently a 14 or 21 year
period was offered. This was to be a full repairing lease at £60 - 0 - 0 rental per annum. Detailed requirements for repainting and repairs, including boundary fences, were stated. There was a specific requirement to "manage the lands and gardens in a good and husbandlike manner"! The fishing rights to the River Wye within the curtilage were, however, to be strictly reserved for the Duke!
The particulars of the tenancy were quite explicit, and the following were the Particulars
of the Rooms:
Dining Room
22' 6" x 15' 6"
| | Drawing Room | 24' x 16' 9" |
|-----|-----------------|-----------------|
| | Breakfast Room | 12' 9" x 13' 5" |
| | Kitchen | 15' 6" x 12' 9" |
| | Scullery | 10' 6" x 9' 3" |
Butler's Pantry, Front Entrance Hall, Larder, Front and back staircases and Cellarage.
Bedrooms
15' x 15' 3", 15' x 11", 13' x 13' and 14' x 17' 6"
2 Dressing Rooms
11' 9" x 7' 8" and 9' 9" x 13'
Servants' Bedrooms
18' 6" x 12' 9"
Lavatory, Box Room and Bathroom.
Adjoining the house is a meat larder, storeplace, coal house, servants' w.c. and coke
and bottle store.
(This is believed to be the description of the building which it is now proposed to
reconstruct.)
Harness Room with Store Room adjoining, Gardener's Tool House, 2 pig cotes, fowl
house and woodshed.
Adjacent Coachman's Cottage:
Living Room
Scullery and Pantry
Two Bedrooms.
05.
The Chatsworth Estate Account Books for 1820 to 1838 have been studied. These were
the years prior to and during Mrs. Warwick's occupation, until her departure in 1838, when the property was let to Revd. W. Giles as described subsequently.
The Accounts for **1820** show arrears arising from a John Bullock in Ashford of £13 - 11 -
8. Was this the same Mr. Bullock whose Executors sold the Rookery to the Duke of Devonshire?
The Account Books for 1821 - 1824 (?) show very great expenditure on the Rookery,
and even greater expenditure on the grounds.
In **1821** a pond was infilled, and other considerable and frequent works to 'labour in
garden', 'cleaning', 'planting shrubbery and forming walks', 'carriage of trees' and the like were carried out at an approximate total cost of £105.
As might be expected, no accounts were paid over the Winter, with further works being
paid for from March 1822. Major items were "making walls, planting the Shrubbery and sundry at £39 - 11 - 10", "carting rubbish into the pond at £10 - 3 - 6", and "Chatsworth Farm Plants at £80 - 6 - 0"!
Improvements to the house are described in detail in the **1822** accounts. There were
also considerable ongoing works to the grounds, such as the "Taking down Peacock Houses in the Pleasure Grounds at £5 - 8 - 0", "levelling the Rookery Garden at £43 - 2 - 0" and "carting around remaining soil at the Rookery Gardens at £79 - 12 - 0". Fencework alone cost £53 - 2 - 0.
On and on went the expenses, to approximately £350 for the annual accounting period.
Works to the House were not neglected. There are regular payments to the same
identified tradesmen for mason's work, the carriage of lime and stone, painter's and glazier's work, carpentry work, sundry deal furniture and (timber) repairs, recasting and fixing the leaden gutters, blacksmith's work, slater's work and whitewashing and colouring! The expenditure was approximately £420. The chimneys are understood to have been rebuilt and raised during this year, and the Grotto was reportedly constructed this year.
On went similar works in **1823** to a cost of approximately £215. By now, the gardens
must have been in order for Thomas Wilson, Gardener, was paid £7 - 16 - 0 every 13
weeks/quarter. Flower seeds at 7s 3d were included in the buildings costs, however!
By **1824** finishing works were strongly in hand, and generally reduced expenditure,
including items at £3 - 10 - 0 for cartridge paper rolls for the Dressing Room, and £17 - 12 - 7 for painter's work.
06.
The expenditure continued though it by now seemed that finishing works were being
carried out. The same tradesmen were employed for carpentry, masonry, painters work, ironwork and plumbing and glazier works but, additionally, cartridge paper for (lining) the walls of the Dining Room was purchased for £3/10/-, as well as £4/12/4 being expended on drab cloth and drugget for lining both in 1824. The whole expenditure for the year was £171/11/7.
Interestingly, this is the year for the first entry in the accounts for the lady Benedictus
Parker who remains in them until they end in 1849 as separate for the Rookery. In this year she was paid for 60 weeks @ 2/6 for the keep of the Italian greyhound "Ondine"!
07.
The annual expenditure declined, with £92/4/4 in 1826 (the accounts for 1825 are
missing), £86/11/7 in 1827, £117/3/- in 1828 (reputedly the first year of Mrs. Warwick's residence), and £81/8/- in 1829.
08.
The accounts show ongoing costs for "labour in the garden" of £40 to £50. Regular
"carriage of gravel" presumably showed the topping up of the extensive paths within the grounds. Coal and soap/candles start to be regular, relatively large, annual expenditures at around £20 for the former and £10 for the latter.
09.
Joseph Paxton was paid £11/4/- in 1827 for the use of a labourer from the Chatsworth
Garden for 16 weeks (@ 14/- per week). £6/1/6 was paid in 1828 for Scotch roses, as well as the continuing hire of a labourer from the Chatsworth Garden.
10.
The menagerie maintained by Benedictus Parker varies from year to year, with entries
for a dog and two cats, then cats, and in 1831 one George Wilson was paid £2/4/- for "stuffing a Persian cat"!
11.
Some of the unusual entries include Richard Sellors in 1828 for repairing the roof of an
outbuilding and reslating the Waterkeeper's House for about £13, and the cost of coal from Staveley in 1832 @ £8/10/- with associated cartage costs of £10/11/3; £10/9/9 paid to Bramah and Prestage for a water closet apparatus in 1839; and over £20 being paid to a surgeon and medical supplier for "surgical attendance upon the Housekeeper" in 1834.
12.
Finishing or renewal and upgrading works can be seen to have been regularly carried
out, with a slowly changing cast of tradesmen, most of whom also appear in the Chatsworth accounts for other labours elsewhere. There are few furnishing costs, (six chairs in 1834), and some fabric items (chimney pipes in 1838, reportedly when the chimneys were raised), and an oven boiler in 1839.
13.
In 1837 there is again major expenditure with a total cost of £388/3/7½. This must be
the cost of the extension to the rear of the East end of the house. There are entries for the same tradesmen with considerably greater earnings, and in addition for "earthing and foundations at the back of the house".
These continued into the next year when Mrs. Warwick and the Duke, reportedly, finally
parted. The property was let to Revd. W.G. Giles, who was the Curate at Ashford
Church, which was a living in the Duke of Devonshire's patronage. The charity accounts show an annual gratuity payment of £3/-/- to the Revd. Giles. The Estate also pay him £1 per week to maintain the garden. From the Estate rentals it seems that the annual rent for the Rookery was £104, so the garden payment may well have been a charitable act. The Revd. Giles nevertheless left in 1851 with £61 rent arrears.
The annual Estate expenditure during the early years of his tenancy averaged around
£98, so there was precious little profit from the rent as charged, notwithstanding the
Revd. Giles's arrears. Amongst the entries of interest for those years concerning
alterations to the fabric were the opening of a sough in 1840, £11/18/9 in 1845 for a
"floor a sefament (?)", about £20 in 1846 for repairs to the bridge over the River Wye, and in 1847 for "removing earth at the back of the Dairy", together with substantial masons' accounts from the same year. Was this the original construction of the building which it is now proposed to reconstruct?
14.
As stated previously, the 1848 accounts are missing and from 1849 the Estate Accounts
are set out differently, with no specific reference to the expenditure at the Rookery.
15.
The full record of tenants of the property after this period is known:
Revd. W.G. Giles: 1838 - 1851
Edmund Hayworth: 1852 - 1867
Alfred Sarsby: 1866
Succeeded by Agnes Sorby: 1866 - 1896
John T. Dickenson: 1896 - 1898
Frederick Lear: 1899 - 1910
Walter C. Tinsley: 1910 - 1930
Succeeded by Alice Tinsley: 1930 -1942
Lord Andrew Cavendish: 1943 - 1946
Col. H. Dacres West: 1946 - 1956
16.
The Chatsworth Estate Archives obviously hold other documents relating to the property.
Between 1900 and 1903 there appears to have been a problem with the water supply and broken pipes to troughs with neighbours with such rights, and also the taking of the water supply from the Rookery to the Coach House for the washing of carriages.
Tenders for alterations to the Rookery were reported to the Estate Steward, Mr. Gilson,
in 1908 by John Ely F.R.I.B.A., Architect of Manchester, in the sums of £471 - 0 - 0 and £527 - 10 - 0. The scope of these works is shown on the drawing on the next page. It is believed that the works were never carried out , but the floor plan at that date is most helpfully shown. It shows the Butler's Pantry still located in what we now know as the Hall.
17.
Amongst the Chatsworth archive is a drawing (included here) described as "Plan for extensions to the Rookery, Ashford c. 1920".
The drawing is unfortunately undated and unsigned. It is believed to have been found relatively recently in a cache of papers in an outbuilding roof void/attic, and the "c. 1920"
attribution is certainly open to challenge.
Comparison with the known 1908 plan on page 28 showing proposed alterations to the Rookery is interesting. The 1908 plan clearly shows the Scullery Western extension to the side of the Kitchen.
That is not shown on the "as existing" colour rendering of the other plan. Were the
"below stairs" arrangements within the original fabric of the house implemented? The Wine Cellar of 1908 is marked as the Lady's Store and for China, and the Butler's Pantry is located in what is the Larder, and was so in 1908.
The proposals show the construction of a large Billiard Room attached to the North West of the house, with the principal access through the Morning Room. Attached to the Billiard Room was to be a service range to the North of the house with an enclosed courtyard. Interestingly, there is a pencil annotation on the drawing showing a door to give access to that courtyard!
This range is shown where much of the rear terrace, as now exists, is located. It bears no relationship, however, to the Scullery extension as was, or the passage from the Coach House/Barn running around and the North side of the extended service range of the house.
So, is it possible to assume that the drawing is in fact earlier than the 1920's attribution?
Does it predate the Scullery extension of the Kitchen/Servants' Hall which the Royal Commission report suggests was added in the mid nineteenth century? There is, however, no evidence of that in the drawings attributed to the 1920's!
18.
In recent years, the property has been regularly updated and modernised as comfort
standards have changed.
These works include the following alterations:
1.
As stated previously, in the 1970s the rear roof slope of the main range was
altered and reroofed with blue grey slates rather than the presumed previous sandstone slates. Consent for this work was reportedly obtained with some difficulty.
2.
The present owners have converted the Barn to a domestic office and study
accommodation; Upgraded the Kitchen and extended it to create a rear porch; Created a new bedroom by conversion from an existing bathroom, and carried out alterations to another bedroom.
7.05
Critical Evaluation of Previous Records
The published sources of information about the building are relatively few, and so far as
can be ascertained, are accurate. It might be possible to challenge with some of the observations of the RCHM conjectural, but not to fundamentally disagree with them.
The primary research reported sets out extracts from historic documents. Their veracity
cannot really be doubted. Many of the Chatsworth Estate Accounts and Records are signed by the eminent Joseph Paxton, (1803 - 65) from his service as Estate Steward, though most histories only record that he was Head Gardener. That cannot have been the case if he was signing his approval of Rental Books for the Estate.
The regression of the numerous maps showing the property after the mid eighteenth
century until the belated arrival of the Ordnance Survey to this part of Derbyshire in 1878, are mostly quite clear and consistent in showing the house and its grounds, and their development, followed by their retrenchment.
The former outbuilding that it is now proposed to reconstruct really did exist!
8.00
BUILDING FORM
8.01
Survey Drawings:
Lisa Shell Architects Ltd.: Drawings
RKR 2SU 001D
Ground Floor Plan As existing
RKR 2SU 002E
First Floor Plan As existing
RKR 2SU 003D
Roof Plan As existing
RKR 2SU 101C
Elevations 1 and 2 As existing
RKR 2SU 102C
Elevations 3 and 4 As existing
RKR 2SU 103C
Elevation 5 As existing
RKR 2SU 104D
RKR LO003C
Sections AA and BB As existing Historic maps
RKR LO002B
Location Plan
8.02
Structure:
The structure of the buildings is entirely typical for this part of Derbyshire, having
presumed shallow foundations to solid stone faced loadbearing walls, supporting first floor timber floor joists and traditional roof trusses, purlins and rafters, under a mixture of sandstone stone slab and blue grey slates to the various roof slopes. I imagine that the roofs were originally clad with sandstone stone slates, and the various alterations have caused the change.
The Coach House is constructed of the same materials, in part over an older archaic (or
reused?) timber cruck roof construction. It is, of course, to be noted that the building was originally described as a "Barn" before its conversion to the Coach House, so that
may well have been an original barn cruck construction. The joints of the cruck blades are apped, and the purlins are trenched onto those blades, indicating an early provenance.
8.03
Materials:
As stated above, the materials are entirely typical for the vernacular of this part of the
Peak District in Derbyshire, with limestone wall facings and gritstone dressings to openings, quoins and the like. The blue/grey roof slates are presumably a modern replacement arising from the remodelling of the main body of the house in the twentieth century. This is not a locally sourced material, but was readily used in the locality with the growth of their distribution by the expansion of the railways in the 1850s onwards.
Rainwater goods are cast iron, replacing the lead for such items as described in the
Chatsworth Archives Building Accounts of the 1820's and 1830's.
Windows and doors are generally painted timber. As described within section 10.00 the
detailed Fabric Survey, a number of what appear to be historic timber sliding sash windows have no horns at their intermediate rails, which generally denotes their manufacture before 1840. There are a number of panes of blown Crown glass to those windows which would again confirm their authenticity. Evidence is available with the photographs taken in 1992 by the representatives of the Royal Commission (Appendix
A) which show presumed nineteenth century replacement windows to the principal
South elevation of the main wing of the house.
Internally, all materials are typical, except for the use of what I believe to be Hopton
Wood limestone to the Hall floor, and to the principal staircase to the Master Bedroom on the first floor. I have never seen this material used for this purpose. It is interesting that the Royal Commission do not state this, but that the material is "fossiliferous marble flags, probably of locally quarried Ashford marble. I believe it to be Hopton Wood from
nearby Middleton-by-Wirksworth. There is the same stone at Chatsworth House, according to a reference. 1 What was described as "New Hopton Wood Stone" was acquired at Monsal Dale, until a legal judgement in 1910 protected the name of the original.
A useful guide to the Stones of Derbyshire2 confirms the Hopton Wood stone is one of
the local Bee Low limestones. The South Eastern edge of the seam of these very clean calcium carbonate stones is Hopton Wood. This is described as:
"This is a consistent fine-grained, fossiliferous, crystalline, pale, cream coloured
limestone, perhaps the UK's most widely used decorative indigenous limestone.
From the 18C onwards it has predominantly been used in interior work (staircases, floors, door surrounds, wall cladding) in grand houses and official buildings…..It was much in vogue from 1850 to 1950 and still is, although it is still available in small quantities, but much in demand."
Those descriptions and criteria precisely match the use of the stone at the Rookery.
The door to the Drawing Room is of historic interest, though I believe it has been
reworked.
The extant historic fire surround in the principal bedroom of the West range is a thing of
considerable beauty and historic interest.
Most other finishes are modern, albeit presumably overlying the historic materials
beneath! The 1992 Royal Commission photographs interestingly in part record the furniture, fittings and decoration of a previous owner of the house.
9.00
DETAILS OF CHANGE PROPOSED
9.01
The principal development now proposed is the reconstruction of the former outbuilding
located to the North of the principal body of the house, against the bank up to the Buxton Road.
This is most clearly shown on the submitted drawings.
This photograph taken in the 1970's shows the former outbuilding prior to its being taken
down around that time, presumably in conjunction with the known contemporary alterations to the rear of the main body of the house.
The alterations to the rear roof slope of the main range of the house do not seem to
have been carried out by this time.
The outbuilding is also clearly shown on this photograph, also believed to have been
taken in the 1970's.
9.02
That building was taken down in part and then resurfaced with pavings to create an
external series of terraces.
Photographs of terrace as existing.
9.03
The reconstruction will provide for ancillary accommodation to the dwelling.
The principal accommodation of the reconstructed building will comprise a Laundry
Room which is a requirement for a family with growing children, and containing plant, and a Wine Cellar.
Stairs will lead up to a mezzanine floor level above, on which a Dayroom will be created
with views Westwards across the grounds of the house.
A part of the existing terrace will be lowered by just one step, so that access can be
easily made onto it from the new Dayroom. A flowerbed retaining wall will be taken
down and rebuilt to achieve this, and the modern access steps up to the Terrace from the back door of the house will need to be altered.
The existing large terrace to the Western side will be retained all as existing but the
present poor quality concrete flaggs will be replaced with natural stone paving.
9.04
Investigation by the digging of test pits under the direction of the Consultant Structural
Engineer has been carried out, and the walls of the reconstruction will be raised over new foundations, within the line of the historic walls, so that the new walls in no way affect the retaining wall back into the bank to the rear of the existing boundary wall along Buxton Road.
The Consultant Structural Engineer has advised that the existing reduced wall and its
unknown foundation cannot be accepted as a suitable founding for the new rear wall of the proposed restitution of the former outbuilding. The historic wall will remain. It will continue to contribute whatever structural foundation that it does, and a new concrete block wall of two leaves reinforced with structural steel mesh in the cavity/joint between the leaves will be connected to steel reinforcement in the new concrete floor slab.
Investigation to date on the surface of that bank shows a plethora of damaged and
dumped stonework and mass concrete, presumably as a foundation/reinforcement of the high stone boundary wall to the public highway.
9.05
The **walls** as raised will be faced externally in coursed limestone all to match the
existing retaining wall as exposed, and also the main body of the house.
The **roof** will be equally pitched, clad with blue grey natural slates, and panels of
photovoltaic collectors on the South slope, which is concealed from all public views.
The roof will have clay ridge caps to the ridge. That ridge will be located at a lower level
than the ridge of the gable wall of the existing Kitchen offshot.
9.06
The new structural **openings** will have sawn gritstone dressings, lintels and cills, and all
doors and **windows** will be of painted timber.
9.07
The existing **Dining Area** within the Kitchen space within the main body of the house
is too small for the convenience of a large modern family. It is simple in form, with slated pitched roofs over stone loadbearing walls, and it is desired to extend it in the same form and materials for approximately 1.5 metres in length, all as shown on the submitted drawings.
10.00
DETAILED FABRIC SURVEY
10.01
I have carried out a detailed inspection of the buildings, both externally and internally.
The purpose is to amplify the documentary sources of information as to the development of the complex of buildings, and to identify those aspects of the built fabric which have
historic significance, and whether they are to be affected by the proposed changes.
I base my assessments of the impact of the current proposals for change on the
following drawings prepared by Lisa Shell Architects Ltd.:
RKR2/GA/001D
RKR2/GA/002D
RKR2/GA/003D
RKR2/GA/101D
RKR2/GA/102D
RKR2/GA/103C
RKR2/GA/104C
I set out after my description of each building element or space my assessment of the
impact of the changes proposed on that significance.
10.02
The building has grown and been remodelled through time. The present owners have
carried out extensive works of upgrading and modernisation to the Rookery itself, to the adjacent barn and to Rookery Cottage since 2006. They have reacquired the latter building, so that it now forms part of the overall land holding.
10.03
The Rookery can be summarised by the listing description as set out at 3.03. Bald
description offers little of the actual charm of the building itself! (Photographs 1 - 6).
10.04
Generally:
From visual inspection, and certainly from documentary evidence, the house has
obviously been significantly altered through the years, as described previously in the
historical development section of this report.
Generally the house is built of random limestone brought to course under sandstone
slab roofs. As stated previously, the rear roof slopes of the main range have been reclad in blue/grey slates.
10.05
External inspection:
I will report on each section of the house, making my observations as to those elements
of fabric which contribute in some way to the heritage significance of the whole.
01.
Main Wing: The **South** elevation is unbalanced. This is principally caused by the two canopied doorways, the central one of which has been infilled. I presume that was the original when the house probably comprised that central bay plus two single-light bays to each side, as so considered by the R.C.H.M. report of 1992. That to the East side has now been changed to have a three-light window with stone mullions. (Photograph 7). The Royal Commission report states that this wall was rebuilt. I cannot see any physical evidence for this, and can only presume that they have some documentary evidence for that assertion.
It is also asserted that the two very similar canopied door openings are
contemporaneous and form part of the Duke's remodellings of the 1820's. It is
suggested that the two openings were used separately for different status visitors. I cannot believe that. I believe that the right hand (Eastern) door is the original, which became redundant with the remodelling of the interior of the original range, I agree with their conjecture as to the internal evidence of the location of the original entrance lobby, which accords perfectly with that now infilled door opening.
The diminishing stone slab **roof** above is surmounted by what must have been originally
a central passage chimney and also a gable **chimney** to the East end of the house.
These have been raised in worked limestone ashlar over a plinth course on rubblestone base. They are surmounted by distinctive clay pots. The matching pots on an adjacent house, which is known to have been designed by Joseph Paxton, suggest that he had a hand in their being placed on this building as well. (Photograph 8).
The **walls** are of irregular rubble limestone brought generally to course with rather
protruding mortar pointing. The windows and door dressings are gritstone as is typical with this vernacular. Interestingly, there is no plinth as there often is with buildings of
this type.
The First Floor **windows,** and that to the Ground Floor immediately adjacent to the
modern entrance door, have no horns to the sliding sashes. The three sashes in the
three-light window to the Ground Floor at the East end have horns. The photographs taken in 1992 by the Royal Commission show that these ground floor windows were at that time presumed replacement nineteenth century single light sashes. I understand that the present owners have caused those windows to be replaced with small paned sliding sashes to match those at first floor level.
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: HIGH. NO ALTERATIONS PROPOSED.
02.
The **East** elevation has a blank gable to the original body of the house. (Photograph 3).
There is an area of unmatched patch pointing near the abutment to the rear offshot wing in what appears to be the butt joint between this gable and that extension. (Photographs 9 and 10).
03.
Rear Offshot Wing: That has apparently been constructed in two phases. The first
constructed is faced with a mix of rubble limestone plus one or two gritstones plus
evidence of what were fairly ornamental gritstone quoins at high level. (Photograph 9).
Below that is an area of unmatched split limestone set in mortar pointing. I wonder if there was some former door or other such opening there? There is no evidence of that internally. Certainly the levels do not work. The Royal Commission suggest that this range was formerly of one and a half storeys, later raised to two with a subsequent remodelling. That would explain these levels.
There is a timber sliding sash window without horns at First Floor level, set into typical
squared gritstone surrounds. Interestingly, the jambs to each side have small blocks at their heads. This suggests the stones may have been reused and "lengthened" to suit the desired new window opening. There is evidence of former security bars having been removed in the lintel.
The Ground Floor window again may have been reused. The splayed jambs and cill are
certainly more eroded. These again may have been reused. (Photograph 11).
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: MEDIUM. IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: LOW..
04.
A further **extension** of that offshot wing is constructed in much higher status gritstone
facing work materials with squared and coursed blocks. The present strap pointing is unfortunate and the current owners intend to remove it, and replace it with more
appropriate flush lime mortar pointing.
Interestingly, the three window openings have stone heads and sills and the paired
window has a central mullion but otherwise they have no jamb dressings. None of the three timber sliding sash windows has horns.
The face of the stonework has been punched, which again indicates higher status.
There has been some erosion at lower level. Interesting survivals of the past are the stable bell (photograph 12) and the pump, presumably to serve that stable. (Photograph 10).
The **North** return of that extension is constructed in the same materials with a
delightfully detailed tiny window at low level! (Photograph 13).
The **West** facing wall again clearly shows the two periods of building with rubble
limestone to the South side being jointed to the squared coursed limestone.
Interestingly, there is a pink tinged limestone set of dressings around an unhorned sash window, rather than the usual buff/yellow.
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: MEDIUM. IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: HIGH.
05.
A **further extension** to the West of that has been constructed in the recent past as
shown on the 1898 Ordnance Survey map. (Photograph 4). The flat lead roof and lantern light are part of recent remodelling works, and the rubble limestone with gritstone quoining and window dressings of the offshot are historic. It is now proposed that the walling be taken down and rebuilt to allow for the lengthening of that space.
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: LOW. IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: HIGH.
06.
The **rear North elevation** of the **main wing** now comprises a Ground Floor walling of
rubble limestone with small plinth and window to the wine store internally, under a short
length of slated pitched roof and then a long blue-grey slated roof up to the ridge. I understand this roof form was altered in the mid 1970's.
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: MEDIUM. IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: LOW.
07.
West Cross Wing: The cross wing is attached to the central body of the house and it is believed to have been constructed by the Duke of Devonshire when he acquired the house in 1821 to give it higher status. The construction certainly reflects that.
The wing is set out in advance of the main body of the house. The principal South
elevation (photograph 14) has a canted bay with Venetian central light to the First Floor bedroom. Generally the walls are of coursed limestone with gritstone dressings. There are two band courses. Quoining is with coursed limestone but the blocks are not particularly squared.
A First Floor sash window is no longer operative and has no horns. Most of the three
Ground Floor sides of the bay have horns. There is a coped pediment over the small hipped slated roof to the bay. Interestingly, that does not reflect the roof slope behind. (Photograph 15). I do not think this shows any history of previous change, it was merely set out this way for the aesthetic of the slope of the pediment.
The **West** wall is of somewhat lower grade coursed limestone. (Photograph 2). There
are two windows to Ground Floor, timber sliding sashes without horns matched with
shallower windows above to the First Floor. There is a projecting eaves course of stone
at the head of the wall, unlike the opposite elevation, where there is none.
From this elevation the stone slate roof can clearly be seen with similar raised ashlar
chimneys, and the same distinctive chimney pots referred to previously.
One chimney is located over the eaves towards the South-West corner and there has
been some soot staining of the limestone, presumably from leaks through the feathers
and pointing of the flues.
At the base of the wall there is a strange feature, being some type of plinth.
(Photograph 16). It does not, however, extend to the full length of the wall, but just a short central section. At first I wondered if it was a part of the foundations/sub base of the internal fireplace and chimney. I cannot, however, understand what.
The principal feature of the rear **North** wall is a six-light window illuminating the
staircase from the Ground Floor hall to the First Floor bedrooms. This construction is in
somewhat archaic style mouldings. The Royal Commission report also suggests that some of the mullions and transoms of this window were reused components. Some of
these have regrettably been rather badly repaired with cement mortar but the original design and construction can be clearly seen. The wall otherwise is constructed of coursed limestone. (Photograph 17).
At the Ground Floor level the shadows of former attached outbuildings can clearly be
seen together with vent holes. This elevation regrettably has become something of a services run support.
There is a short length of return over the roof that abuts that of the main wing on the
East side. This construction is of much lower status rubble limestone, occasionally
brought to course. There is a rather complex meeting of roofs and leadwork. (Photograph 18).
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: HIGH. IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: LOW.
10.06
INTERNALLY:
In the following section of the report I report on the features of individual spaces/rooms
within the dwelling which I think contribute to the heritage significance of the house, or
offer evidence as to the date of its provenance or previous alteration.
I use the room names denoted on Lisa Shell Architects Ltd.'s drawings Ground Floor
Plan As Existing: RKR2/SU/001/D and First Floor Plan As Existing: RKR2/SU/002/E.
In view of the very limited areas where it might be considered that the proposed changes
described at section 8.00 will impact, there are only assessments of the Heritage Significance and Impact of the Proposals set out for those spaces.
01.
Hall:
The pattern of **ceiling** beams shown on the drawing indicates this as being an area of
change as might be expected. If the principal original entrance was in the opening
which now forms part of the Family Room, which presumably had some type of entrance chamber, then the room may have extended as far West as the principal beam running North/South into which a number of historic mortices can be seen. (Photographs 19 and 20). This beam has chamfered stop-ends to round rolled mould East/West onto the solid wall partition between this space and the Family Room. The Royal Commission report correctly notes the moulding is stopped at one end and not the other, suggesting this indicates that it was reused in this position.
There are two trimmed-out areas of ceiling joists. One is by the former entrance way
partition and the other adjacent to the beam. I wonder if they reflect the location of an historic stairwell? Prior to the construction of the West wind of the house there must have been a principal staircase connecting the original two storeys.
Generally, plasterwork to **walls** to openings is rounded rather than squared. There is a
moulded timber dado rail which I would date to around 1840. There are simple skirtings
with a top roll moulding. The window shutters remain with their ironmongery including the restraint bar. (Photograph 21). There is a limestone **fireplace** with fire grate which
could be 18th or 21st century! I understand it is to be the latter! (Photograph 22). One of
the photographs taken by the Royal Commission in 1992 shows the fireplace and the backing wall which at that time had the backing stonework exposed and pointed up. The stonework can clearly be seen to have never been intended for display! A larger fireplace opening under a flat brick arch has been infilled and the present stone dressings to the smaller fireplace.
The glory of the room is what I believe to be a Hopton Wood limestone slabbed **floor**. I
have never seen a floor of this material before but know that it was used for that in high status buildings. Its veining has proved too soft for long standing use and consequent wear, but the floor is still entirely serviceable.
Interestingly, there are three squared recesses formed in it. They do not line up. The
Royal Commission report suggests that these mortices indicate previous partition fixings for the partition walls and the Butler's Pantry which was located in this space, as can be seen on the reproduced drawing of 1897. (Photograph 22). (Page ?).
02.
Drawing Room: This indeed is the principal reception room of the house and is
thoroughly delightful. (Photographs 24 and 25). There is a flat plastered ceiling which is perhaps somewhat surprising. There is perhaps some plaster scarring around the central chandelier which may indicate that there was formerly a plaster ceiling rose there? There is a heavy cornice and high level moulded string course.
There are timber stall risers to the windows in the bay, which conceal shutters which rise
to infill the openings.
Stylistically, the fireplace could again be 18th or 20th century! The Royal Commission
report presumably from documentary sources, stated at that time there was a 1950's
replacement fireplace. That was in turn replaced with the present in 2005 by the current owners.
The shutters to the flank elevation window remain.
The **floor** planks are generally exposed and painted and can be seen to be of some
width. There are deep skirtings with a top roll moulding.
The **door** has decorative panels. I suspect those have been fitted at some recent time.
The six-panel door itself is of some antiquity. (Photograph 26). The historic ironmongery is in the main retained and serviceable.
03.
The **Study** to the North side of the house is approached through the bottom of the
stairwell which will have been constructed in the extension of 1821 or thereabouts. On the 1897 plan it is shown, generally as existing now, and is marked as the Morning Room, though interestingly it is orientated such that it will receive no morning sunlight! The plaster cornice remains to the ceiling and the fireplace, but otherwise all other fixtures and fittings appear to be modern.
There are substantial built-in cupboards under the stairs and into the wall, as shown on
the plan. The room itself has effectively been refitted as a modern working office.
04.
The **Family Room** will I believe have been the principal room formed in one of the
earliest plan forms of the original dwelling in the original body of the house.
There is one historic but undecorated **ceiling** beam spanning North to South, to
presumably form the opening of the hall to the original entrance doorway. (Photograph
27).
The long timber beam spanning from that to the East gable wall can be seen to have
been formerly plastered as have the now exposed ceiling joints with nail fixings for the laths around them to the ceiling. (Photograph 28).
There is a historic long timber lintel over the three-light window. (Photograph 29).
There is no decorative plasterwork. The skirtings appear to be modern. There is a
timber stall riser to the long three-light window. There are timber shutters rising from a
recess in the wall to infill the window openings. (Photograph 30).
The fireplace now has a wood-burning stove located in what I think must have been a
rebuilt opening. Stylistically, it matches that in the Hall adjacent, and so could either be archaic, or alternatively, of twentieth century provenance! Both are located in what I believe to the oldest rooms in the house, so their matching could offer the clue that they are archaic. They are, however, in disturbingly good condition…..!
The floor is carpeted but feels to be timber construction underneath.
The timber door has one glazed panel and appears to have been re-panelled generally
around an original muntin.
05.
The **Inner Hall** is approached via a short length of corridor from the Reception and
Family Room. It too has a floor of a mixture of Hopton Wood and gritstone stone paving.
There is an arched opening to the Wine Cellar. Also, ingeniously, a W.C. has been formed in what originally was the location of the rear service staircase, as seen on the 1908 plan
Happily, the servants' bells mechanism remains. (Photograph 32).
06.
The **Wine Cellar** is located in one of two chambers. Shelving is formed, as is often
found, with stone slabs, which are undoubtedly historic and formed part-larder and partfood store. It is located in an extension to the rear of the original main body of the dwelling, with a small ventilating window.
There are four steps down to its floor level, which both gave more headroom to the
rooms above and made for cooler storage conditions. The ceiling of that outer chamber could be formed by plaster applied directly to the underside of stone roofing slates. However, there is hearsay that these service spaces were vaulted, possibly for security, which appears to be the case from the internal form of the space. Otherwise the old stone slates htat historically formed the ceiling of the space, may have simply been left in situ when the roof was remodelled, and reclad, in the 1970's.
The former external walls to the house are now enclosed.
The only other item of historic interest besides the vaulted forms of the ceiling is the
historic ironmongery (photograph 31) where it is sadly redundant to the proper security of the door.
Unfortunately the main volume of the cellar has been partitioned to accommodate a hot water cylinder but will be recovered to its earlier form in the resiting of the equipment into the reconstructed outbuilding.
07.
The **Laundry** door is of interesting planked braced timber construction with old
ironmongery. (Photographs 33 and 34).
08.
The **Kitchen** range opening remains in modern use. (Photograph 35). It is the historic
previous extension to this which it is proposed now be further extended.
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: MEDIUM/LOW. IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: HIGH.
09.
The principal access to the First Floor is via the **stairway** built into the extension at West
end abutment to the original dwelling. Its elegance can hopefully be seen in photographs 36 and 37.
The treads and risers are again clad with what I believe is Hopton Wood marble, which I
again have never seen before. There is a pine moulded handrail affixed to a newel post. I suspect the balusters between replace some more historic types though the locations appear to be the same (photographs 38 to 40) even where metal reinforcements have been built into the tread. Might there have been an elegant metal rail originally?
The string to the wall has a simple roll moulding to its top and there is a moulded dado
rail.
10.
At First Floor level the junction of the floor levels from the new "gentry" wing and the
original body of the house has led to a rather awkward stair down to that former accommodation. (Photograph 41). This reflects the greater ceiling heights in the higher status West cross wing.
What I presume was changed to plan form originally with two bedrooms and a dressing
room has been converted so that the Master bedroom remains at the South end of this wing, there is a Dressing room to the centre, and a large Bathroom to the rear (North) end.
11.
The **Master Bedroom** is a delightful space with coved ceilings leading to a flat central
area. (Photograph 42).
There is a heavy projecting plaster moulded cornice. (Photograph 43).
The windows, along with an opening sash, have had two panes altered to allow their
"screw" opening for reduced ventilation provision. (Photograph 44). There is still Crown glass glazing to these windows.
There is a delightful 18th century fireplace with the fire surround with black Ashford
marble and Blue John crystal inlay. (Photographs 45 and 46).
The **Dressing Room** has been fitted out to modern standards. There is trap access into
the roof void above.
In that **roof void** the modern insulation is very disturbed, presumably by services
installations/alterations and that needs to be re-laid and smoothed down to be effective.
There appear to be three King post trusses of some antiquity.
The first matter of surprise is that there is an underlay of relatively modern bituminous
sarking roof felt. This means that it must have been re-roofed at some time up to the 1960s.
There is a mixture inside that of historic adzed timbers and sawn replacements. Some
fillets have been provided, presumably to level up the bow which had developed in the
rafters. Some rafters are set on their side, with others in the more correct "upright" position. Purlins appear to be trenched. There are lots of pegs and morticing. (Photographs 47 to 50).
This room is connected to a **Bathroom** adjacent, which again has two covings to the
ceiling, and is fitted out to modern standards. The principal surviving heritage artefact is
a delightful 18th century fireplace with Hopton Wood marble surround. (Photograph 51).
12.
The original core **East-West range** of the house was presumably only the depth of the
bedrooms and bathrooms along the South elevation with an access corridor on the North side. (Photograph 52). There is a stone arch over the opening to the stairs onto
the access corridor.
The lean-to ceiling along the corridor has exposed presumed historic rafters. There are
significant storage spaces between sections of solid wall along the North side of that corridor, except for that which is breached with the observation light down into the Kitchen access corridor. (Photograph 53). The 1857 plan reproduced preiously shows this to be the site of the secondary staircase.
13.
The **former Dressing Room** is now a delightful modern fitted child's Bedroom and is
delightfully tidy!
14.
The adjacent **Bedroom** is open to the underside of the roof and has an exposed king
post truss, purlins and rafters. The truss shows mortices from previous pegs. The
purlins show mortices, presumably for partition muntins. The purlins are part trenched onto the principal rafter of the exposed truss. (Photograph 54).
There is a Hopton Wood marble fire surround and limestone fire grate.
The en-suite **Bathroom** has been fitted out to modern standards with new surface
finishes. The floor is raised, presumably to accommodate drainage connections?
(Photograph 55).
15.
The adjacent **Bedroom** is again fitted out to modern standards and a historic retained
fireplace and surround not matching any of the others in the house. There is an access to the roof void above.
From that **roof void** there is access into the roof void of the North offshot wing over the
Kitchen (Photographs 56 - 58). There is quite a lot of evidence of beetle attack on the timbers, particularly the purlins. Some modern purlins replaced the originals, presumably when the roof was raised for the altered rear roof pitch. There is modern sarking felt to this roof as well. The roof has a mixture of adzed (historic) rafters and modern sawn replacements or additions. There are a large number of struts and props, supporting the main structural timber members.
16.
At the East end of the corridor there is access into the return offshot Eastern wing (over
the Kitchen) which is at a raised floor level. There is a small Bathroom again fitted out to the highest modern standards with no historic fabric remaining exposed. There is a small access trap in the landing outside the space, into which I was unable to gain access.
17.
The remainder of the accommodation at this floor level of the offshot wing is a further
Bedroom fitted out to modern high standards of finish. There is an access trap to the roof void above which is inaccessible because of the room's furniture. There is an original stone fireplace, surround and cast iron grate.
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: LOW. IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: LOW.
BARN
10.08
Exterior:
01.
This is located to the East side of the main house. I presume that it was originally used
as stabling and as a Coach House, as that would seem to be the purpose of the nicely detailed doorway to the West gable. (Photograph 101).
That **West** elevation is certainly the most interestingly detailed, with regular large
gritstone quoins, gritstone surrounds and a flat arch over the presumed Coach opening, with a fixed 16-light window set within stone dressings in the gable above. There is a ridge chimney above, again constructed of gritstone. The verge details show evidence of change, and mortar infilling of different depths of joint.
There is an external gritstone flagg forecourt to the entrance doors.
The **South** elevation (photograph 102) again shows the remodelling of the building to
give it its "polite" West front, with a very apparent butt joint between that construction and the more random vernacular construction of the remainder of the elevation. (Photograph 103). The stone voussoir arch is, I presume, a modern intervention, as it is certainly not a vernacular detail in this locality. The other two windows have more typical gritstone squared dressings.
A modern garage has been infilled between the South wall of that building and a
substantial wall between this area and the garden to the river frontage below. (Photograph 102) I presume this to be a modern intervention. It abuts the gable wall of the Rookery Cottage adjacent.
The **North** elevation also shows evidence of past change. (Photograph 104). The
"polite" return to the West gable is very much shorter. There has obviously been a history of movement of that part of the wall, with this section of the building moving away from the remainder, and being repaired. There appears to be an infilled door or window adjacent.
The stonework is of a very much lower status, being random rubble brought to course
with completely different face work. There are some interesting stones incorporating sections of what I presume is Ashford black marble as commercially quarried from the quarry nearby as described previously. (Photographs 105 and 106).
There are modern windows set within historic openings generally with gritstone
surrounds. There is a further butt joint towards the East end of the wall indicating a different build period for this section.
The **East** gable is of random un-coursed limestone with gritstone quoins. (Photograph
107). It appears to have been repointed in modern times.
The **roof** is of blue/grey slates to the rear (North) slope, and a plethora of plastic vents
located near the eaves and near the ridge, so it has obviously been re-roofed in modern times in accordance with the ventilation of roof provisions of the current Building
Regulations! On the South side the roof is clad with sandstone slates to match the main house.
Interior:
02.
The interior of much of this building has been substantially altered in the recent past. It
could be said to now be an exemplar of the creative conservation, and the reuse of a historic building for an economic use.
The building is cruck framed with two of the frames remaining. One is exposed in a
double-height space. (Photograph 108). Skilled modern design has created an upper level with timber, glass and steel. (Photograph 109).
Tradition is maintained with a stone flagged floor in the principal space. The purlins,
rafters and posts of the crucks show evidence of the previous different uses of the building. The arrangement of the purlins over the cruck blades is archaic and dated to
approximately 1800-50.
Historically there would seem to have been a fireplace at First Floor level, perhaps for
grooms or postmen or coachman's sleeping accommodation over the stables below? (Photograph 110).
At the East end of the building's Ground Floor, remnants of the historic stable remain
with three stalls still extant. (Photograph 14).
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: HIGH. IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: LOW.
10.09
THE GROUNDS
01.
As can be seen from the location plan, the grounds of the property are extensive. Those
to the South side of the River Wye, cutting through the property running from West to East up to the frontage along Duke's Drive, are of no relevance to this report.
02.
The bridge over the river is a delightful structure. This is all a designated heritage asset
in its own right rather than merely being within the curtilage of the Rookery. (Photograph 201).
03.
There are gardens laid out to the front, South side and East side of the property up to
the river. These are wholly delightful and appropriate to the house. There is a formal box hedge garden and extensive lawns immediately in front of the house running down to the river. (Photographs 202 - 204).
04.
As described previously, the grounds are very extensive. To the South and West end of
the property is a delightful walk along the riverside through woodland. This now terminates at the back of (house) which was formerly the home of the Manager of the Marble Works and just on the other side of the road to the site of the Ashford Marble Mill.
There is a delightful riverside walk (photograph 205) including both a Grotto constructed
of tufa (similar to that at Stourhead in Wiltshire) (photograph 207) and also an Ice House (photograph 206) for which part of the steps giving access down into the river to collect the ice still remain!
It is understood that the curtilage used to extend to encompass the Ashford Marble
Works, now mainly demolished to allow for the construction of Duke's Drive (now being the A6 trunk road). The stone extracted was known as Black Marble.
As stated previously, the Works were founded in 1748 by Henry Watson, who was a
relative of the stone carvers, White Watson of Bakewell and Samuel Watson of Chatsworth. The Works closed in 1905. Details of the position of the mine and the Chatsworth patronage are described previously. (Photographs 208 - 214).
05.
The area of the grounds which would be impacted by the proposed works as described
at Section 9.00 is the terracing to the North of the house, between it and the boundary wall to the back of the public highway now known as Buxton Road, and so to the rear of the dwelling.
The area was formed by the taking down of a former outbuilding to approximately half its
height, infilling the void between the rear retaining and three other walls and paving over it to create the sequence of terraces now existing. (Photographs on pages 37-41)
Behind that original rear wall to the outbuilding, there is now a levelled strip of ground, which is effectively beyond the garden. (Photographs on pages 37-41). What appears to be a ruinous remnant of the former outbuilding still exists as shown on photograph 224.
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: LOW. IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: HIGH.
11.00
PUBLISHED POLICIES AND GUIDANCE
11.01
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICIES
01.
The principal document is the **National Planning Policy Framework (2008)** - These
proposals are too micro-scaled for these policies to be relevant, beyond their general thrust that the development contribution to national economic growth is to be encouraged.
The heritage advice contained within the document is:
Section 12: **Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment**. This sets out
Governmental guidance/policy.
(126)
Desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets
and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation,
Desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local
character and distinctiveness,
(132)
Any harm or loss to Grade II building should be exceptional,
Any loss or harm should require clear and continuing justification,
(134)
Where the development would lead to less than substantial harm to the
significance of the asset, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
02.
Beyond the NPPF further guidance is published by the Government on the Planning
Portal website. The Planning Practice Guidance: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment states:
(008)
Decision taking: in the historic environment
What is the setting of a heritage asset and how should it be taken into
account?
(015)
What is a viable use for a heritage asset and how is it taken into account in
planning decisions?
(017)
How is it possible to assess if there is substantial harm to be caused by the
proposals?
(019)
How can proposals avoid or minimise harm to the significance of a heritage
asset?
03.
The primary legislation remains the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation areas) Act 1990. That states:
"7.
Subject to the following provisions of this Act no person shall execute or cause
to be executed any works for the demolition of a listed building or its alteration or extension in any manner which will affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest, unless the works are authorized.
8 (1)
Works for the alteration or extension of a listed building are authorized if:
(a)
written consent for their execution has been granted by the local planning
authority……..; and
(b)
they are executed in accordance with the terms of the consent and of any
conditions attached to it.
10(1)
…. an application for listed building consent shall be made to and dealt with by
the local planning authority.
10(2)
Such an application shall be made in such form as the authority may require
and shall contain -
(a)
sufficient particulars to identify the building to which it relates, including a
plan;
(b)
such other plans and drawings as are necessary to describe the works
which are the subject of the application; and
(c)
such other particulars as may be required by the authority.
16(1)
….the local planning authority …. may grant or refuse an application for listed
building consent and, if they grant consent, may grant it subject to conditions.
16(2)
In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local
planning authority ….. shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
16(3)
Any listed building consent shall …… enure for the benefit of the building and of
all persons for the time being interested in it."
11.02
Further advice and guidance is available from the Government's heritage agency
Historic England:
Their publication "**The Setting of Heritage Assets**: Historic Environment Good Practice
Advice in Planning Note 3" is relevant.
01.
The advice in this document, in accordance with the NPPF, emphasises that the
information required in support for applications for Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent should be no more than is necessary to reach an informed decision, and that activities to conserve or invest need to be proportionate to the significance of the heritage assets affected and the impact on the significance of those heritage assets.
02.
It suggests that the primary concerns are the relationship of the proposals to curtilage,
character and context.
Curtilage is defined as "the legal term describing an area around a building and, with listed structures, the extent of curtilage is defined by consideration of ownership, both past and present, functional association and layout. The setting of a historic asset will include, but generally be more extensive than, its curtilage".
Character "of a historic place is the sum of all its attributes, which may include: its
relationships now and through time; its visual aspects; and the features, materials and spaces associated with its listing including its original configuration and subsequent losses and changes".
Context "is the term used to describe any relationship between it and other heritage assets which are relevant to its significance … and can include the relationship of one heritage asset to another of the same period or function or with the same designer or architect".
03.
The **extent of setting** states:
"The NPPF makes it clear that the setting of a heritage asset is the surroundings in which the heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve".
04.
View and setting are described:
"The contribution of setting .. is often expressed by reference to views, a purely visual impression of an asset or place which can be static or dynamic, including a variety of view of, across, or including that asset, and views of the surroundings from or through the asset".
05.
These lead to a description of the importance of the setting and the significance of heritage assets which are described as follows:
"Setting is not a heritage asset, nor a heritage designation. Its importance lies in what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset".
The importance of **cumulative change** and **change over time** are expressed.
Understanding the history of change will help determine how further development within the asset's setting is likely to affect the contribution made by setting to the significance of the heritage asset.
Many heritage assets have settings that have been designed to enhance their presence and visual interest.
06.
This leads to recommendations regarding a Staged Approach to Proportionate Decision Taking, which suggests that:
"All heritage assets have significance some of which have particular significance and are designated and the contribution made by their setting to their significance also varies …. not all settings have the same capacity to accommodate change without harm to the significance of the heritage asset. This capacity may vary …
Protection of the setting of heritage assets need not prevent change; indeed change may be positive".
Amongst the Government's planning objectives for the historic environment is that conservation decisions are based on the nature, extent and level of a heritage asset's significance and are investigated to a proportionate degree.
07.
The **process** of determining the effect of any proposed alteration to the setting of a heritage asset could be as follows:
1.
Identifying the heritage assets and their settings.
2.
Assessing whether, how and to what degree those settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset.
3.
Assessing the effect of the proposed development on the significance of the
asset such as:
Location and siting
Form and appearance
Additional effects Permanence
4.
The proposals should attempt to maximise enhancement and minimise harm:
Enhancement is described as:
Removing or remodelling an intrinsic building or feature.
Replacement of a detrimental feature by a new or more harmonious one.
Restoring or revealing a lost historic feature.
11.04
Further guidance to decision makers is primarily offered by the following document from
the same source:
"Historic England: Making Changes to Heritage Assets, Historic England Advice
Note 2".
01.
This states:
"3.
A reasonable and **proportionate approach to owners' needs** is therefore
essential.
5.
(an important consideration) …. is an **understanding of the significance** of
individual elements, derived from both the physical evidence and documentary sources.
7.
Change … can normally be characterised as:
Repair
Restoration Addition and alteration, either singly or combination…"
02.
Restoration is described as:
"23.
Restoration may range from small scale work …. to large schemes to restore the former appearance of buildings, with the addition of major missing elements …
24.
Restoration is likely to be acceptable if:
The work proposed is justified by compelling evidence of the evolution of
the heritage asset, and is executed in accordance with that evidence.
The work proposed respects previous forms of the heritage asset.
No archaeological interest is lost if the restoration work could later be
confused with the original fabric.
The maintenance implications of the proposed restoration are considered to
be sustainable.
25.
Restoration works are those that are intended to reveal or recover something of
significance that has been enabled, observed or previously removed.
03.
Guidance for the principles of **Addition and Extension** are similarly defined:
"41.
The main issues to consider in proposals for additions to heritage assets …
aside from NPPF requirements such as social and economic activity and sustainability are suggested as the following:
Proportion, Height, Massing,
Bulk, Use of materials, Durability and adaptability, Use, Enclosure, Relationship with adjacent assets which includes:
definition of spaces and streets,
alignment, active frontages, permeability, treatment of setting".
04.
It is suggested that it would not normally be good practice for new work to dominate the
original asset in either scale, material or as a result of its siting. Assessment of an
asset's significance or its relationship to its setting will usually suggest the forms of extension that might be appropriate.
05.
At paragraph 42 it states:
"The historic fabric will always be an important part of the asset's
significance…., however, the retention of as much historic fabric as possible… is likely to fulfil the NPPF policy to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, as a fundamental part of any good alterations or conversion."
06.
Similarly, it suggests that the junction between new work and the existing fabric needs
particular attention, both for its impact on the significance of the existing asset and the impact on the contribution of its setting.
Where possible it is preferable for new work to be reversible, so that changes can be
undone without harm to historic fabric.
07.
The document then sets out the various elements of a heritage asset that might be
affected by any proposed intervention.
The existing elements of the building to be affected by this application are described
previously in Section 10.00.
11.04
The principal general advice offered by Historic England (formerly English Heritage) with
regard to the sustainable management, including change, of the historic environment is set out in their document:
"Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management
of the Historic Environment".
01.
This describes the six principles for the conservation of the historic environment in
England and Wales as being:
1.
The historic environment is a shared resource.
2.
Everyone should be able to participate in sustaining the historic environment.
3.
Understanding the significance of places is vital.
4.
Significant places should be managed to sustain their values.
5.
Decisions about change must be reasonable, transparent and consistent.
6.
Documenting and learning from decisions is essential.
02.
The document goes on to describe how heritage values might be assessed for any asset
or place for their evidential, historical, **aesthetic** and **communal** values.
From this advice is then offered as to how the heritage significance of a building or place
may be assessed.
From this information, then methods as to the managing of change to significant places
can be assessed.
03.
From these guides to understanding, Historic England's Conservation policies and
guidance are set out.
Of those, the following are relevant to this application for change:
Restoration New work and alteration
For **Restoration** normally to be acceptable to a place of heritage significance, it is
suggested that:
"the heritage values of the elements that would be restored outweigh the values of
those that would be lost;
the work proposed is justified by compelling evidence of the evolution of the place,
and is executed in accordance with that 3evidence;
…..
the work proposed respects previous forms of the place;
the maintenance implications of the proposed restoration are considered to be
sustainable."
For **New work and Alteration**, that should normally be acceptable if:
"there is sufficient information comprehensively to understand the impacts of the
proposal on the significance of the place;
the proposal would not materially harm the values of the place, which, where
appropriate, would be reinforced or further revealed;
the proposals aspire to a quality of design and execution which may be valued now
and in the future;
the long term consequence of the proposals can, from experience, be demonstrated
to be benign, or the proposals are designed not to prejudice alternative solutions in
the future.
11.05
Local Planning Authority Guidance/Policies:
01.
The principal document of the Peak District National Park Authority is the Local
Development Framework Core Strategy.
This is again too generalised for relevance to the proposals, but reference will need to
be made to the following policies:
DS1
Development Strategy: "sensitive managed delivery in order to meet our
purposes to conserve and enhance the Peak District".
L3
Cultural heritage assets of archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic
significance - Cultural Heritage Strategy document - requires that the owners of assets should be:
"encouraging the refurbishment and reuse of disused or underused
buildings to enhance their contribution to the historic character of an
area".
a)
Development must conserve and where appropriate enhance or reveal the
significance of … assets and their settings.
b)
Other than in exceptional circumstances development will not be permitted
where it is likely to cause harm to the significance of any cultural heritage asset….
c)
Development proposals will be expected to meet the objections of any strategy
… that has as its objective the conservation and where possible enhancement of cultural heritage assets.
02.
The next tier of policy documentation is the: Saved Local Plan Policies.
Of these Policy LC3 Design Layout and Landscaping states:
(318)
Layout of buildings should respect and relate well to traditional pattern….etc.,
etc.
(319)
For individual buildings, factors such as plant form, section or massing, and
details…materials are important…..
Other clauses regarding **Listed Buildings** state:
(334)
Best use of a historic building is very often that for which it was designed.
(335)
Applications for development or work affecting a listed building should show
why the works are desirable or necessary.
03.
Policy LC6 Listed Buildings (as might be expected) states:
"a)
Planning applications for development affecting a listed building and/or its
setting should clearly demonstrate:
(i)
how these will be preserved and where possible enhanced;
and
(ii)
why the proposed development and related works are desirable or necessary.
b)
…
c)
Development will not be permitted if it would:
(i)
adversely affect the character, scale, proportion, design, detailing
of , or materials used in the listed building;
or
(ii)
result in the loss of or irreversible change to original features or
other features of importance or interest.
d)
In particular, development will not be permitted if it would directly, indirectly or
cumulatively lead to:
(i) - (iv) and (vi) - (vii) (not applicable)
(v)
the replacement of original features other than with original
materials and with appropriate techniques.
(viii)
extensions of more than one storey to the rear of listed small
houses or terraced properties."
04.
Supplementary planning guidance is offered by the Local Planning Authority's "Detailed
Design Guide", being a Supplementary Planning Document to the emerging Local Plan,
adopted in July 2014.
For **Alterations and Extensions** this states:
"1.4
The Authority's policies seek to ensure new development will be controlled so
that the valued characteristics of the Peak District can be conserved and enhanced.
Local Development Framework Core Strategy General Spatial Policy GSP3
requires all proposals for development to pay particular attention to impact on the character and setting of buildings, and be of a scale that is appropriate to the character and appearance of the National Park.
Core policy L1 states that the development scheme and enhance valued
characteristics, and L3 requires that development affecting cultural heritage
assets must conserve and where appropriate enhance or reveal the
significance of architectural and historic assets and their settings. Saved Local Plan Policy LH4 states that extensions and alterations should not:
Detract from the character, appearance or amenity of the original building,
its setting or neighbouring properties.
Dominate the original building where it is of architectural or vernacular merit.
Amount to the creation of a separate dwelling or an annex that could be
used as such.
1.5
We expect… the work to be sympathetic, subservient to the original building,
and limited in size. Insensitive design can spoil both an existing building and an area.
1.6
Principles of **sustainable development** should inform the design of alteration
and extensions, as set out in:
Design Guide Chapter 6
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Climate Change and Sustainable
Building
P.D.N.P.A.'s Leaflet "Sustainability and Historic Buildings"
2.12
Solar Panels -
With regard to that sustainability, the following advice is offered for the
proposed use of solar panels:
"Adding photovoltaic and solar thermal panels to a roof fundamentally alters its
character and appearance. If panels need to be site on a roof, placing them on inner slopes where they cannot be seen is the ideal".
The Authority also publish a guidance leaflet: Design and Siting of Solar
Panels, Conserving your Historic Building series of leaflets which confirm the same advice. This is stated to be:
They should be in the least obtrusive location.
They should be the least obtrusive type.
They should be considered in conjunction with any reroofing of any existing building.
The simplest configuration of panels should be provided.
3.00
For **Extensions**, the following advice is offered:
3.3
Design Principles
The key aim is to achieve a complementary relationship with the existing
building and its context. There are 3 main factors to consider:
Massing
Materials
Detailing and style
3.4
Massing -
Size smaller in volume and lower than the existing building.
Shape reflects the proportions of the existing building.
Location obvious location is the side or rear.
3.10
Spacing off (any) **rear extension** entirely so that it looks more like a subsidiary
building linked minimally to the existing is another possibility. This allows the
original building to retain its integrity…. An extension large enough to function in terms of an independent dwelling … is unlikely to be acceptable in policy terms.
Materials
3.15
Constructing the extension in the same materials as the existing house is the
preferred option.
Detailing and style
3.17
It is easiest and usually best to copy the detailing and style of the original
building.
3.18
With regard to style, another **equally valid approach** is to detail the extension
in a more contemporary style. This is more easily achieved if the other two variables of massing and materials are both treated in a traditional manner.
Any new extension, while being of its time, also needs to respect and be in
harmony with the existing building. This means reinterpreting the original
detailing in a new way respecting what exists at present and designing an
extension whose details have a strong visual relationship with the main building.
4.00
Other **material planning considerations** stated can include the following:
4.2
Neighbourliness Outlook Amenity Privacy Daylight
4.3
Outlook and amenity
4.11
Landscaping
11.06
Historic England have also published guidance about solar panels: "Small Scale Solar
Electric (photovoltaic) Energy and Traditional Building". This reiterates the Government's commitment to a reduction in the national dependence on fossil fuels by promoting alternative sources of energy, in the light of the growth in demand for domestic electrical consumption by 32% since 1970, and 19% since 1990.
The guidance suggests that the principles of minimal intervention and reversibility are
applicable for the provision of such panels, together with more detailed consideration as to the orientation of the roof slope, the effects of possible shading, and the effects on wildlife, principally bats and other bird life.
11.07
Key recent further advice is offered by the publication: "Solar Design Tips: Your 10-
Point Guide". This is a reduced version of a Building Research Establishment Report:
"Ensuring Place-Responsive Design for Solar Photovoltaics on Buildings" (2016) published by the Campaign to Protect Rural England. This included a case study showing the acceptability of roofing an outbuilding within the curtilage of a historic country home with in-roof photovoltaic panels.
The "tips" offered by the document are the consideration of the following:
Colour and contrast - try to make the panels visibly unobtrusive.
Framing - to panels or not, to attempt to keep panels visually unobtrusive.
Sizing - to coordinate with other components to appear more integral.
Symmetry in panel layout.
Coverage - to be proportionate to the overall roof size.
Consider complementary features, such as rooflights matching the panels in
size/positioning.
Consideration of the panels' mounting system - "in-roof" preferred to "on-roof".
Roof location/positioning - attempt to make the panels as visually unobtrusive from
ground level or nearby.
Neighbouring roofs: attempt to match adjacent installation on similar roofs/dwellings.
12.00
ASSESSMENT
12.01
In this section it is hoped that the scope of the proposed works can be tested against the
criteria and guidance regarding the decision making of proposals for change to designated heritage assets, as set out in the previous section.
12.02
Significantly different proposals to those now submitted were sent to the Peak District
National Park Authority by Lisa Shell Architects Ltd. in 2015 seeking Pre-Application
advice as to the likelihood of their being acceptable to the Local Planning Authority.
The Planning Authority's Pre-Application advice was offered by email and dated 22nd
September 2015.
This stated that new outbuildings are normally acceptable in principle, provided that they
would not harm the character, appearance or amenities of the host property. Consideration would need to be given to the scale, form and massing of the proposal in
relation to the existing building and its setting, and the extent to which design details and materials reflect (the) traditions of local buildings.
Supplementary Planning Guidance set out in the Authority's Design Guide advises that
any ancillary outbuilding should be designed in sympathy with the property it serves, with (the) materials and roof pitch(es) reflecting those of the host property.
The advice stated that the reinstatement of the ancillary outbuilding at the Rookery
would be acceptable in principle.
The proposals as then designed were then described in detail, and the advice concluded
that the design as then submitted was unlikely to be acceptable.
The design as now submitted has been significantly revised, specifically to overcome the
stated objections as set out in the Pre-Application advice, as follows:
The proposed restitution of the former outbuilding would not now be linked to the
existing house;
The design "ethic" of the redesigned proposal in its scale, form and massing has
been reduced and simplified, to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the listed building. The roof pitches are now symmetrical, the eaves and ridge lines have been lowered, the accommodation proposed is for storage and plant on the principal ground floor level, with a mezzanine gallery at the upper level. The materials proposed fully reflect and adopt the local vernacular.
12.03
The earlier proposals also showed the proposed extension of a part of the rear Service Range, which were deemed in the Advice offered to have created a negative impact and therefore harm the significance/legibility of the listed building, and so would be unlikely to be acceptable.
That proposal has also been redesigned to attempt to retain as much historical fabric as
possible, and sacrificing/rebuilding the previous late 19th Century addition to create the
space required. The "out of scale doors" referred to in the Pre-Application advice have
been omitted and replaced by timber components of typical sizes.
The internal space of the former Kitchen or part Servants' Hall is simply too small for a
family dining table for a modest sized family in the 21st Century.
The other two internal proposed changes described in the Pre-Application Advice have
been omitted in the submitted proposals.
12.04
The proposals are of a scale and scope such that the national planning guidance
regarding proposed change to historic assets are only applicable in broad principle, all as set out at sections 11.01.01 and 02.
It is suggested that the proposals entirely meet the guidance of section 126 of the
National Planning Policy Framework, in the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of (this) heritage asset(s) and putting (it) to visible uses consistent with their conservation.
The proposed enhancement and upgrading of the facilities of this dwelling will achieve
that aim.
It is suggested that the loss or harm to the significance of the dwelling in extending the
Kitchen Dining area would be less than substantial, and would contribute to retaining the
optimum viable use of the asset. (Sections 132 and 134 as described at 11.01.01).
12.05
With regard to the Planning Guidance to the NPPF described at section 11.01.02, it is suggested that the **setting** of the asset will not be compromised in any way by the proposed design as revised in accordance with the Local Planning authority Pre-
Application Advice, that the revisions described to the original design have sought to
minimise any assessed harm to be caused to the significance of the asset.
12.06
Historic England's various advices are fully described previously at 11.02, 11.03 and 11.04.
With regard to the **setting** of the existing house (document 11.02), it is suggested that
the relationship of the proposed restitution of the former ancillary outbuilding to its original size and location as best can be plotted from documentary and photographic evidence as described/attached, to the altered and extended historic dwelling creates a minimal impact on short or long views into and across the property, and enhances it in "restoring or revealing a lost historic feature". (11.02.07.04).
At 11.03 guidance is offered to **making changes** to assets. It is suggested that the
heritage significance of the existing dwelling is fully understood, and its development
(and reduction!) over time. The changes proposed are the **restoration** of the former ancillary outbuilding, and the **addition** to the Kitchen and minor **alterations** to the interior as described, fully meet the recommendations set out. There is compelling evidence of the size, form and materials of the former outbuilding, which it is hoped to restore. That work respects the existing forms of the rest of the dwelling, and the works are indeed "those that are intended to reveal or **recover** something of **significance** that
has been enabled, observed or **previously removed**". (Section 25 as noted at
11.03.02).
It is suggested that the reduced size and form of the proposed Kitchen extension meet
the recommendations for Additions and Extensions. (Section 41 as noted at 11.03.03).
12.07
Similar advice from Historic England is set out in the Conservation Principles
publication described at 11.04. The revised proposals as submitted meet the similar criteria for the acceptance of change for works of **Restoration** and New Work and
Alterations as described.
12.08
The policies and guidance offered by the Peak District National Park Authority as the
Local Planning Authority are fully set out at section 11.05 of this report.
Suffice to say that there will have been those policies and guidance which will have
contributed to the full Pre-application Advice offered by that Authority. No policies have changed in the interim, so it is expected that the advice would remain the same.
The advice offered a year or so ago has been fully accepted, and is reflected in the
revised designs now submitted.
12.09
Both the Local Planning Authority and Historic England offer advice regarding the
provision of **photovoltaic roof panels** to heritage assets.
It is believed that the advice has been followed, with the **least obtrusive type** of panel
being proposed, in the **least obtrusive location** on the small facing (inner) roof slope of the proposed restituted outbuilding, facing away from the public roadside, and hillside above, in the **simplest configuration**, in conjunction with what is proposed to be the
reconstruction of the **roof structure**, and its cladding with natural slates.
13.00
CONCLUSIONS
13.01
The present stewards of the Rookery have invested heavily in retaining and enhancing its
features which give it such a delightful heritage significance. It is their family home, and the demands of a family of growing children have led them to the view that more space is
required.
13.02
The family business is wine consultancy and sales, so a large secure storage facility is
required. This is proposed for the principal floor level in the restituted ancillary outbuilding.
13.03
The house itself is not large, with two principal reception/living rooms and the Kitchen
space. As is the modern mores, the Kitchen space is now not large enough to seat all members of the family and any member of unexpected guests, as teenage children are wont to produce!
As these children grow and their social works expand, they will require living space "out of
their bedrooms", and their parents have the foresight now to try to create a "snug" over the proposed wine store in the restituted ancillary outbuilding.
13.04
It is believed that this document demonstrably shows an understanding of the historic,
cultural, aesthetic and evidential significance and development of the house.
13.05
It is suggested that the revised and reduced changes now proposed in its continuing
evolution as a family home will cause no harm to its heritage significance, and in fact preserve and enhance it.
A.D.W. SHEPHERD, Dip. Arch. (Manc.), Dip. Cons. (A.A.), R.I.B.A., I.H.B.C., F.R.S.A.
ANDREW SHEPHERD, ARCHITECT CHARTERED ARCHITECT, SURVEYOR, 453 GLOSSOP ROAD, SHEFFIELD S10 2PT Telephone:
0114 266 2458
ADWS/TAM
E-mail:
info@andrewshepherdarchitect.co.uk
# Royal Commission On The Historical Monuments Of England Historic Building Report
The Rookery
Ashford
in the Water
Derbyshire
November 1992
## Crown Copyright
Shelley House,
Acomb Road,
York YO2
4HB
Tel:
(0904)
784411
Fax:
(0904)
795348
Derbyshire NGR:
SK 191 696
Ashford
in the Water
NBR No:
86022
## The Rookery Summary
The Rookery is
a two-storey house constructed in limestone rubble with
stone slate roofs.
It consists of a four-bay east-west main range with
a three-bay rear wing extending north of its east end and
a three-bay
cross-wing at
its west end.
The earliest identifiable phase
is
a mid-18th century house probably
corresponding to
the present main range,
with
a service room or rooms
in the south end of
the rear wing.
Surviving features include
a two-
light mullion window in the east wall of the rear wing and a fireplace
with
a flat brick arch
in the cross-wall
of the main range.
In the second quarter of the 19th century the building was remodelled;
according to tradition,
these works were
to provide accommodation for
a mistress of the 6th Duke of Devonshire.
A large cross-wing was added
at
the west
end
of the main range,
containing
a ground-floor drawing
room and parlour,
a stair and three first-floor bedrooms.
At the same
time
the
front wall
of
the main range was
rebuilt,
incorporating
two
identical entrances with canopies
on scrolled
brackets.
In
the west
room
of
the main range
a butler's pantry was
created,
leaving
an
L-
shaped passage on the west and north sides.
A narrow one-and-a-half-
storey outshot was added on the north side of the main range, providing
a cellar at semi-basement level,
and at first-floor level
a small room
and access from the new stair
to further bedrooms
in the main range.
From 1943, while Chatsworth House was requisitioned for use as
a girls'
school,
the Rookery was briefly home
to the Duchess
of Devonshire.
## Report
The mid-18th century house probably
had
a
two-room plan
to
the
main
range,
possibly with
a central entrance
lobby immediately east
of
the
present cross-wall.
There was
a
lobby
in this position
in
the
19thcentury
remodelling
(see
below),
subsequently
incorporated
into
the
east
room.
A
transverse
beam
towards
the
west
end
of
this
room
supports
two
axial
beams
of
uncertain
date
and
probably
marks
the
position of a removed cross-wall.
The 19th-century arrangement may in
this
respect
have
perpetuated
an
earlier
plan
form,
but
the
only
surviving evidence
for
this
is
the
great
length
of
the present
east
room in proportion to its width.
No original features were apparent in
the east room of the main range, although from its relationship to the
rear service wing
it
is likely that
it was originally
the housebody.
The west
room
is
divided
from
the
suggested
lobby
by
a
stone
crosswall and
is heated by
a fireplace with
a flat brick arch
in this wall. The position of the room in relation to the service wing and the modest
size of the fireplace suggest that it was probably the parlour.
It
is
spanned by an ovolo-moulded transverse beam.
This moulding suggests
a
17th-century date, but the beam appears to be re-used:
at its north end
the moulding
is stopped about 60cm short of
the wall
and at
its south end
it
is unstopped;
also,
redundant joist seatings conflict with
the
wall
positions.
The
floor
of
this
room
is
of
fossiliferous
marble
flags,
probably
of locally quarried Ashford marble.
The first-floor rooms in the main range extend into the roof-space.
There is no access to
the
roof
and no
trusses
are exposed,
but room divisions
appear
to
indicate
a four-bay roof.
The
rear wing
is bonded with
the east gable
of
the main range
and
is
probably contemporary with it.
It appears
to have been
a single bay in
length originally
(though
it
is possible
that further bays have been
replaced
by modern rebuilding
of
the
north
end)
and was probably
of
one-and-a-half storeys.
The east wall,
like
the masonry elsewhere
on
the 18th-century building,
is unquoined.
By contrast,
the first-floor
masonry of the east wall has gritstone quoins at the north end of the
south bay,
implying
a later raising of
the south bay
to
two storeys.
The
ground-floor
room probably contained
a kitchen
or
other
service
room.
It
is
lit from the east by
a two-light mullion window with iron
glazing bars.
This has double-chamfered jambs which might suggest
an
earlier
date,
but
the
lintel
is
plain
and
the
mullion hag
a narrow
chamfer
inside
and
out,
features which
are
more
likely
to
be
of mid-
18th century date.
Possibly the jambs are re-used.
It
is likely that
the rear wing was raised to two storeys prior
to the major remodelling
of
the
19th
century.
The
gritstone
quoins
at
the
north
end
of
the
raised masonry are not paralleled on the remodelled work,
and neither
is
the form of the east-facing window, which has
a projecting sill and
formerly had five vertical iron bars.
In
the
second
quarter
of
the
19th
century
the
main
range
was
refronted,
a
rear outshot
added against
the
north wall,
and
the
large
cross-wing added at the west end.
All
three elements
are bonded with
each other and constructed
in unquoined limestone rubble
(squared and
coursed
on
the
south
and
west
elevations)
with
plain
gritstone
dressings.
Tall stacks
to
the main range and cross-wing,
constructed
in
squared
limestone
with
moulded
caps,
belong
to
the
same
phase.
These alterations
are recorded
in
two watercolours
in
the Chatsworth
Archives,
probably
dating
from
the
1840s.
By
this
time
the
house
belonged
to
the Devonshire
Estate.
Documentary evidence
states
that
Elizabeth Warwick,
mistress
of William Spencer,
6th Duke of Devonshire
(1790-1858),
was installed in the Rookery
in 1828.'
This may well have
been
the
reason
for
the
comparatively
lavish
refurbishment
of
the
accommodation,
the
alterations
providing
high-status
reception
and
bedrooms in the cross-wing and improved circulation in the remainder of
the building.
However,
the
first-floor
room
in
the
outshot
has
an
inscription
in
the plaster reading
'Revd Giles
1837',
which provides
another possible date for this phase.
The cross-wing projects both north
and south
of
the main range,
and
also wraps
around
it
on
the
north
side.
It
has
a projecting
eaves
course
and
shaped
kneelers
at
the
south
gable.
The
south
wall
incorporates
a large canted bay window on each floor.
Room heights
in
the wing are considerably greater than elsewhere
in the building,
and
the higher status of the rooms
is also indicated by the use
of plaster
cornices.
Much
of
the
ground
floor
is
taken
up
by
a
large
drawing
room,
lit by the bay window and from the west, with
a fireplace on the
west wall
(replaced
in
the
1950s).
The north end of the ground floor
is divided between
a
small parlour
lit
from
the
west,
with
a marble
fireplace
on
the north wall;
the
stair;
and
a small unlit closet with
a vaulted ceiling opening off a passage linking parlour and stair.
The
stair has marble steps, slender turned balusters and a ramped handrail.
It
curves
around
an
open
well
to
a north-south
first-floor
passage
giving access
to three bedrooms,
and is lit by
a six-light mullion and
transom window on the north wall,
composed of re-used parts
of doublechamfered window surrounds.
The principal bedroom is at the south end,
lit by
a Venetian window in the canted bay,
and has an original marble
fireplace
on
the
west
wall
(with
an
inserted
late-19th
century
cast
Askey, iron grate)
and a vaulted ceiling.
The
rebuilt south wall
of
the main range
is characterised by square
window surrounds
to
the
two west bays
and
a single
tripartite window
to each floor lighting the two east bays.
It incorporates two matching
entrances,
one
at
the west
end,
and
one
roughly central.
Both have
stone canopies on heavy scrolled brackets.
The west doorway opens onto
a
passage
along
the
west
side
of
the
original
parlour,
created
by
partitioning off a small room occupying its south-east corner.
This is
said to have been
a butler's pantry.
Although
the partition has been
removed,
its position
is apparent
from mortices
in
the marble
floor.
It
is
associated
with
a
reduction
in
size
of
the
original
parlour
fireplace,
which
was
provided
with
a
small
cast-iron
hob
grate
decorated with figures in classical costume.
The passage gives access
to
the drawing room
in
the wing and,
at
its north end,
to
the stair.
It also continues eastwards
from this point,
via
a lobby,
to
the
rear
wing.
The central doorway
in
the south wall probably opened
into
the
lobby
posited above,
with access
to
the service wing beyond.
The provision
of two front entrances
is unusual and might suggest that the building
served a dual function.
However,
the position of the doorways seems to
indicate
a
main entrance
to
the
west
and
a
service
entrance
in
the
centre of
the main range,
though
if this
is
the case
it
is surprising
that
their
relative
status
is
not
differentiated
in
some
way,
The
large tripartite window lighting
the
east
room suggests
a relatively
high status use
-
it may have been the dining room, positioned close to
the kitchen and other services
in
the
rear wing.
The
original
rear
wing may have been extended at this time, although in its present form
the extension
is modern.
A single-storey westward projection
at
its
north
end
appears
to
be
of mid-19th
century
date,
and was
probably
built
abutting
an
earlier
extension.
Given
the
quality
of
the
accommodation provided at this date
at the west end of the house
it is
unlikely that
the service rooms
of
the 18th-century house would have
been adequate without expansion.
The outshot
on the north
side
of
the main range provided
a cellar
at
semi-basement
level
and
a small
room and passage
on
the first-floor.
The cellar is entered from the rear wing via
a doorway with a segmental
keystone arch,
and consists of a single segmental-vaulted space divided
by
an original
partition
into
two
stores,
The
west
store
contains
stone
storage
racks.
The
first
floor
is
reached via
a short
flight
descending from the main stair.
The balustrade
is identical
to that of
the main stair and appears
to be contemporary with the remodelling.
A
passage along the south side of the outshot provided access to bedrooms
in
the
main
range.
A
room
on
the
north
side
of
the
passage
has
a
north-facing window.
The present pitched roof probably replaces
a flat
or
very
shallow-pitched
roof,
causing
the
window
to
be
cut
down
in
height
to its present 30cm. Visited: Adam Menuge,
Colum Giles
July 1992
Report:
Adam Menuge
35mm Photography:
Colum Giles From the north-east, showing the rear wing (and later extension).
## The Rookery At Ashford‐In‐The‐Water: A Short History
Situated on the edge of the Peak District village of Ashford‐in‐the‐Water, The Rookery was originally a Derbyshire longhouse with adjoining farmyard, cottage and barn., probably originating from the sixteenth century. According to The Old Halls, Manors and Families of Derbyshire published in 1892, the 'earliest inhabitants we can trace were the family of Milnes, say in the sixteenth century, now ennobled; it has since probably been the homestead of scions of two other baronial houses, the Fynneys and Cheneys'. In the eighteenth century The Rookery was owned by the Bullock family, Lords of the Manor of Norton (formerly in Derbyshire and now part of Sheffield). The family had a reputation for eccentricity. Noah Bullock, built himself an ark on the Derwent and lived in it with his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Another member of the family who resided at The Rookery was 'partial to intoxication [and] would sit on horseback for hours to drink huge quantities of beer, preferring such a position to the cosy hostelry of the village or his own drawing room'. The Rookery was bought from the executors of John Bullock by the Sixth Duke of Devonshire (1790 - 1858) in 1821 for the sum of £4,000. It was described at the time as 'a small estate' and obviously included some land and possibly mineral rights for the nearby marble mines. According to Chatsworth's records the house was in good condition and Duke, 'The Bachelor', needed to spend very little on the property to prepare it for his mistress, Elizabeth Warwick. Most of the money was spent on laying out the garden where it is recorded that he planted 200 roses bought from Paris. The Sixth Duke eventually had several mistresses installed in houses close to Chatsworth and The Rookery, being the first of these, became known locally as one of the 'birdcages'. Elizabeth Warwick didn't spend a great deal of time at The Rookery. She had another residence near Marble Arch in London and apparently she disliked life in the country. The Duke had a stormy relationship with Elizabeth Warwick, which finally broke up in March 1838. However from transcripts of his diaries it is clear that the he developed a great fondness for The Rookery, riding out from Chatsworth to entertain guests there at the weekend. Among his regular guests were the Arkwrights and the sculptor Sir Francis Chantry who also came from the village of Norton. In September 1821 the Duke writes 'I went to see the Rookery at Ashford - my new home…it is uncommonly pretty, by the clear rapid River Wye. I am fonder of this place each time of coming to it.' The Duke took to fishing in the River Wye and on 31st December 1821 he writes 'here ends the year
1821. It has certainly been a happy one for me. The causes of happiness have been…. the time spent at Chatsworth and The Rookery with Georgiana [daughter of the 5th Duke and Duchess of Carlisle] and her family.' However in October 1822 he writes 'my society bores me but my love for this place never ceases. It rained today and I drove to the Rookery and placed there my old travelling bed brought from Russia.' Stone in all its forms was a passion of the sixth Duke. At the far end of the gardens, upstream from the house, was the Ashford Marble Works founded by Samuel Watson in 1748. Here items were fashioned from Ashford marble ('Black Marble') mined on The
Arrock and in Rookery Plantation to the front and rear of the house. In March 1823 the Duke records that 'he saw new columns at the works' and a year later he chose a new chimneypiece for The Rookery. A chimneypiece of Ashford marble inlaid with Blue John can still be seen in principal bedroom. The Duke introduced Florentine green marble as an inlay in Ashford marble and an inlayed marble table, ordered for the Prince Consort, gained an Exhibition medal at the Great Exhibition in 1851. Princess (subsequently Queen) Victoria visited The Rookery when she came to North Derbyshire with her mother, the Duchess of Kent, in 1832 at the age of thirteen. Her diary entry for October 20th reads: 'we then went to the Rookery,,..belonging to the Duke on the banks of the River Wye, very pretty and cool. From there we walked to the Marble Mills and saw how they sawed and polished the marble. There was a little cottage there that sold Derbyshire spar [Blue John] in different little shapes and forms, and some marble pieces too. We then drove home having bought a good many things.' E. Rhodes in his *Derbyshire Tourist Guide* of 1837 describes the contemporary scene at The Rookery: 'a little beyond the Church, we crossed the bridge on the left, and then followed the immediate bank of the river, in the direction of the Marble Mills; a short but very delightful walk. In our progress we passed the Duke of Devonshire's cottage ornée [sic], a secluded spot of uncommon beauty. The building is covered with trellis‐work, even to the chimney pots, to which ivy has as yet, only in part aspired. Roses, jasmine, and passion flowers, are trailed amongst the deep green leaves of this elegant but insidious plant. Proceeding forward a few hundred yards, we crossed the river, nearly opposite to the Marble Mills.' The distinctive tall chimneys on The Rookery were possibly designed by Joseph Paxton (1803‐1865), appointed head gardener at Chatsworth at the age of 20 and who was responsible for building Crystal Palace in London for the Great Exhibition in 1851. Among many buildings designed by Paxton is Rose Cottage on Buxton Road immediately behind Rookery Cottage, which has similar chimneys to The Rookery. The house and grounds at The Rookery were maintained by the Chatsworth Estate until 1848 but the property was let to tenants from 1838 onwards, the first tenant being the Rev. W.G. Giles who left in 1851 with £61 rent in arrears. In White's Directory of Derbyshire, High Peak Hundred, dated 1857, The Rookery is described as: …an ancient mansion overgrown with ivy, having a fine lawn in front, and closely adjoining to the Buxton Road, is the residence of Edmund Hayworth, Esq. The house is sheltered from the north by lofty hills, whilst towards the east and west, noble timber trees skirt the grounds which are laid out with great taste. Here and there a lofty beech or spreading ash intercepts the view of the swiftly passing waters of the Wye, which is crossed by an ivy clad bridge, that gives additional charm to the whole scene. A rising woody eminence in front, closes the verdant prospect, which, though not extensive, is particularly pleasing and enchanting'.
On Lady Day 1866 Alfred Sorby took over the tenancy at the Rookery. He died in Sheffield
later the same year but his widow Agnes remained as tenant until her death in 1896. The
Sorby family were well‐known tool manufacturers in Sheffield and Henry Clifton Sorby
(1826 ‐ 1908) was a microscopist and geologist. His major contribution was the
development of techniques for studying iron and steel with microscopes. This paved the
way for the mass‐production of steel. He was President of Firth College, Sheffield, which
became the University of Sheffield in 1905.
Writing during Sorby's time in the third edition of On Foot Through the Peak published in
1876, James Croston describes The Rookery as 'an old‐fashioned, nearly overgrown with
ivy, delightfully situated in a shallow hollow by the sparkling Wye, where trim lawns and
flower beds and tastefully laid out pleasure grounds have taken the place of the wilder
charms of untrimmed nature. The gardens are environed by noble timber trees, in which
a colony of rooks have established their abode, and in front an ivy‐shrouded bridge which
spans the river gives access to the plumy woods that mantle the opposite slopes, and
adds its charms to the romantic beauties of the scene'.
During the First World War it is known that the house was tenanted by Walter C. Tinsley,
Master of the High Peak Harriers. His son, Alan Deane Tinsley who fought in the Canadian
Infantry (Manitoba Regiment) was badly wounded at Ypres and died, aged 28, at Roulers
(now Roeselare, Belgium) on 13th May 1915. He lies buried at Roulers Communal
Cemetery. A plaque was placed in his memory on the south wall of the nave of Holy
Trinity Church, Ashford.
In the 1930s the village of Ashford was bypassed by the main road, which now passes in front of the property rather than behind. The land was ceded by the Chatsworth Estate and the road (now the A6) is known as 'The Duke's Drive'. The Marble Mills had ceased production in 1905 and were partially demolished with the construction of the road. The agent's house, which was separated from the mill by the new road, lies just beyond the end of the garden at The Rookery and is known locally as 'Marble Cottage'. An extensive collection of items made from Ashford Marble can be viewed at Buxton Museum. The Devonshire connection with The Rookery was reinstated during the Second World War when Lord Andrew Cavendish (subsequently 11th Duke of Devonshire, 1920 ‐ 2004)
moved in with his wife and young family in 1943 to 1946. He had married the Hon. Deborah Mitford (1920 - 2014) in 1941 and she gave birth to a daughter, Emma, in 1943 and son Peregrine ('Stoker') in 1944 (now 12th Duke of Devonshire). With Chatsworth House requisitioned as a girls school and the male members of the family and household away at war, she lived at The Rookery accompanied by her baby daughter, a nanny named Diddy and Violet, an evacuee with two small sons as well as three dogs, a pony and trap, a pig and a cow. In her autobiography Wait for Me!: Memoirs of the Youngest Mitford Sister, she describes life at The Rookery during the war: 'in November 1943 Andrew embarked for Italy with his battalion. Our daughter Emma was eight months old and we needed a house of our own. I moved into The Rookery, a dark, damp house in Ashford‐in‐ the‐Water (the River Wye flows through the garden) belonging to the Chatsworth Estate. There were pigsties, stables and a paddock where I kept my driving pony. In the kitchen, a huge coal range took up one wall and smuts penetrated everywhere. The stove gave off such fierce heat, rapidly followed by the depressing sight of cold grey ashes, that our wartime rations were often inedible'. She goes on to record: 'we paid rent to the Chatsworth Estate to live at the Rookery. Our income was small and I was appalled by the size of the estate bill for logs, our only from of heating apart form the ancient kitchen range.' Apparently they did not use all the rooms in the house and the drawing room at The Rookery was filled with furniture and artefacts from Chatsworth.
Following the sudden death of the 10th Duke of Devonshire in 1950 at the age of 55, The Rookery (together with a number of houses in Ashford) was sold by the Chatsworth estate in 1956 to pay 80% death duties. These were finally paid in 1967. The Rookery was bought by the then tenant, Colonel H.D. Wise who resided at there until the late 1970s. The old kitchen garden, which lay to the east of Rookery Cottage, was sold off by Colonel Wise in 1959 and now forms an adjacent property known as 'Miles Croft'. In 1970 the roof of the main house was replaced with gritstone used at the front of the house and Welsh slate at the rear, presumably to lighten the load. A number of stone‐built outhouses were demolished in the 1970s as well as a flat‐roofed extension at first floor level. The original service staircase from the kitchen was also removed and replaced by a new downstairs cloakroom and boiler room.
he late 19
70s to the e 2000s Th he Rookery e, Mr and Mrs C. Ma ry Cottage w acfarlane, M ff by the Ma Mr and M
acfarlanes Mrs R Mayso was sold of on in 2005
who then b bought bac use, cottag ge, coach h ouse and g gardens, w ver Wye, a are all priv ed. The iv works has s closed an vately own nd The Duk ke's Drive b unds. Other rwise the R
Rookery is h the grou The ground ookery incl lude a brick e been built ds of the Ro t by the sixt th Duke of Devonshir okery, the Barn, Rook kery Cottag ge and the b are all Grad de II listed. From t Swayne Rooker Mr & M
The ho the Riv marble through
1876. T to have The Ro house a Sources s:
y had a suc ccession of Bernard rs R Lamb b, Mr and f owners:
Mrs I Hum mphreys.
in 1987. Th he Rookery y was purc chased by ck Rookery Cottage in
2008.
which exten es on eithe er side of d to 9 acre vy has gon e (replaced d by wiste bypasses th he village o eria), the and cuts much as described of Ashford in 1837, 1
k‐lined iceh house and t tufa grotto
1857 and
, thought e.
bridge over r the river giving acce ess to the
son 2017
Chatsworth archives (by kind permission of Her Grace, the Dowager Duchess of
Devonshire).
Devonshire, D., Wait for Me!: Memoirs of the Youngest Mitford Sister, London 2010
Tilley, J., Old Halls, Manors and Families of Derbyshire, 1892
Tomlinson J.M., Derbyshire Black Marble, Matlock Bath, 1996
White's Directory of Derbyshire, High Peak Hundred, 1857
| en |
1466-pdf |
## Bound For Britain Experiences Of Immigration To The Uk
Introduction Between 1948 and 1970 nearly half a million people left their homes in the West Indies to live in Britain. The West Indies consists of over twenty islands in the Caribbean,
including Jamaica, Barbados and Trinidad. These people changed the face of modern Britain. They were all British citizens and although they had never lived in Britain before, they had the right to enter, work and settle here if they wanted to. West Indians came to Britain for many different reasons. Some were seeking better
opportunities for themselves and their children. Some came to work for a while, save
money and return home. Some had been recruited because Britain was short of workers to run the transport system, postal service and hospitals. Other West Indians
were returning soldiers who had fought for Britain during World War Two (1939-1945).
Tasks Look at Source 1 a, b & c 1. These photographs were all taken in Jamaica around 1950. They show the way
people on the islands were used to living.
Look at the photographs carefully and answer the following questions:
a) What animals can you see? What do you think they might be used for? b) What different forms of transport can you see? c) Look at the houses in the photographs, what are they made from? d) e) Do you think it would be comfortable to live in these houses? Give your
reasons.
f) Compare where you live to the city shown in photograph 1c. Is it similar or
different?
g) Look at the way the people in the photographs are dressed. Why do you
think they dressed this way? Look at Source 2 a, b & c 2. These photographs are of London and Leeds and were taken between 1946 and the
1960's:
a) Compare these photographs to the ones you looked at in Source 1. How
are they different?
b) How are the types of transport different to the ones in Jamaica? c) What are these buildings made out of? Why do you think there is a
difference?
Look at Source 3 3. This is one of the pages from the passenger list of the Empire Windrush, a ship
which brought people from the West Indies to the UK:
a) Look at the Country of Last Permanent Residence column on the list,
which parts of the West Indies did most of these people come from?
b) Write a list of the kind of jobs you think people coming to the UK would do.
c) Compare the list you have written to the occupations (jobs) shown on the
passenger list, are they the same? (HINT : H.D. means Household Domestic, someone like a servant or a cleaner) Look at Source 4 4. This is a report on conditions for black people living in Stepney, East London from
1949:
a) What difficulties would the people who came to Britain face? Look at Source 5 5. This is a report on Negro migration in Britain by Eric Walrond 1947-1948.
a) Do you think Obidiah Jones was happy with his new job? b) What clues are there to show he was settling in? 6. Now imagine you are one of the passengers who came to Britain on the Windrush.
Write a letter home to your family in the West Indies describing how people are treating you and what Britain is like compared to home.
Background
Not all white Britons welcomed the black Britons. Many found that the colour of their
skins provoked unfriendly reactions. For example, despite the desperate shortage of labour some West Indians still found it difficult to get good jobs. Often they were forced to accept jobs which they were over-qualified for, or they were paid less than other white workers. West Indians also experienced difficulties in finding suitable places to live. Since few
had much money, they had to find cheap housing to rent near to their workplace. This
was often in the poor inner-cities. Even if they did have enough money to rent better quality housing, Many had to face the fact that some landlords refused to rent to black
people. They would be confronted with insulting signs in house windows that said 'Rooms to Let: No dogs, no coloureds'. This meant that a lot of West Indians were forced to rent homes in the most rundown areas. In 1958, in areas where bigger numbers of West Indians lived, there were outbreaks of violence against them. In particular, in Nottingham and London mobs of white people attacked black people in the streets, smashing and burning their homes. West Indians had been invited to come to Britain, so they also felt that it was their home too. To be discriminated against was a shock which they had not been prepared for.
Some returned to the West Indies, but many remained - despite the difficulties they
faced. They have worked hard and made a contribution to British life.
.
Teachers Notes The documents included here only show a very partial glimpse of the life experienced
by West Indians during this time. Pupils will have many other questions. Teachers may
wish to ask their pupils to write a list of questions they would like to ask one of the people in the Windrush passenger list if they were available for interview. Other activities that are possible on the theme of immigration or multi-cultural Britain are:
- Pupils can use an atlas to find Jamaica, Trinidad or other West Indian
islands. They can then trace the journey of the Windrush to Britain. The Empire Windrush started at Trinidad and headed north up the Caribbean via Kingston, Tampico, Havana and Bermuda.
- Pupils could find out from classmates, family or neighbours if they have
other relatives or friends who came to Britain, where they came from and
the reasons why they came. The information gathered could be presented
to the class.
- Pupils can discuss the experience of moving to a new town or country;
talking about how the West Indians would feel about moving and what
they would like or dislike about being in a new place. Pupils could start by talking about their similar experience such as moving house, or starting a new school.
- Pupils could produce a leaflet to explain to anybody coming from another
part of the world what to expect when they arrive in Britain.
- An exciting display could be produced on the theme of what Britain has
gained from immigrants from the new Commonwealth countries - music, food, literature, fashions, new customs and pastimes.
Teachers should bear in mind that the documents and the vocabulary used are of their
time and as such care should be taken to make this point to pupils and to stress the
appropriate vocabulary to use.
Schemes of Work
How has life in Britain changed since 1948?
Key Stage 1&2 Unit 13
# Source 1A : Jamaican Village Scene With Women Carrying Produce On Their Heads C1950 (Inf 10/153) Source 1B : Jamaican Village Scene C1950 (Inf 10/149) Source 1C : A Large Jamaican City C1950 (Inf 10/153)
Source 2a : Trafalgar Square London 1946 (WORK 21/290)
# Source 2B : Oxford St, London 1960'S (Inf 14/139)
Source 2c : City Square Leeds, 1949 (WORK 25/197)
# Source 3 : Page From The Empire Windrush Passenger Lists 1948 (Bt 26/237) Source 3 : Transcript Of Page From The Empire Windrush Passenger Lists 1948 (Bt 26/237)
## Names And Descriptions Of **British** Passengers. (3)
(4)
(5)
(1)
(2)
CLASS
AGES OF PASSENGERS
NAMES OF PASSENGERS
Port
of
Embarkation
(Whether
1st, 2nd,
Tourist or
3rd)
Children between
1 and 12
Infants
Port at
which
Passengers
have been
landed
Accompanied
by
husband
or wife
Not
Accompanied by
husband
or wife
Males
Males
Males
Males
Females
Females
Females
Females
240. Kingston
STEWART Vreni
"A"
11
c/o Grindlays Bank Ltd..
54.Parliament St.S.W.1.
Scholar.
Burma
*
241. "
"
" Massy
"
3
-do-
-
"
*
242. "
"
" Dorinda
"
1 1/2
-do-
-
"
*
243. "
"
SPENCE Beryl
"
29
52.Cadogan Square.W.1.
Cook
Jamaica
*
244. "
"
STEVENS John
"
58
c/o Lloyds Bank Ltd..
Pall Mall.S.W.1.
Army Officer
England
*
245. "
"
" Hamil
"
57
-do-
H.D.
"
*
246. "
"
SULLIVAN Ena
"
35
W.Middlx.County
Hospital
Nurse
Jamaica
*
247. "
"
TRAYLEN Julita
"
26
R.A.P.C
c/o War Office.W.1.
H.D.
England
*
248. "
"
" Cedric
"
4
-do-
-
"
*
249. "
"
" Stewart
"
2
-do-
-
"
*
250. "
"
" Neil
"
1 1/2
-do-
-
"
*
251. "
"
TUACH Alex
"
54
6.Park Place.Trinity
Edinburgh
Newspaper
Manager
Jamaica
*
252. "
"
" Annie
"
54
-do-
H.D.
"
*
253. "
"
TUFFNELL Lloyd
"
20
c/o N.Z.House,
15 Strand.London
Seaman
New Zealand
*
254. "
"
VAUTIER Lillian
"
51
7.Kingsdown Rdm
Epsom.Surrey
H.D.
Jamaica
*
255. "
"
VAZ Gloria
"
20
5.St.Marks Sq.N.W.1.
Student
"
*
256. "
"
WHITELAW Gertrude
"
80
Toravon.Polmont
Sterlingshire
H.D.
Scotland
*
257. "
"
WILLIAMS Winifred
"
55
Alexandra Hotel
Hove Sussex.
"
England
*
258. "
"
WINGATE Allan
"
51
Rydal.Durrington.
Worthing.Sussex
Agricultural
Contractor
"
*
259. "
"
WILLIAMS Marilyn
"
34
93.Tanners Hill.
Deptford.S.E.6.
Hairdresser
Jamaica
*
260. "
"
WILSON Jeanne
"
28
25.Eastern Avenue.
Eastcote,Pinner
H.D.
"
*
261. "
"
" Roger
"
3 1/2
-do-
-
"
*
262. "
"
WOODS Kathleen
"
27
Fairview,Corton,
Lowestoft,Suffolk
H.D.
England
*
263. "
"
" Mark
"
1
-do-
-
"
*
264. "
"
WEIGHT Edwin
"
70
Plaidy,Looe,Cornwall
Retired.
"
*
265. "
"
" Amy
"
65
-do-
H.D.
"
*
266. "
"
ZAYNE Doreen
"
22
10.Amberbanks Grove.
Lytham Rd.Blackpool.
"
Jamaica
*
267. "
"
" Vanessa
"
2
-do-
-
"
*
268. "
"
" David
"
2
-do-
-
"
*
269. Bermuda
"
BARTRUM Kate
"
68
32. Willoughby Rd.
Hampstead.N.W.3.
H.D.
England
*
270. "
"
BROWN Clifford
"
43
25.Reform Rd.
Luton.Chatham.Kent.
Plumber
Bermuda
*
271. "
"
" Nellie
"
39
-do-
H.D.
"
*
272. "
"
BENDALL Elizabeth
"
32
8.Townsend Ave.Plymouth
"
"
*
273. "
"
" Roger
"
4
-do-
-
"
*
274. "
"
" David
"
7
-do-
-
"
*
275. "
"
BARTLETT Edna
"
22
49.Vicarage Rd.
Whitehall,Bristol.5.
H.D.
"
*
276. "
"
" Ronald
"
1
-do-
-
"
*
277. "
"
BEESTON Ethel
"
26
16.Southampton Rd.
Kentish Town.N.W.5.
H.D.
"
*
278. "
"
" Alan
"
3
-do-
-
"
*
279. "
"
" Colin
"
9 mos
-do-
-
"
*
280. "
"
BRAMBLE Clive
"
57
8.Higher Spring Gdns.
Ottery St.Mary,Devon,
H.D.
"
*
281. "
"
" David
"
21
-do-
Shipwright
"
*
282. "
"
" Stephen
"
20
-do-
Locksmith
"
*
283. "
"
BLACK [eliza]beth
"
34
Lisnaskie.N.Ireland
H.D.
"
*
284. "
"
BELVIN
"
30
(8)
(9)
(6)
(7)
Country of last
Permanent Residence
Country of Intended Future
Permanent Residence
Proposed Addess
in the United Kingdom
Eire
Profession,
Occupation or
Calling of
Passengers
Wales
England
Scotland
"The Meadow"
31.Cressingham Rd.
Reading.Berks.
"
*
## Source 4 : Report On An Investigation Into Conditions Of The Coloured People In Stepney E1 1949 (Co 876/247)
Source 4 : Transcript of a report on an investigation into conditions of the coloured people in Stepney E1 1949 (CO
876/247) RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.
These are very poor indeed. There are only one or two clubs; the Colonial, which I understand is very limited. There is a club in Cable Street run by some Franciscan Brothers. Although it is a very fine effort made by these Brothers, the place is situated in rather a bad area, and the surroundings are not ideal. Another club is the Jamaican Club - this is more of a dancing place with drinks. 5. In other words, there is no properly organised way in which these people could spend their leisure. To break the monotony of their very bad living rooms, there is the street with cafes, and in the evenings the pubs, or when they have the money, cinema, or to the West End to dance halls.
## Source 5 : Negro Migration In Britain By Eric Walrond 1947-1948 (Co 867/88)
Source 5 : Transcript of Negro migration in Britain by Eric Walrond 1947-1948 (CO 867/88) "It's fine up to now," declared O.Jones, the sole Negro black-smith in the works, when I
asked him how he was getting on. A big, heavily built man of fifty he was another of the migrants from the 'Isle of Springs'. For 23 years he had worked on the Jamaica Govern-ment Railways. The little shed roofed with corrugated iron in which he stood perspiring in blue overalls beside the forge was shared with another blacksmith, a white man. "I have applied to join the union," he went on, "but I have not heard from them yet."
| en |
3793-pdf |
## Orr Inquiry Into May 2018 Timetable Disruption Terms Of Reference Purpose The Inquiry Will:
i.
Identify factors that contributed to the failure to develop and implement an effective operational timetable in May 2018;
ii.
draw conclusions about the management of operational risks created by major timetable changes, based on evidence about the causes and consequences of the disruption in May 2018, and its subsequent management; and
iii.
where appropriate, make recommendations to the industry and government in advance of future major network changes for the benefit of passengers, other users and railway staff.
Scope
The inquiry will consider why the railway system as a whole failed to produce and implement a satisfactory operational timetable in May 2018. It will gather evidence to draw conclusions and make recommendations as it sees fit, including but not limited to:
The **impact on passengers**, both in advance of and following the timetable change, especially in the areas served by Northern and Govia Thameslink Railway;
how well the industry's overall **network planning processes** worked in preparation for May 2018 to identify and manage risks; particularly the coordination between Network Rail and train operators;
the strength of industry **assurance and accountability** prior to major network change,
especially where multiple companies and authorities are involved, and including the role of ORR;
the role and capability of Network Rail as the **system operator** in the planning process, and in managing subsequent disruption;
Network Rail's role in delivering the **network enhancements** underlying the timetable changes; and the Department for Transport's role in planning these enhancements;
the Department for Transport's approach to planning network changes through franchise specifications and rolling stock management, and the department's role in managing risks around major network changes;
the role of **train operating companies** in preparing for the timetable changes;
the **readiness of train operating companies** to implement the timetable changes, including in assessing and mitigating risks and preparedness for disruption;
the incentives created by **industry structures and culture** in identifying, managing risks and reporting risks; and
how the industry works together to **resolve network disruption** when it happens.
The Inquiry will be conducted in addition to and alongside ORR's existing monitoring and investigation activity that began in February 2018. This is looking into the compliance of Network Rail and the train operating with the terms of their licences in relation to the timeliness of the provision of timetable information to operators and passengers. This investigation is specifically examining:
-
The effectiveness of **Network Rail's recovery plan** to get back to a position where it is able to provide future timetable information to operators twelve weeks in advance of changes being made.
-
The timeliness and accuracy of the **communication with passengers** from train operating companies in advance of the timetable changes, and the **information provided to passengers** during the subsequent disruption.
-
The **root causes** of the problems in Network Rail's role in planning and delivering the timetable changes, and the longer-term lessons to be learned. For the avoidance of doubt, the Inquiry will also include in its analysis the role of ORR as the independent regulator in the approach to the May timetable changes, and may also make recommendations in this regard. Structure & process The Inquiry will have three phases:
1. Evidence gathering from passengers, passenger representative groups including Transport
Focus, the rail industry and government regarding:
a. What was planned vs what happened in May 2018;
i. Infrastructure development
ii. Timetable readiness
iii. Industry preparedness
b. How the whole-system planning processes functioned in preparation for May 2018,
and when key decisions were made;
c. The impact on passengers from the subsequent disruption.
2. Analysis of the problems and their causes:
a. Gap analysis of what worked as planned; what didn't work; what was missing
entirely from:
i. the preparedness of each party for the network and timetable changes; and
ii. the strength whole-industry planning, risk assessment, assurance and
resolution processes.
3. Develop recommendations for change:
a. Conclusion's concerning May 2018 network changes b. Recommendations looking ahead to planned future major network and timetable
changes, to reflect the unprecedented scale of network growth planned in the next few years.
An interim report of Phase 1 and 2 will be published in September, followed by a final report including Phase 3 recommendations by the end of the year. Governance The ORR Board, chaired by Stephen Glaister, is responsible for the conduct of the Inquiry, which is being conducted under Section 51 of the Railways Act 2005 which permits ORR to provide information, advice and assistance to national rail authorities. The work is in response to a request made by the Secretary of State for Transport on 4th June 2018, and will be conducted by the ORR under the statutory framework that assures its independence from government or any other authority. Stephen Glaister will chair the project board and be supported by expert panel of independent advisers. This panel will have particular regard for whether the ORR's role as regulator of Network Rail and the train operating companies has been properly assessed by the Inquiry. | en |
1603-pdf |
## Cannabidiol (Cbd)
Consumer advice on cannabidiol (CBD) extracts. CBD is one of many chemicals called cannabinoids. It is found within hemp and cannabis. CBD extracts are being sold as a food and as food supplements in the UK. They are widely available in shops, cafés and for sale online. CBD sold as food, or as a food supplement, includes:
oils drops or tinctures gel capsules sweets and confectionery bread and other bakery products drinks Although CBD is a chemical found naturally within the cannabis plant it has only very recently been extracted and sold as a separate product. There is still a lot we don't know about CBD
extracts, and there has been very little research about the effects they may have. We will get more information as businesses apply for novel food authorisation for their CBD products.
## Advice For Vulnerable Groups
Based on the information we have we advise consumers to think carefully before taking any CBD
products. As a precaution, we do not recommend CBD for people in vulnerable groups, unless under medical direction.
These include:
pregnant and breastfeeding women people taking any medication
If you have any health concerns, please contact a healthcare professional.
## Advice For Healthy Adults
Some scientific studies suggest CBD can affect the liver if taken at higher doses, but there have been very few studies. As a precaution, we recommend that healthy adults do not take more than 70mg a day, unless a doctor agrees more. This is about 28 drops of 5% CBD. This doesn't mean that these levels are definitely safe, but that the evidence we have suggests adverse health effects could potentially be seen above this.
## Research
The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) have published the latest detailed scientific report on CBD. We are reviewing new safety information on CBD as it becomes available?.
Our advice is based on the latest scientific information we have available to us and levels given are for an average 70kg adult. We want to support consumer choice but must balance this alongside protecting the health of the public. | en |
2025-pdf | (IF KNOWN) IR Ref: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
To
The Student Loans Company
100, Bothwell Street
Glasgow
G2 7JD
## Self Assessment: - Early Settlement
| Borrower's Name | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| NINO | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
| Date of birth | _ _/_ _ /_ _ _ _ |
| Agent / Personal | |
| Representative* | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | |
The above borrower has Died - Date of Death _ _/ _ _/ _ _ _ _
Emigrated from _ _ / _ _ / _ _ _ _ New Address:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Early settlement has been requested and tax liability for the year _ _ _ _/ _ _ _ _ has been informally agreed. No Student Loan repayment via Self Assessment has been included. The taxpayer / agent / personal representative* has been advised to contact you regarding settlement of the Student Loan.
Tel: No: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Contact Name: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| en |
3909-pdf |
| SUPPLIER NAME | PORTFOLIO | COST CENTRE | EXPENDITURE CLASS | POST. DATE | AMOUNT |
|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------|-----------|
| | IRRECOVERABLE VAT | | | | |
| PROCLASS | | | | | |
| REF. | | | | | |
| 3PB BARRISTERS | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | External Legal Fees | Legal Fees | 19/12/2018 | 850.00 |
| 3RD COUNTESTHORPE BROWNIES | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Youth Council | Grants - Other Small Grants | 03/12/2018 | 675.00 |
| 42ND LEICESTER GLENFIELD SCOUTS GROUP | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 06/12/2018 | 3,000.00 |
| A J WRIGHT BUILDER | Community Services | Llt - Harborough | Harborough - Dfg Agency Acc. | 06/12/2018 | 1,248.00 |
| A M FACILITIES & CONSTRUCTION | Community Services | Llt - Oadby & Wigston | O&W - Dfg Agency Account | 06/12/2018 | 5,500.00 |
| ADVANCED BUSINESS SOLUTIONS | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Financial Services | Research & Development | 19/12/2018 | 1,045.00 |
| ALLPAY LIMITED DIRECT DEBIT ACCOUNT | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Banking Charges | Transaction Costs - All Pay | 11/12/2018 | 1,253.57 |
| ANCHOR PRINT GROUP LIMITED | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Publicity, Promotion & Market. | Publicity & Promotion | 06/12/2018 | 2,249.10 |
| ANCHOR PRINT GROUP LIMITED | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Waste Operations Management | Publicity & Promotion | 11/12/2018 | 369.00 |
| ANCHOR PRINT GROUP LIMITED | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Waste Operations Management | Publicity & Promotion | 11/12/2018 | 349.00 |
| ANCHOR PRINT GROUP LIMITED | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 11/12/2018 | 293.82 |
| AOB & ASSOCIATES LTD | H Improv, Leisure & Regulatory | Environmental Protection | Consultant'S Fees | 11/12/2018 | 2,970.00 |
| BARLOW BLINDS LIMITED | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Council Offices & Land | Rea: Building | 03/12/2018 | 300.00 |
| BIG CITY BANNERS & SIGNS | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Publicity, Promotion & Market. | Publicity & Promotion | 20/12/2018 | 696.20 |
| BLABY PARISH COUNCIL | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 06/12/2018 | 50,134.00 |
| BLABY VILLAGE CRICKET CLUB | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 06/12/2018 | 2,775.00 |
| BUILDING & MAINTENANCE SERVICES LIMITED | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Council Offices & Land | Cyc: Air Con./Handling Service | 11/12/2018 | 600.00 |
| 0.00 | 391111 | | | | |
| BUILDING & MAINTENANCE SERVICES LIMITED | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Whetstone Depot | Cyc: Air Con./Handling Service | 11/12/2018 | 600.00 |
| CALBARRIE COMPLIANCE SERVICES | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Council Offices & Land | Pla: Electrical | 11/12/2018 | 1,474.35 |
| CALBARRIE COMPLIANCE SERVICES | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Council Offices & Land | Rea: Electrical | 03/12/2018 | 3,321.00 |
| CAPITA BUSINESS SERVICESLTD | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Banking Charges | Transaction Costs - Cards | 11/12/2018 | 3,178.94 |
| CENTRAL PEST CONTROL | H Improv, Leisure & Regulatory | Con Of Other Pub. Health Risks | Works In Default | 13/12/2018 | 325.00 |
| CIPFA | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Financial Services | Books, Newspapers And Pubs | 19/12/2018 | 980.00 |
| CLB CLEANEQUIP LIMITED | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Whetstone Depot | Cyc: Depot Garage Equipment | 20/12/2018 | 561.35 |
| CLOCKWISE | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | Deductions - Clockwise | 19/12/2018 | 605.00 |
| COLLEGE GARTH LTD | H Improv, Leisure & Regulatory | Control Of Dogs | Small Misc Contracts | 20/12/2018 | 1,718.83 |
| COMPUTER CONTROLLED SOLUTIONS | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 20/12/2018 | 1,535.00 |
| COMPUTER CONTROLLED SOLUTIONS | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 20/12/2018 | 1,020.00 |
| COUNTESTHORPE PARISH COUNCIL | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 06/12/2018 | 2,217.00 |
| D H PEPPER & SON | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Refuse Coll & Domestic Recyc | Composting Fees | 06/12/2018 | 7,033.42 |
| D H PEPPER & SON | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Refuse Coll & Domestic Recyc | Composting Fees | 06/12/2018 | 3,741.86 |
| D J TURFCARE EQUIPMENT LIMITED | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Parks And Open Spaces | Equipment Hire | 11/12/2018 | 1,031.20 |
| DAISY COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Ict Services | Telecoms - Calls | 11/12/2018 | 1,404.31 |
| DAVID KIRTON DESIGNS | Community Services | Llt - Melton | Melton - Dfg Agency Account | | |
| 06/12/2018 | 1,149.50 | 0.00 | 201711 | | |
| DENNIS EAGLE LTD | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Refuse Coll & Domestic Recyc | Accidental Damage Repair Costs | 03/12/2018 | 502.17 |
| DENNIS EAGLE LTD | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Refuse Coll & Domestic Recyc | Accidental Damage Repair Costs | 19/12/2018 | 257.91 |
| DIGRAPH TRANSPORT SUPPLIES LIMITED | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Vehicle Maintenance | Normal Repairs | 18/12/2018 | 1,514.16 |
| DIGRAPH TRANSPORT SUPPLIES LIMITED | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Vehicle Maintenance | Normal Repairs | 19/12/2018 | -653.27 |
| DINERS CLUB INTERNATIONAL | Community Services | Benefits Section | Public Transport Costs | 20/12/2018 | 257.50 |
| DINERS CLUB INTERNATIONAL | Leader | Performance Management | Public Transport Costs | 20/12/2018 | 211.50 | | SUPPLIER NAME | PORTFOLIO | COST CENTRE | EXPENDITURE CLASS | POST. DATE | AMOUNT |
|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------|-----------|
| | IRRECOVERABLE VAT | | | | |
| PROCLASS | | | | | |
| REF. | | | | | |
| DISABILITY ADAPTATION SERVICES | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 13/12/2018 | 4,430.00 |
| DISCLOSURE & BARRING SERVICE | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | Misc - Criminal Records Bureau | 11/12/2018 | 836.00 |
| DTM GARDENS & LANDSCAPES LIMITED | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Parks And Open Spaces | Open Space Development | 07/12/2018 | 3,200.00 |
| DTM GARDENS & LANDSCAPES LIMITED | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 03/12/2018 | 19,728.00 |
| DTM GARDENS & LANDSCAPES LIMITED | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 03/12/2018 | 3,064.25 |
| EAST LEICESTERSHIRE & RUTLAND CCG | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | S106 Monies Payable To 3rd Par | 19/12/2018 | 620.00 |
| EDEN SPRINGS UK LTD | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Council Offices & Land | Refreshments | 11/12/2018 | 485.38 |
| EDEN SPRINGS UK LTD | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Council Offices & Land | Refreshments | 11/12/2018 | 495.76 |
| ENDERBY LAWN TENNIS CLUB | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 06/12/2018 | 500.00 |
| ENDERBY PARISH COUNCIL | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Parks And Open Spaces | Parish Councils | 19/12/2018 | 779.14 |
| ENVIRONMENT MEDIA GROUP LTD | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Waste Operations Management | Seminars & Short Training | 06/12/2018 | 260.00 |
| ESPO | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Council Offices & Land | Gas | 13/12/2018 | 1,534.49 |
| ESPO | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | The Pavillion - Land And Build | Gas | 13/12/2018 | 436.13 |
| ESPO | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Whetstone Depot | Gas | 03/12/2018 | 276.79 |
| ESPO | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Whetstone Depot | Gas | 20/12/2018 | 328.55 |
| FORD & SLATER | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Vehicle Maintenance | Normal Repairs | 19/12/2018 | 1,008.46 |
| FORD & SLATER | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Environmental Maintenance | Accidental Damage Repair Costs | 03/12/2018 | 250.00 |
| FREETH CARTWRIGHT LLP | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Central Stationery | Legal Fees | 06/12/2018 | 350.00 |
| GEMCO SERVICE LTD | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | The Pavillion - Land And Build | Pla: Electrical | 13/12/2018 | 1,000.00 |
| GIVE US A BREAK WINDOWS LIMITED | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Council Offices & Land | Rea: Building | 19/12/2018 | 315.00 |
| GLADSTONE MRM | H Improv, Leisure & Regulatory | The Pavilion | Goods For Resale | 19/12/2018 | 455.00 |
| GLENFIELD PARISH COUNCIL | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | Debtors Suspense | 06/12/2018 | 336.00 |
| GO PLANT FLEET SERVICES LIMITED | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Fleet Management | Vehicle Hire - External | 19/12/2018 | 2,035.00 |
| GO PLANT FLEET SERVICES LIMITED | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Fleet Management | Vehicle Hire - External | 19/12/2018 | -1,110.00 |
| GO PLANT FLEET SERVICES LIMITED | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Refuse Coll & Domestic Recyc | Vehicle Hire - External | 19/12/2018 | 2,180.00 |
| GOVNET COMMUNICATIONS | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Assets Management | Legal Fees | 19/12/2018 | 375.00 |
| GOVNET COMMUNICATIONS | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Assets Management | Legal Fees | 19/12/2018 | 750.00 |
| HAYLEY SHAW | H Improv, Leisure & Regulatory | The Pavilion | Hired Services | 20/12/2018 | 300.00 |
| HAYMARKET MEDIA GROUP | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Planning Administration | Books, Newspapers And Pubs | 11/12/2018 | 250.00 |
| HINCKLEY & BOSWORTH COUNCIL | Community Services | Resident Support | Provision Amounts | 13/12/2018 | 375.00 |
| HM COURTS & TRIBUNALS SERVICE | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Recovery Team | Court Fees | 11/12/2018 | 676.50 |
| HUNCOTE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Grant Aid & Access Activities | Grants - Other Small Grants | 06/12/2018 | 666.00 |
| HYTRAC LIFTS LIMITED | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Council Offices & Land | Cyc: Lift Servicing | 13/12/2018 | 715.00 |
| IDOX SOFTWARE LIMITED | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 12/12/2018 | 6,000.00 |
| INFORM CPI LIMITED | Community Services | Nndr Billing & Coll Costs | Professional Fees | 19/12/2018 | 10,000.00 |
| INTELLIGENT HEALTH | H Improv, Leisure & Regulatory | Active Travel | Hired Services | 13/12/2018 | 25,228.40 |
| INTELLIGENT HEALTH | H Improv, Leisure & Regulatory | Active Travel | Hired Services | 08/01/2019 | 900.00 |
| J S MATTU | Community Services | Llt - Harborough | Harborough - Dfg Agency Acc. | 06/12/2018 | 1,412.40 |
| J S MATTU | Community Services | Llt - Harborough | Harborough - Dfg Agency Acc. | 19/12/2018 | 5,800.00 |
| JAM PERSONNEL | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Environmental Maintenance | Temporary/Casual Staff | 06/12/2018 | 469.48 | | SUPPLIER NAME | PORTFOLIO | COST CENTRE | EXPENDITURE CLASS | POST. DATE | AMOUNT |
|----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------|------------|
| | IRRECOVERABLE VAT | | | | |
| PROCLASS | | | | | |
| REF. | | | | | |
| JAM PERSONNEL | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Environmental Maintenance | Temporary/Casual Staff | 06/12/2018 | 780.70 |
| JAM PERSONNEL | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Environmental Maintenance | Temporary/Casual Staff | 06/12/2018 | 1,097.20 |
| JAM PERSONNEL | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Environmental Maintenance | Temporary/Casual Staff | 13/12/2018 | 1,376.78 |
| JAM PERSONNEL | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Parks And Open Spaces | Temporary/Casual Staff | 06/12/2018 | 585.99 |
| JAM PERSONNEL | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Parks And Open Spaces | Temporary/Casual Staff | 06/12/2018 | 976.65 |
| JAM PERSONNEL | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Parks And Open Spaces | Temporary/Casual Staff | 13/12/2018 | 390.66 |
| JAM PERSONNEL | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Refuse Coll & Domestic Recyc | Temporary/Casual Staff | 06/12/2018 | 1,091.93 |
| JAM PERSONNEL | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Refuse Coll & Domestic Recyc | Temporary/Casual Staff | 13/12/2018 | 1,091.93 |
| JOANNE S JOHNSON | H Improv, Leisure & Regulatory | The Pavilion | Hired Services | 06/12/2018 | 850.00 |
| JOHN MERISON BUILDING & MAINTENANCE | Community Services | Llt - Harborough | Harborough - Dfg Agency Acc. | 20/12/2018 | 3,570.06 |
| KATIE COWELL | H Improv, Leisure & Regulatory | Spa - Sports Dev. & Commercial | Hired Services | 06/12/2018 | 332.50 |
| KINGS ARMOURED SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED | H Improv, Leisure & Regulatory | Car Parks | Security Services | 19/12/2018 | 380.48 |
| KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS UK LIMITED | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Reprographics | Mfd Copy Charge | 13/12/2018 | 1,150.14 |
| LEAWOOD BUILDERS | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Council Offices & Land | Pla: Building Works | 11/12/2018 | 311.60 |
| LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL | Central Items & Appropriations | I&E Account - General Fund | Pensions | 20/12/2018 | 18,250.00 |
| LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Refuse Coll & Domestic Recyc | Commercial Waste Fees | 11/12/2018 | 7,573.86 |
| LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Planning Delivery | Consultant'S Fees | 06/12/2018 | 5,380.00 |
| LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL | Community Services | Light Bulb Project | Sundry It Purchases | 19/12/2018 | 1,455.00 |
| LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL | Community Services | Light Bulb Project | Telephones (Mobile/Pagers) | 19/12/2018 | 520.00 |
| LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Local Land Charges | Lcc Fees | 20/12/2018 | 2,315.00 |
| LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Local Land Charges | Lcc Fees | 20/12/2018 | 2,093.00 |
| LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Local Land Charges | Lcc Fees | 20/12/2018 | 868.00 |
| LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL | Community Services | Llt - Oadby & Wigston | O&W - Dfg Agency Account | 13/12/2018 | 878.06 |
| LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL | Community Services | Llt - Harborough | Harborough - Dfg Agency Acc. | 06/12/2018 | 5,250.00 |
| LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | Creditors -County-Superann Ees | 20/12/2018 | 169,789.28 |
| LLOYDS BUSINESS NETWORKS LTD | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Ict Services | Telecoms - Calls | 11/12/2018 | 238.48 |
| LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION UNIT | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | L A Assocs - Subscriptions | Subscriptions | 20/12/2018 | 2,700.00 |
| LODGE TYRES CO LTD | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Vehicle Maintenance | Tyres | 19/12/2018 | 818.94 |
| LODGE TYRES CO LTD | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Refuse Coll & Domestic Recyc | Accidental Damage Repair Costs | 06/12/2018 | 403.94 |
| MAX CLEANERS & MAINTENANCE LIMITED | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Council Offices & Land | Contract Cleaning | 09/01/2019 | 3,965.00 |
| MAX CLEANERS & MAINTENANCE LIMITED | H Improv, Leisure & Regulatory | The Pavilion | Contract Cleaning | 08/01/2019 | 1,982.50 |
| MIDLAND OIL COMPANY LTD | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Vehicle Maintenance | Normal Repairs | 06/12/2018 | 952.00 |
| MISS RACHEL CLARKE | H Improv, Leisure & Regulatory | The Pavilion | Hired Services | 20/12/2018 | 990.00 |
| MJP SERVICES LTD | Community Services | Housing Pvt Sec Renewal Grants | Grants - Other Small Grants | 06/12/2018 | 711.78 |
| MJP SERVICES LTD | Community Services | Housing Pvt Sec Renewal Grants | Grants - Other Small Grants | 11/12/2018 | 229.43 |
| MOLYNEUX ROSE LTD | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Trad Services - Whet Ind Est | Head Lease | 06/12/2018 | 49,875.00 |
| MORGAN HUNT PUBLIC SECTOR LIMITED | Community Services | Benefits Section | Temporary/Casual Staff | 11/12/2018 | 2,125.00 |
| MORGAN HUNT PUBLIC SECTOR LIMITED | Community Services | Benefits Section | Temporary/Casual Staff | 13/12/2018 | 2,550.00 |
| MORGAN HUNT PUBLIC SECTOR LIMITED | Community Services | Benefits Section | Temporary/Casual Staff | 13/12/2018 | 2,125.00 |
| ** NAME REDACTED ** | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | Creditors Suspense | 20/12/2018 | 2,016.00 | | SUPPLIER NAME | PORTFOLIO | COST CENTRE | EXPENDITURE CLASS | POST. DATE | AMOUNT |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------------------------|--------------|-----------|
| | IRRECOVERABLE VAT | | | | |
| PROCLASS | | | | | |
| REF. | | | | | |
| ** NAME REDACTED ** | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | Debtors - Insurance Claims | 13/12/2018 | 1,300.88 |
| NARBOROUGH & DISTRICT BOWLING & SOCIAL | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 06/12/2018 | 500.00 |
| NARBOROUGH EVERGREEN CLUB | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Grant Aid & Access Activities | Grants - Community | 06/12/2018 | 500.00 |
| NORTHGATE PUBLIC SERVICES | Community Services | Benefits Section | Sundry It Purchases | 06/12/2018 | 11,317.69 |
| NORTHGATE PUBLIC SERVICES | Community Services | Benefits Section | Software Maintenance | 18/12/2018 | 1,381.76 |
| NORTHGATE PUBLIC SERVICES | Community Services | Benefits Section | Software Maintenance | 06/12/2018 | 950.00 |
| ONE51 ES PLASTICS UK LIMITED T/A MGB PLASTICS | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 11/12/2018 | 12,390.00 |
| ONE51 ES PLASTICS UK LIMITED T/A MGB PLASTICS | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 11/12/2018 | 12,390.00 |
| ONE51 ES PLASTICS UK LIMITED T/A MGB PLASTICS | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 11/12/2018 | 12,375.25 |
| ONE51 ES PLASTICS UK LIMITED T/A MGB PLASTICS | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 19/12/2018 | 12,390.00 |
| PACE FUELCARE | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | Fuel | 13/12/2018 | 32,452.53 |
| PARK AVENUE RECRUITMENT | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Planning Delivery | Temporary/Casual Staff | 03/12/2018 | 1,710.00 |
| PARK AVENUE RECRUITMENT | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Planning Delivery | Temporary/Casual Staff | 11/12/2018 | 1,140.00 |
| PARK HILL TRAINING LTD. | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Parks And Open Spaces | Seminars & Short Training | 06/12/2018 | 340.00 |
| PARK HILL TRAINING LTD. | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Parks And Open Spaces | Seminars & Short Training | 11/12/2018 | 750.00 |
| ** NAME REDACTED ** | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Assets Management | Valuation Fees | 11/12/2018 | 1,417.50 |
| PCF PRINTING LIMITED | Community Services | Benefits Section | Software Maintenance | 20/12/2018 | 950.00 |
| PREMIER WASTE & RECYCLING | H Improv, Leisure & Regulatory | Con Of Other Pub. Health Risks | Works In Default | 13/12/2018 | 643.62 |
| PRESTON DESIGN & BUILD LIMITED | Community Services | Llt - Harborough | Harborough - Dfg Agency Acc. | 13/12/2018 | 10,000.00 |
| PROPERTY MAINTENANCE SERVICES LTD | Community Services | Llt - Melton | Melton - Dfg Agency Account | 19/12/2018 | 13,391.00 |
| PROPERTY MAINTENANCE SERVICES LTD | Community Services | Llt - Harborough | Harborough - Dfg Agency Acc. | 06/12/2018 | 2,337.00 |
| PROPERTY MAINTENANCE SERVICES LTD | Community Services | Llt - Harborough | Harborough - Dfg Agency Acc. | 11/12/2018 | 12,048.00 |
| PUNJABI CULTURAL SOCIETY | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Grant Aid & Access Activities | Grants - Community | 06/12/2018 | 750.00 |
| REACH PUBLISHING SERVICES LIMITED | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Assets Management | Valuation Fees | 06/12/2018 | 302.54 |
| REACH PUBLISHING SERVICES LIMITED | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Planning Delivery | Advertising - Notices | 06/12/2018 | 403.38 |
| REACH PUBLISHING SERVICES LIMITED | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Planning Delivery | Advertising - Notices | 06/12/2018 | 479.01 |
| REDROX LEGAL CONSULTANTS LIMITED | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | External Legal Fees | Legal Fees | 19/12/2018 | 750.00 |
| REGENT OFFICE CARE LIMITED | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Council Offices & Land | Security Services | 11/12/2018 | 619.70 |
| REGENT OFFICE CARE LIMITED | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Council Offices & Land | Security Services | 11/12/2018 | 241.85 |
| REGENT OFFICE CARE LIMITED | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Whetstone Depot | Security Services | 11/12/2018 | 380.87 |
| RICHARD SIMMONS LIMITED | Community Services | Llt - Harborough | Harborough - Dfg Agency Acc. | 13/12/2018 | 4,710.00 |
| ROSSENDALES | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Recovery Team | Bailiff'S Fees | 03/12/2018 | 720.01 |
| ROYAL TOWN PLANNING INSTITUTE | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Development Strategy | E'Es Subscriptions | 11/12/2018 | 309.00 |
| ROYAL TOWN PLANNING INSTITUTE | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Development Strategy | E'Es Subscriptions | 11/12/2018 | 309.00 |
| ROYAL TOWN PLANNING INSTITUTE | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Planning Delivery | E'Es Subscriptions | 11/12/2018 | 309.00 |
| ROYAL TOWN PLANNING INSTITUTE | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Planning Delivery | E'Es Subscriptions | 11/12/2018 | 309.00 |
| ROYAL TOWN PLANNING INSTITUTE | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Planning Delivery | E'Es Subscriptions | 11/12/2018 | 309.00 |
| ROYAL TOWN PLANNING INSTITUTE | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Strategic Growth Team | E'Es Subscriptions | 11/12/2018 | 309.00 |
| ROYAL TOWN PLANNING INSTITUTE | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Strategic Growth Team | E'Es Subscriptions | 11/12/2018 | 309.00 |
| ROYAL TOWN PLANNING INSTITUTE | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Strategic Growth Team | E'Es Subscriptions | 11/12/2018 | 309.00 | | SUPPLIER NAME | PORTFOLIO | COST CENTRE | EXPENDITURE CLASS | POST. DATE | AMOUNT |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------|------------|
| | IRRECOVERABLE VAT | | | | |
| PROCLASS | | | | | |
| REF. | | | | | |
| S G CLEANERS LTD | Community Services | Hospital Discharge Project | Professional Services | 06/12/2018 | 1,970.00 |
| SAPCOTE COMMUNITY LIBRARY | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Grant Aid & Access Activities | Grants - Community | 06/12/2018 | 500.00 |
| SCARAB SWEEPERS LIMITED | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 13/12/2018 | 140,985.50 |
| SHORTLAND PARSLEY | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Trad Services - Whet Ind Est | Professional Fees | 11/12/2018 | 2,200.00 |
| SKY BUSINESS | H Improv, Leisure & Regulatory | The Pavilion | Licences | 19/12/2018 | 491.00 |
| SODEXO MOTIVATION - DIRECT DEBIT ONLY | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | Deductions - Childcare Voucher | 13/12/2018 | 3,434.00 |
| SOLOMON ASSOCIATES UK LIMITED | Community Services | Comm Safety - Domestic Abuse | Other Third Party | 11/12/2018 | 2,310.00 |
| SPECTRUM PRINTING SERVICES LTD | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Communications | District Magazine Publication | 11/12/2018 | 4,234.00 |
| ST PETER'S CHURCH GLENFIELD | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 13/12/2018 | 724.47 |
| ST PETER'S CHURCH GLENFIELD | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 13/12/2018 | 9,691.53 |
| STONEY STANTON PARISH COUNCIL | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Grant Aid & Access Activities | Grants - Other Small Grants | 06/12/2018 | 500.00 |
| STONEY STANTON PARISH COUNCIL | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 06/12/2018 | 13,000.00 |
| STONEY STANTON PARISH COUNCIL | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 06/12/2018 | 500.00 |
| SWAGAT | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Grant Aid & Access Activities | Grants - Other Small Grants | 06/12/2018 | 500.00 |
| TAYLORS ELECTRICAL SERVICES | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | The Pavillion - Land And Build | Pla: Electrical | 13/12/2018 | 1,210.00 |
| TERBERG MATEC UK | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | Debtors - Insurance Claims | 20/12/2018 | 11,000.00 |
| THE LEISURE MEDIA COMPANY LTD | H Improv, Leisure & Regulatory | The Pavilion | Goods For Resale | 13/12/2018 | 397.00 |
| THE PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | Deductions - Avc | 19/12/2018 | 1,405.12 |
| THOMSON REUTERS PROFESSIONAL | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Planning Administration | Books, Newspapers And Pubs | 11/12/2018 | 1,833.50 |
| THOMSON REUTERS PROFESSIONAL | Planning, Housing, Econ & Comm | Planning Administration | Books, Newspapers And Pubs | 11/12/2018 | 900.60 |
| THOMSON REUTERS PROFESSIONAL | Leader | Register Of Electors | Subscriptions | 11/12/2018 | 111.50 |
| TOTAL GAS & POWER LIMITED | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Council Offices & Land | Electricity | 13/12/2018 | 2,863.53 |
| TOTAL GAS & POWER LIMITED | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | The Pavillion - Land And Build | Electricity | 13/12/2018 | 1,493.38 |
| TOYOTA (GB) PLC | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Fleet Management | Road Fund Licence | 19/12/2018 | 250.00 |
| TOYOTA (GB) PLC | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 19/12/2018 | 24,033.73 |
| UK ACTIVE | H Improv, Leisure & Regulatory | The Pavilion | Licences | 13/12/2018 | 226.77 |
| UK CONTAINER MAINTENANCE LTD | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Refuse Coll & Domestic Recyc | Bins - Trade | 11/12/2018 | 564.00 |
| UNISON | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | Deductions - Unison | 06/12/2018 | 312.85 |
| VANGUARD CONTRACTS LIMITED | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 19/12/2018 | 7,055.50 |
| VENN GROUP LIMITED | Community Services | Community & N'Hood Services | Temporary/Casual Staff | 10/01/2019 | 825.00 |
| VENN GROUP LIMITED | Community Services | Community & N'Hood Services | Temporary/Casual Staff | 10/01/2019 | 660.00 |
| VENN GROUP LIMITED | Community Services | Community & N'Hood Services | Temporary/Casual Staff | 10/01/2019 | 594.00 |
| VENN GROUP LIMITED | Community Services | Community & N'Hood Services | Temporary/Casual Staff | 10/01/2019 | 781.00 |
| VENN GROUP LIMITED | Community Services | Community & N'Hood Services | Temporary/Casual Staff | 10/01/2019 | 825.00 |
| VENN GROUP LIMITED | Community Services | Community & N'Hood Services | Temporary/Casual Staff | 10/01/2019 | 825.00 |
| W T CLARKE & SON | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Refuse Coll & Domestic Recyc | Composting Fees | 03/12/2018 | 4,663.74 |
| W T CLARKE & SON | Corporate Serv & Neighbourhood | Refuse Coll & Domestic Recyc | Composting Fees | 19/12/2018 | 3,366.80 |
| WALTER MILES ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS LIMITED | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 13/12/2018 | 42,629.68 |
| WATER PLUS GROUP LIMITED | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Littlethorpe Depot | Water Charges | 10/12/2018 | -504.60 |
| WATER PLUS GROUP LIMITED | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | Public Conveniences | Water Charges | 11/12/2018 | 444.53 |
| SUPPLIER NAME | PORTFOLIO | COST CENTRE | EXPENDITURE CLASS | POST. DATE | AMOUNT |
|--------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------------|----------------------------|--------------|----------|
| | IRRECOVERABLE VAT | | | | |
| PROCLASS | | | | | |
| REF. | | | | | |
| WATER PLUS GROUP LIMITED | Finance, Efficiency & Assets | The Pavillion - Land And Build | Water Charges | 13/12/2018 | 531.55 |
| WHETSTONE CLCGB | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 06/12/2018 | 2,077.00 |
| WHETSTONE JUNIORS FC | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 06/12/2018 | 3,000.00 |
| WHETSTONE URC | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | In Year Capital Additions | 06/12/2018 | 538.00 |
| WHISTL NORTH LIMITED | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | Misc - Postage Meter - Tnt | 06/12/2018 | 759.11 |
| WHISTL NORTH LIMITED | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | Misc - Postage Meter - Tnt | 19/12/2018 | 508.16 |
| WHISTL NORTH LIMITED | Other | General Fund Balance Sheet | Misc - Postage Meter - Tnt | 19/12/2018 | 256.20 |
| ZEBRA TRAINING SERVICES | Community Services | Benefits Section | Seminars & Short Training | 19/12/2018 | 540.00 |
| en |
0574-pdf | From: Will Kemp <Will.Kemp@chatsworth.org> Sent: 10 March 2014 19:13 To:
Barton Andrew Cc:
sarah.ross@pennyanderson.com; Sean Doxey; Anna Badcock
(abadcock@yorkat.co.uk); Whiteley Sarah; David Jefferson (jeffersonconsultants@gmail.com); Jefferson Consulting Limited (enquiries@jeffersonconsulting.co.uk); Rupert Symmons (rupert.symmons@fanshawe.co.uk) Subject:
BQ site mtg today: fencing details Andy Thanks to you and Sarah for coming on site today. as agreed, please find confirmation of details re fencing around the quarry as follows: "CHT will erect a simple wooden post and wire fence around the perimeter of the site (i.e. in and around the quarry floor are) in line with the red line boundary of the application site and also to connect with that in the top field (see details as provided by David Jefferson). The wire is needed in order to provide more flexibility than would be the case with timber rails. We will look to implement this before the end of March." I will cc this to David J and Rupert S, and hope this will allow you to now approve the details as submitted re Condition 3 Regards Will Ps: Sarah will provide revised details of the tree removal plan tomorrow as discussed and agreed; apologies for any inconvenience From: Will Kemp Sent: 07 March 2014 16:25 To: Sean Doxey; Anna Badcock (abadcock@yorkat.co.uk); andrew.barton@peakdistrict.gov.uk; Whiteley Sarah (sarah.whiteley@peakdistrict.gov.uk) Cc: sarah.ross@pennyanderson.com Subject: FW: BWQ Bat house excavation footprint Dear all Pl print out attached plan as kindly prepared by Sarah (to show both tree felling and bat house relative to contours), and bring to site on Monday Regards Will From: Sarah Ross [mailto:Sarah.Ross@pennyanderson.com] Sent: 07 March 2014 16:01 To: Will Kemp Cc: Josanne Jackson Subject: FW: BWQ Bat house excavation footprint Sarah Ross Associate Director Penny Anderson Associates Ltd, Park Lea, 60 Park Road, Buxton, Derbyshire SK17 6SN T: 01298 27086 | M: 07810 772215 | F: 01298 23776 sarah.ross@pennyanderson.com | www.pennyanderson.com | ??Please consider the environment before printing this email Registered Office as Above. Registered in England & Wales. Company No. 4223109. Directors: Mrs P Anderson, Mr P Worrall, Mr C Anglish, Miss S Rogers The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and / or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, the use of this information or any disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: Damien High Sent: 07 March 2014 11:46 To: Sarah Ross Cc: Heather Davidson Subject: RE: BWQ Bat house excavation footprint Hello Figure is attached Thanks From: Sarah Ross Sent: 07 March 2014 11:16 To: Damien High Subject: FW: BWQ Bat house excavation footprint Just popping over to speak to you about this…. Sarah Ross Associate Director Penny Anderson Associates Ltd, Park Lea, 60 Park Road, Buxton, Derbyshire SK17 6SN T: 01298 27086 | M: 07810 772215 | F: 01298 23776 sarah.ross@pennyanderson.com | www.pennyanderson.com | ??Please consider the environment before printing this email Registered Office as Above. Registered in England & Wales. Company No. 4223109. Directors: Mrs P Anderson, Mr P Worrall, Mr C Anglish, Miss S Rogers The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and / or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, the use of this information or any disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: Sean Doxey [mailto:SD@chatsworth.org] Sent: 07 March 2014 10:54 To: Will Kemp; Stephen Gee Cc: Sarah Ross; Rupert Symmons; David Jefferson (jeffersonconsultants@gmail.com) Subject: RE: BWQ Bat house excavation footprint Will Please see the attached detail, I think this is the one you are referring to. We had this with us when we met in the quarry. It shows options 1, 2 and 3 but does not show the Bat House excavation foot print needed to construct the underground Cool room. Assuming we are constructing the Cool room to the dimensions stated in the Appendix 2 S106 agreement i.e. 2m wide, 1.5m long and 3m deep, this will make the excavation footprint somewhere around 8m x 1.5- 2m. There are several well established hardwood trees in the option areas and we cannot confirm which are to be removed until Sarah has this information. Regards. Sean. From: Will Kemp Sent: 07 March 2014 09:53 To: Sean Doxey; Stephen Gee Cc: Sarah Ross; Rupert Symmons; David Jefferson (jeffersonconsultants@gmail.com) Subject: RE: BWQ Bat house excavation footprint Sean See plan I sent you earlier this week for location? Will From: Sean Doxey Sent: 05 March 2014 08:02 To: Stephen Gee Cc: Sarah Ross; Rupert Symmons; Will Kemp; David Jefferson (jeffersonconsultants@gmail.com) Subject: BWQ Bat house excavation footprint Importance: High HI Steven Could you please send Sarah or myself a detail showing the footprint of Bat house basement excavation. The reason I am asking for this is to establish which trees need removing during the March vegetation removal. Best regards. Sean Doxey Head of Special Projects 01246 565300 07736 148 773 www.sd@chatsworth.com Chatsworth House, Garden and Farmyard all reopen for the 2014 season on 16 March. The Stables gift shops and Carriage House Restaurant opened on 6 January, and are open every day. The park and award winning Chatsworth Estate Farm Shop in Pilsley are open all year round. To find out more about all our exciting events and exhibitions, visit www.chatsworth.org
##
? Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and therefore the Trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement cannot accept legal or contractual responsibility for its content. This message, and any attachments with it, are confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and destroy your copies of the message and any attachments. Scanned by MailDefender - managed email security from intY - www.maildefender.net Scanned by MailDefender - managed email security from intY - www.maildefender.net ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Claranet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.claranet.co.uk ________________________________________________________________________ Scanned by MailDefender - managed email security from intY - www.maildefender.net | en |
1389-pdf |
Corporate Peer Challenge Blaby District Council
13th-15th October 2015
Feedback Report
## 1. Executive Summary
Blaby District Council (BDC) is a great council which is performing well with no major concerns. There are many examples of good services and projects with a strong focus on doing the right thing for Blaby's residents and customers at all levels of the organisation. All political parties are united in their desire to do the best for the residents and customers of Blaby and work constructively together to achieve this. This is illustrated by several examples of where the council has stepped in to provide funding or support when other partners' resources have been reduced e.g. the Early Years Physical Activity provision.
Finding funding to bridge gaps in others' services may not be sustainable in the long term.
There is a skilled, enthusiastic and committed Senior Leadership Team (SLT) which is empowering and encouraging staff. There has been worthwhile investment in the SLT's development, and staff across the council are given opportunities for development in different ways. Staff are enthusiastic and committed to delivering good customer service. This positive, empowering culture, with a determined commitment in finding a solution for residents throughout officers and members, is known colloquially as 'The Blaby Way'. This culture is a very important reason in why staff stay working for the council and why they are so loyal to it. Changes in political appointments at a number of levels have inevitably led to a change of approach in how members and officers interact with each other, but the administration is keen to ensure continuity of purpose. Relationships need to be nurtured and developed in order to achieve the best for Blaby. BDC is seen as a good partner, and it has a reputation for successful brokerage between different organisations, sorting out bottlenecks in processes and working together to deliver the best for Blaby's residents and customers. Developers and landowners are keen to work with Blaby, and the council is keen to maximise the benefits of this. There is a strong focus on economic development, taking advantage of the location of the council and the transport infrastructure within its boundaries. There are many district councils in the UK which are struggling financially, but there is no sense that BDC has considered this potential financial cliff face. BDC's future financial position relies heavily on successful development in the district. Plans include significant house building, expansion of the Fosse Park Retail Park and increased logistics and transport interchanges. Financial planning is based largely on securing and using New Homes Bonus (NHB) and retention of Non-Domestic Rates (NDR). Its current position is clear, however there has been little planning for alternatives if for whatever reason plans don't come to fruition. The pragmatic nature of BDC's officers and members means that there is a high degree of confidence that the council will manage should the development not materialise, but future financial challenges are unprecedented and a different approach is needed. There is a commitment to a very high level of universal services, but these may also not be sustainable if resources do not continue as expected. This could mean exploring options for future delivery, building on good partnership working, to find ways to continue to deliver good services for local residents and customers. Whilst current priorities are clear, BDC will need to decide what sort of council it should be in the future and what its purpose will be.
The tendency to focus on doing the right thing is beneficial to Blaby's residents and customers, but is largely reactive and lacks co-ordination and a key strategic overview. The district benefits from a superb location for economic growth and there is a clear ambition to make the most of it. However, long-term plans are only now beginning to be developed. For example, there is a Junction 21 Group, comprising interested stakeholders across different sectors, but no masterplan for how the area should be developed to benefit all partners and residents. The team saw no clear projection for long term business model (for example, deciding and agreeing how services will be delivered; in-house, a commissioning council or shared services) but yet there are successful examples of different modes of delivery within BDC. BDC has begun to identify the opportunities for efficiencies and smarter working but there is not a co-ordinated approach. For example, the Channel Shift Project and the Bubble are working independently without a strategic framework for efficiency. Greater co-ordination at a corporate level is needed to minimise duplication or competition for resources, reduce the pinch points and enable a more programmed approach to project delivery. BDC has many strengths and a good track record of delivering high quality services with highly committed and empowered staff. The challenge now is to think about how the council manages considerable change in resources and continues to be sustainable for the future whilst holding onto the 'Blaby Way'.
## 2. Key Recommendations
1.
Ensure politicians understand the looming financial changes and risks associated with them. Consider an awayday for Cabinet, Directors and Chief Executive to do some visioning for the organisation. This will help to solidify strategic plans for the
future.
2.
Actively explore what sort of council you will be in the future, exploring a range of different scenarios to ensure future sustainability.
3.
Underpin this with robust strategic financial plans.
4.
Develop a masterplan for Junction 21.
5.
Provide support in the new political environment, particular for members in senior position, for example, Leader, deputy Leader, and Chair of Scrutiny.
6.
Complete the work on the Member - Officer Protocol including training.
7.
Develop a strategic overview for income generation and commercialisation.
8.
Develop strategic corporate project co-ordination.
9.
Communicate your strengths and successes.
## 3. Summary Of The Peer Challenge Approach The Peer Team
Peer challenges are delivered by experienced elected member and officer peers. The make-up of the peer team reflected your requirements and the focus of the peer challenge. Peers were selected on the basis of their relevant experience and expertise and agreed with you. The peers who delivered the peer challenge at Blaby District Council were:
Steve Winterflood, Chief Executive South Staffordshire Council Councillor Tony Jackson, East Hertfordshire District Council
Terry Collier, Deputy Chief Executive Spelthorne Borough Council Ann Hedges, Chief Operating Officer Colchester Borough Council Becca Singh, Adviser, Local Government Association
## Scope And Focus
The peer team considered the following five questions which form the core components looked at by all Corporate Peer Challenges. These are the areas we believe are critical to councils' performance and improvement:
1. Understanding of the local place and priority setting: Does the council understand
its local context and place and use that to inform a clear vision and set of priorities?
2. Leadership of Place: Does the council provide effective leadership of place
through its elected members, officers and constructive relationships and partnerships with external stakeholders?
3. Financial planning and viability: Does the council have a financial plan in place to
ensure long term viability and is there evidence that it is being implemented successfully?
4. Organisational leadership and governance: Is there effective political and
managerial leadership supported by good governance and decision-making arrangements that respond to key challenges and enable change and transformation to be implemented?
5. Capacity to deliver: Is organisational capacity aligned with priorities and does the
council influence, enable and leverage external capacity to focus on agreed outcomes?
In addition to these questions, you asked the peer team to provide feedback on how well you work in partnership to deliver the best outcomes for your customers.
## The Peer Challenge Process
It is important to stress that this was not an inspection. Peer challenges are improvement-focussed and tailored to meet individual councils' needs. They are designed to complement and add value to a council's own performance and improvement focus. The peer team used their experience and knowledge of local government to reflect on the information presented to them by people they met, things they saw and material that they read. The peer team prepared for the peer challenge by reviewing a range of documents and information in order to ensure they were familiar with the council and the challenges it is facing. The team then spent three days onsite at Blaby District Council, during which they:
Spoke to around 100 people including a range of council staff together with
councillors and external partners and stakeholders.
Gathered information and views from more than 24 meetings, visits to key sites
in the area and additional research and reading.
Collectively spent around 210 hours to determine their findings - the equivalent
of one person spending nearly 6 weeks in BDC.
This report provides a summary of the peer team's findings. It builds on the feedback presentation provided by the peer team at the end of their on-site visit (13th-15th October 2015). In presenting feedback to you, they have done so as fellow local government officers and members, not professional consultants or inspectors. By its nature, the peer challenge is a snapshot in time.
## 4. Feedback 4.1 Understanding Of The Local Place And Priority Setting
Blaby District Council has a clear understanding of the local place and works with partners to set priorities for the area. The Blaby Plan (2015-2018) demonstrates this good understanding and sets out well-articulated priorities for the area. BDC is fulfilling these priorities. Staff and members were able to demonstrate considerable knowledge of the different needs and challenges in the district (rural isolation in small villages in the South and West, with urban towns (including deprivation) and significant development (economic, residential, retail and logistics) all in the North-East of the district. Council priorities in the Plan reflect this diversity. There is an excellent two-way relationship with partners to maximise local knowledge of the area. Blaby is involved in a number of partnerships (see section '4.6 Partnership working' for more detail) and the re-focused Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) in particular demonstrates how partners are working together to set local priorities and deliver on them. BDC has a strong focus on economic development, taking advantage of the location of the council and the transport infrastructure within its boundaries. Developers and landowners are keen to work with Blaby, and the council is keen to maximise the benefits of this.
Many of BDC's councillors sit on Parish or Town Councils which brings great knowledge of smaller local areas and communities. There are also many who sit on the County Council as well. Although these multiple responsibilities bring the benefits of knowing and working for a number of different communities, there may be pressures on individuals' capacity, and some conflicts of interest when acting at different levels of government. There appears to be a lack of strategic thinking which could be affected by these competing levels of representation.
There is a Combined Authority bid in place, comprising all the Leicestershire District Councils, the County Council and the City Council. Blaby has been an active partners in developing and shaping the bid, with a focus on getting all partners fully committed to a single bid. There are some concerns, from within the combined authorities, including BDC, that the area considered may be too small, and that it may be lagging behind its geographic neighbours.
## 4.2 Leadership Of Place
BDC is highly regarded and respected by its partners. Organisations that work across the county area report that they are able to work better in Blaby than some other council areas. BDC has a reputation for being a successful broker of agreements, for itself and on behalf of others (for example landowners and developers). Partners told the team that there are constructive and sometimes challenging conversations with genuine twoway dialogue and gave examples where BDC smoothed bottlenecks in public sector processes and help partners come to agreements.
The Chief Executive at BDC leads for the seven Leicestershire district councils on housing services and health and wellbeing issues. BDC has taken this lead strongly, working across all local the councils to develop and deliver housing interventions which are reducing demands on health and social care services . There are large-scale developments on the horizon, such as Lubbesthorpe (housing, retail, employment, logistics). Working with partners, BDC conducted a far-reaching health impact assessment on the plans for this development to maximise the benefits to local residents. This HIA approach is now being used by the County Public Health team in other Districts. Blaby DC plays an active role in the Junction 21 Partnership. This is a partnership across different sectors which have an interest in ensuring that this area works well: developers, Highways departments, retail companies and other businesses. This already congested area is a key location in the district and will have significant impact on traffic and travel options, and could limit future developments. The council could use this leadership role to develop a strategic long-term 'Junction 21 Masterplan' through the Junction 21 Partnership. The Local Strategic Partnership had for some time had had limited impact. BDC has taken over responsibility for it, and has shaped its re-focused ways of working. Each year, the partnership now takes on a theme and partners work together around that theme. The theme in 2015 is 'employability' which links well with one of the council's priorities - tackling youth unemployment. Research, events, communications and specific programmes of work (such as setting up apprenticeship schemes with developers, retailers and other large companies based in the district) are taking place and are already achieving good outcomes. Some residents and partners report that there can be difficulties in finding out how to access services that the council provides. In addition, the council could do more to promote the good initiatives and successes that it achieves.
## 4.3 Financial Planning And Viability
Officers have a good level of financial awareness through recent training, sharing of information and regular financial updates in SLT meetings. There has been considerable work with Vanguard to ensure there is widespread understanding of Systems Thinking and it is being used to drive efficiencies. There is a growing and buoyant tax base with an increase in population and inward investment. Financial planning is based largely on New Homes Bonus (NHB) and retention of Non-Domestic Rates (NDR) which relies heavily on successful development in the district. Plans include significant house building, expansion of the Fosse Park Retail Park and possibly increased logistics and transport interchanges with new businesses making enquiries to move to the area. There are internal initiatives which aim to identify, monitor or deliver savings within BDC. These include the Bubble (a systems thinking intervention in revenues and Benefits working across silos and which in time will bring in other service areas) and the major scheme to relocate its depot in order to generate revenue savings and create opportunity for the Council to develop housing on the existing site. These initiatives involve officers from across different services and have financial savings attached to them. SLT members identify and track savings and income generation proposals in the SLT meetings through the 'Closing the Gap' spread sheet. However, there is a need for some robust financial planning. There are many district councils in the UK which are struggling financially, but there is no sense that BDC has considered this potential financial cliff face. Frank and honest conversations about the scale of austerity and how it will affect the council are needed, particularly with elected members. There is a sense that BDC can be smarter with its finances, but this does not have the urgency seen in other councils. There is a tendency to be over-optimistic about the income from NHB and NDR, as well as the speed of development plans. This has implications for how much income will be generated and when, and puts the council financially at risk if the expected developments and investments do not materialise. What will happen if your plans do not come to fruition or if some schemes are delayed or have to be altered? It is important that some time is taken to further identify and mitigate for potential risks associated with these opportunities. Although the current position is clear, there has been little planning for different future situations. The pragmatic nature of BDC's officers and members means that there is a high degree of confidence that the council will manage should the development not materialise, but some contingency planning would be advisable. Scenario planning with partners will help you understand how other organisations deal with risks, and could help minimise and share these risks. There may also be knowledge within the different sectors that would be valuable to long-term financial plans for BDC. Officers and members describe decision-making and ways of working as incremental, pragmatic and opportunistic. The tendency can be reactive and the team felt that it has led to a lack of strategic long-term planning. For example, the relocation of a depot to release land for housing development is not part of a strategic asset management strategy. The 'Closing the Gap' spread sheet focuses on short-term savings and has few detailed plans within it. It could be used to initiate the production of a medium-term efficiency and income plan. There is a history of underspending, without evaluating the long-term effect on jobs and services in the future. Although BDC acts on opportunities that arise, there is no strategic or co-ordinated overview of income generation or commercialisation. The willingness to fill the void in funding some projects and services that others have cut may not be financially sustainable. BDC could work with its partners to explore options for future delivery, building on good partnership working, to find ways to continue to deliver good services for local residents and customers. Whilst current priorities are clear, you will need to decide what your purpose is going forward and how you want to deliver that purpose.
## 4.4 Organisational Leadership And Governance
The Chief Executive and the SLT show strong, capable leadership. They demonstrate an empowering style of leadership that staff and members appreciate and are thriving under. Investment in staff development has been worthwhile because it has led to staff up and down the organisation are using their learning to transform the way services are delivered and teams are working. There is a positive buzz and energy in the authority with a skilled, committed and vibrant workforce, clear that they are working to deliver the best for the residents and customers of Blaby District Council. Following the May 2015 elections there has been a change in political leadership at a number levels which, with a new leader and deputy leader, an influx of new members and this is bringing different styles and new approaches. There is a clear commitment from elected members to do the best for Blaby and the council. The changes in political leadership have brought some challenges to established ways of working and new approaches are testing member-officer relationships and staff confidence somewhat. Care needs to be taken to ensure that changes in style do not damage staff confidence and diminish the Blaby Way and hence service delivery. A high number of new councillors joined following the election in 2015, and there are many who have not been councillors for more than one term, including the new leader. There is good support provided to members for training and development, including a buddy system with senior officers to help them understand how different areas of the council work. Scrutiny is chaired by a member of the opposition, and support has been given to the new Scrutiny Chair. There needs to be continued emphasis on member support and development to enable new councillors and those in new roles to settle in and add value to the council. Staff welcome the new Personal Development Appraisal framework, although not all have been able to use it yet. The new approach is focused on developmental conversations with managers, with less prescriptive paperwork than in the past. It is clearly linked to service plans and council objectives. The framework allows for service plans to develop under changing circumstances (for example, the Comprehensive Spending Review during the financial year) and all these steps have helped to improve confidence in the appraisal process. Performance management software needs some development to manage the process, but this is already beginning to be addressed. Scrutiny is chaired by a member from the opposition; this approach is considered to be good practice by the Centre for Public Scrutiny. The change in scrutiny members and the chair has led to some difficulties with an apparent lack of robust challenge. This is being addressed through member support and there has been recent improvement.
BDC needs to ensure that Scrutiny Committee develops its own proactive workplan, alongside challenging the work of the Cabinet.
## 4.5 Capacity To Deliver
BDC has a well-motivated, enthusiastic workforce that feels supported and empowered to try out different initiatives and ways of working. There are a number of two-way communications opportunities for staff with weekly team meetings (all services opening at 0930 on a Wednesday to allow time for team meetings; the peer team were able to observe one such meeting) and regular all staff briefings ('Blaby Matters' given by SLT and senior councillors). There are numerous opportunities for staff involvement in planning for the future and feedback mechanisms and staff report that they see real changes as a result of these. These include a staff sounding board with identified responsibilities and a work programme, customer service champions and focus groups to identify solutions to address problems highlighted in staff surveys. Corporate projects are established which brings together staff from different disciplines, leading to a close-knit and well-informed officer group, for example, a group looking at marketing and branding. Staff are supported in this style of project work, with substantive posts usually backfilled through agency staff or colleagues appointed. As projects are cross-functional, this way of working has helped to break down silo working and cement a consistent approach. Staff have seen investment in their development, through the Art of Being Brilliant and Systems Thinking training (including a dedicated officer), as well as investment in the development of SLT. All of these have helped to break down silos, creating new ways of working, and have enabled BDC to deliver savings in a short-time scale, reflecting a worthwhile investment.
There is a flexible home-working scheme for officers at different levels of the organisation which is backed up by good use of technology. This includes the use of iPads (enabling largely paperless meetings for officers and members) and remote access to BDC desktops. However, there is little evidence of agile working being used as a tool for transformation, or changing the way people work. The scheme appears to be limited and at the discretion of individual managers and not consistently applied across the organisation or linked to a strategic focus on reducing the council's accommodation footprint and costs. The Channel Shift project could be connected to agile working concepts. A clear policy for flexible working should be established, piloted appropriately before potentially rolling out to help support further efficiencies. There are a number of examples where BDC has established work to fill in the void left by other public sector partners' cuts (e.g. Early Years provision). This is to be commended, and is appreciated by partners. There has also been a public commitment by politicians to maintain a high level of universal services. Can the council continue to offer its time and resources in this way in the long term? Going forward, there are some risks that this may not be sustainable as national funds are reduced and the council faces austerity. Developing a strategic financial and service overview will help BDC prioritise work and identify what may need to be rationalised or delivered differently. Good external communications will be essential to ensure residents and customers understand why there may be a change in the level of service. There is evidence of some strain in capacity in some services, such as planning, which has been recognised and is being addressed. However, there is little evidence of council-wide strategic forward capacity planning. You need to look at capacity in the changing local government landscape and try to prepare for a sustainable future. There is a workable system of project management (although not universally used), and projects are generally adequately resourced, including using agency staff to backfill posts. BDC is good at piloting innovative ideas, and using evidence to either develop or close down projects on the basis of the pilots. There is no co-ordinated programme management which identifies pinch points, where projects interlink and depend on each other and timelines for projects. The absence of co-ordination means that projects can overlap, compete for resources or miss some key considerations and opportunities. For example, the Bubble, Channel Shift Project and marketing and branding group have an impact on each other's work but there is no evidence that the links have been made. BDC is behind most councils in some areas (e.g. beginning to develop online self-service for residents and staff, and considering the future of a council print room), but your investment in staff skills and development means that you are able to do this at a quicker rate than other councils. Ensure that enthusiasm is not at the expense of co-ordination. A strategic overview linking all projects would be helpful and could help BDC plan for future changes and minimise the strain in capacity. Perceptions about the pace of change vary across the organisation depending on whether or not individuals have been involved with cross-departmental work (e.g. Channel Shift, Bubble, Staff Sounding Board); this has been has been acknowledged by SLT. Staff report that it would be helpful to know what expectations there are about the pace of change and what progress SLT feels they have made so far. Officers all demonstrate a willingness to support elected members in their decisionmaking role. There is considerable understanding at all levels of the organisation of the impact of a high proportion of relatively new members and a new Leader and Chair of Scrutiny, particularly after a long time of stability. Staff offered suggestions of how to help improve members' understanding of the work of officers, including a marketplace demonstrating different services, time or days spent shadowing frontline staff, attendance at meetings of working groups, coaching and mentoring support. Acting on suggestions would help to cement good member-officer working relationships.
## 4.6 Partnership Working
BDC has a reputation for strong partnership working, and leading partnerships across public, private and voluntary sectors. Partners are pleased to work with BDC and hold the council in high esteem. The council is recognised by partners as being innovative and creative, for example exploring co-location options when one partner has lost funding. The team saw a number of innovative partnership projects such as the Glen Parva recycling project (where BDC collects recycling, young offenders work at the Glen Parva recycling site and reduce the amount of waste going to landfill BDC has grasped the health agenda in particular and is working with partners to improve the health and wellbeing of residents in Blaby. Partners and residents particularly highlighted the work BDC is doing with partners to improve the health and wellbeing of residents in Blaby. The Delayed Discharge Project, which covers Leicestershire and Leicester, is where BDC and health partners have secured funds for housing officers and housing support officers to assess housing need in hospitals to minimise delays to discharge or discharge to inappropriate expensive care. Leicestershire District Councils and health organisations demonstrated good partnership working when they worked together to produce a successful TCA bid to establish and mainstream The Light Bulb Project. Funds are channelled to prevention and low-level support mechanisms: a single point of contact for service users and referrers (such as GPs); a single assessment service; and a range of support services such as handyperson schemes, provision of recycled furniture and affordable warmth advice. These mean improved outcomes for citizens and lower costs for health and social care services. BDC led the change in how the Blaby LSP works, encouraging partners to collaborate and continue to achieve outcomes. A single theme focuses activity for a year which all partners work towards. For example, the current focus is on youth employment, resulting in a collaborative careers fair, the roll out of apprenticeship schemes and short-term work placements improving the chances of long-term employment for young people not in education or employment. Ensure there are plans in place for the end of the year when the partnership selects a new theme to work on. BDC's capacity to deliver is affected by its partnership working. There does not appear to be a strategic view on which partnerships are most beneficial for BDC, or which BDC may not have long-term capacity to maintain. The danger of filling the financial void created by cut backs in other organisations is that partners may become blasé about where they cut services, knowing that BDC will pick up the shortfall. Although highly commendable, and valuable in the short-term, there is a limit to how much you can do this. Working with your partners, perhaps through scenario planning, you can determine what might be sustainable for the future for all concerned.
## 5. Conclusion
Overall, BDC is a great council. It is working well in partnership, and is clearly maximising opportunities to work with and influence others in order to improve the lives of residents and customers. More strategic thinking is needed, both to determine its level of involvement in partnerships, and also about the long-term provision of services for residents and customers in the district. Strategic co-ordination of projects and programmes will streamline internal work, whilst robust financial planning will enable BDC to continue to deliver the best for its residents and customers in the district. | en |
3004-pdf |
## Support For Disabled Victims And Witnesses Of Crime Information And Guidance Introduction
This guide is about the support available to disabled victims and witnesses of crime. Inside this you will find information about the types of support available and where to access them. Also included:
• How the CPS approaches crimes against disabled people • Support for disabled victims and witnesses of crime • Example of support given to a disabled victim during a prosecution
## How The Cps Approaches Crimes Against Disabled People
As a group, disabled people are at a higher risk of crime than the general population. They also experience unequal access to justice and safety.1 The Crime Survey for England and Wales found people with limiting disabilities are:
##
Hostility can be described as:
## Aggression Ill-Will Antagonism Spite Prejudice Confrontation
Crimes against disabled people may be disability hate crimes. This is where the person carrying out the crime (the perpetrator) is motivated by hostility or shows hostility towards the victim's disability. This means they are targeting someone because of their hostility towards someone's difference, or perceived difference. The perpetrator can also be a friend, carer or acquaintance who exploits their relationship with the disabled person for financial gain or some other criminal purpose.
1 Victim Support, 'An Easy Target? Risk factors affecting victimisation rates for violent crime and theft', April 2016, Polly Rossetti, Tamar Dinisman, Ania Moroz, www.victimsupport.org.uk The **CPS Public Statement on Crimes Against Disabled People** explains the way the CPS deals with and prosecutes these cases and what victims and witnesses can expect from the CPS. The CPS' approach incorporates the **Social Model of Disability**, which says disability is caused by the way society is organised as opposed to a person's impairment or difference. The model looks at ways of removing barriers which restrict life choices for disabled people. When barriers are removed, disabled people can be independent and equal in society, with choice and control over their own lives. View the Public Statement **here**. The CPS will not make judgements about a person's credibility or reliability as a witness because of an impairment and will challenge others that do.
## Support For Disabled Victims And Witnesses Of Crime
Everyone is different and the support needed by one victim or witness to go through the criminal justice process will be different to the support needed by another victim or witness. Some impairments are physical and may be obvious to other people. Other impairments can be hidden - such as mental health problems, learning disabilities and autism. There are things we can do to help people whatever their impairment, which can be tailored to individuals. It is for the individual to choose whether they take up any offers of support. Support from the Citizens Advice Witness Service is available at any point during the court process. More detailed information about the support available to you as a disabled victim of crime can be found in the Code of practice for Victims of Crime (Victims' Code) and the Witness Charter. General support can also be accessed through the following agencies:
• Disability Rights UK • Dimensions UK
• Foundation for People with
• MIND • National Autistic Society
• National Hate Crime Report
Learning Difficulties
and Support Centre Wales
• SCOPE
• Stop Hate UK
• True Vision
• Victim Support
• Mencap
• People First
## Recognising Hate Crime What Help Is Available? Reporting A Crime
The police will support you when you call 999 or 101.
You can also report online via **Crimestoppers** or, for Hate Crime, **True Vision**.
## During The Police Investigation
The police will support you by carrying out an assessment of your needs. You may be asked if you wish to give a **Victim Personal Statement** to say how the crime has affected you or made you feel. You may also ask for decisions to be looked at again through the Police Victims' Right to Review Scheme.
## After Someone Is Charged
The CPS will support you by working with the **Witness Care Unit (WCU)** to assess your needs. We will give you progress updates and talk to you about what to expect at trial. We will ask for any **special measures** and may apply for media reporting restrictions in exceptional circumstances. You may have access to a **pre-trial witness interview**. You may ask for decisions to be looked at again through the CPS Victims' Right to Review scheme.
i You will be notified by the **Victim Liaison Unit (VLU)** if the CPS decides to stop the case or substantially alter the charge. Citizens Advice Witness Service Support can help you with practical information and emotional support. They can also arrange for you to visit the court before the trial so you know what to expect on the day and offer enhanced services for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses.
## After The Trial
The CPS and the Witness Care Unit will support you by informing you of the outcome of the trial and any **sentence** passed. When they are sentencing, Judges can tell the person who committed the crime they have to pay you compensation if something has been lost or damaged or if you have been hurt. There is more information on this in the victims' code. The National Probation Service can support you if you opt into the Victim Contact Service (VCS).
## Going To Court
The CPS will support you by helping you read witness statements in court. You will be introduced to the CPS representative who will be prosecuting the case in court before you give your evidence. We can provide more information about **special measures at court** and the **Prosecutors' Pledge**. If you have a speech impairment you may be able to write down your evidence at court. Qualified sign language interpreters or lipspeakers can help you if you are deaf or have a hearing impairment. Interpreters can also help you give evidence in a different language.
i The CPS will try to release you from the court building as soon as possible after you have given evidence. Sometimes the CPS may ask someone from the courts or police to let you know you can leave. Her Majesty's Court and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) will support you by providing, where possible, a separate room to wait in and offering materials in formats such as braille, large print or audio if you have a sight impairment. Wheelchairs may be available if you have a mobility issue. Citizens Advice Witness Service Support can help with practical and emotional support at court. Judges and magistrates have an **Equal Treatment Bench Book** which explains how they should treat people fairly in court.
## Special Measures
Special measures are things which help victims and witnesses give evidence in court. The CPS can ask for special measures on behalf of victims and witnesses with disabilities. The court makes the final decision on whether special measures will be given or not.
## Special Measures Include, But Are Not Limited To:
More information about legal guidance on special measures is available from the CPS.
## Example Of Support Given To A Disabled Victim
Arun was charged with assault by beating after punching and kicking his mother, Moubani, who suffers from osteoporosis and arthritis. While carrying out the assault Arun used derogatory language about Moubani's disability. He also assaulted his girlfriend, Priya. Moubani explained being able to see her son in court would cause her significant distress. A special measures application was made to the court to use screens so she would not have to see Arun while she gave evidence. Arun was found guilty and sentenced to an 18-month community order, increased by six months in recognition of the hostility Arun had shown towards Moubani's disability. In addition, he was given a 20-day rehabilitation order, which was increased by 10 days, also because of the hostility Arun had demonstrated towards his mother's disability. He was fined £120, ordered to pay both costs of £450 and compensation to both Moubani and Priya, and given a restraining order forbidding contact with either of them.
## Example Of Support Given To A Disabled Witness
Jane and her husband Mark took their son Tom, the victim, to the hospital's Accident and Emergency department. Tom was found to have serious injuries and a healing fracture. Jane was the only person who had seen what happened. She had a learning disability and difficulties expressing herself. Jane told the police Mark had lost his temper because Tom was crying. She explained that Mark had physically assaulted Tom and had been violent in the past. Jane gave evidence over a video link with help from someone to explain the questions she was asked. This person is called an intermediary. She also had a pre-trial visit to the court room and met the lawyers. The intermediary made sure the court understood Jane had difficulty explaining "when" something had happened so questions must be linked to specific events like birthdays. This meant that Jane felt calmer and more confident when she was explaining what happened. Mark was convicted and sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment. All names have been changed in these examples.
The CPS defines disability as any physical or mental impairment. This definition fully incorporates the definition of disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. This guide has been produced by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) with involvement from the Police, HM Courts and Tribunal Service, Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service, National Probation Service and the Citizens Advice Witness Service.
This guide was produced with the support of CPS Disabled Staff Network and Nottingham Mencap.
CPS
DSN
Disabled Staff Network
## About The Crown Prosecution Service
The CPS is responsible for prosecuting most cases heard in the criminal courts in England and Wales. It is led by the Director of Public Prosecutions and acts independently on criminal cases investigated by the police and other agencies. The CPS is responsible for deciding the appropriate charge in more serious or complex cases and provides information, assistance and support to victims and witnesses. | en |